Skip to main content

Recycling of Significance Levels in Testing Multiple Hypotheses of Confirmatory Clinical Trials

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Biopharmaceutical Applied Statistics Symposium

Part of the book series: ICSA Book Series in Statistics ((ICSABSS))

  • 658 Accesses

Abstract

Confirmatory clinical trials for the demonstration of the effects of new treatments generally classify their hypotheses into the primary and secondary types and sometimes into other lower types. The primary hypotheses enjoy a special status; if the trial wins for one or more primary hypotheses , then one can characterize clinically relevant benefits of the study treatment. This framework of classifying hypotheses based on their importance into primary and secondary types allows using statistical test methods that maximize the power for the test of primary hypotheses . These methods also recycle the significance level of a successfully rejected hypothesis to other hypotheses (e.g., from a rejected primary or secondary hypothesis to other primary and secondary hypotheses ). Often when there is a set of primary or secondary hypotheses , then hypotheses within each set or family can be assigned with different weights by importance or power considerations. This structuring also allows using methods that allow recycling of the significance level of a successfully rejected hypothesis within a set or family to other hypotheses in the same set or family or to a hypothesis in the next family. A number of novel statistical test methods have been introduced over the last two decades that are based on such approaches for testing multiple hypotheses in clinical trials. The purpose of this chapter is to review some of these methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alosh, M., & Huque, M. F. A. (2009). Flexible strategy for testing subgroups and overall populations. Statistics in Medicine, 28, 3–23.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Alosh, M., & Huque, M. F. (2010). A consistency-adjusted alpha-adaptive strategy for sequential testing. Statistics in Medicine, 29, 1559–1571.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Alosh, M., Bretz, F., & Huque, M. F. (2014). Advanced multiplicity adjustment methods in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 33(4), 693–713.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, P. (1991). Multiple testing in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 10, 871–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, P., Rohmel, J., Maurer, W., & Hothorn, L. (1998). Testing strategies in multi-dose experiments including active control. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 2133–2146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bretz, F., Maurer, W., Brannath, W., & Posh, M. (2009). A graphical approach to sequentially rejective multiple test procedures. Statistics in Medicine, 28, 586–604.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bretz, F., Maurer, W., & Hommel, G. (2011a). Test and power considerations for multiple endpoint analyses using sequentially rejective graphical procedures. Statistics in Medicine, 30, 1489–1501.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bretz, F., Posch, M., Glimm, E., Klinglmueller, F., Maurer, W., & Rohmeyer, K. (2011b). Graphical approaches for multiple comparison procedures using weighted Bonferroni Simes or parametric tests. Biometrical Journal, 53(6), 894–913.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bretz, F., Maurer, W., & Maca, J. (2014). Graphical approaches to multiple testing. In W. Young & D. G. Chen (Eds.), Chapter 14 in: Clinical trial biostatistics and biopharmaceutical applications (pp. 349–394). Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burman, C. F., Sonesson, C., & Guilbaud, O. (2009). A recycling framework for the construction of Bonferroni-based multiple tests. Statistics in Medicine, 28, 739–761.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Dmitrienko, A., Offen, W. W., & Westfall, P. H. (2003). Gatekeeping strategies for clinical trials that do not require all primary effects to be significant. Statistics in Medicine, 22, 2387–2400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dmitrienko, A., Tamhane, A. C., Wang, X., & Chen, X. (2006). Stepwise gatekeeping procedures in clinical trial applications. Biometrical Journal, 48(6), 984–991.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Dmitrienko, A., & Tamhane, A. C. (2007). Gatekeeping procedures with clinical trial applications. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 6, 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dmitrienko, A., Tamhane, A. C., & Wiens, W. (2008). General multi-stage gatekeeping procedures. Biometrical Journal, 50, 667–677.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Dmitrienko, A., D’Agostino, R., & Huque, M. F. (2013). Key multiplicity issues in clinical drug development. Statistics in Medicine, 2013(32), 1079–1111.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Dmitrienko, A., & Tamhane, A. C. (2009). Gatekeeping procedures in clinical trials. In A. Dmitrienko, A. C. Tamhane, & F. Bretz (Eds.), Multiple testing problems in pharmaceutical statistics (Chap. 1). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Biostatistics Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, L. D., & Moyé, L. A. (1999). Carvedilol and the Food and Drug Administration approval process: An introduction. Controlled Clinical Trials, 20, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel, K. R. (1969). Simultaneous test procedures—some theory of multiple comparisons. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 40, 224–520.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hochberg, Y. (1988). A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika, 75, 800–802.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hochberg, E., & Tamhane, A. C. (1987). Multiple Comparison Procedures. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, G., Bretz, F., & Maurer, W. (2007). Powerful short-cuts for multiple testing procedures with special reference to gatekeeping strategies. Statistics in Medicine, 26, 4063–4073.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, J., & Berger, R. L. (1999). Stepwise confidence intervals without multiplicity adjustment for dose response and toxicity studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94, 468–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hung, H. M. J., & Wang, S. J. (2009). Some controversial multiple testing problems in regulatory applications. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 19, 1–11.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, H. M. J., & Wang, S. J. (2010). Challenges to multiple testing in clinical trials. Biometrical Journal, 52, 747–756.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Huque, M. F., & Alosh, M. (2008). A flexible fixed-sequence testing method for hierarchically ordered correlated multiple endpoints in clinical trials. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 138, 321–335.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Huque, M. F., & Alosh, M. (2012). A consistency-adjusted strategy for accommodating an underpowered primary endpoint. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 22(1), 160–179.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Huque, M. F., Dmitrienko, A., & D’Agostino, R. (2013). Multiplicity issues in clinical trials with multiple objectives. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 5(4), 321–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICH (International Conference on Harmonization). (1998). Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials (E-9). http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/.

  • Koch, G. G., & Gansky, S. A. (1996). Statistical considerations for multiplicity in confirmatory protocols. Drug Information Journal, 30, 523–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., & Mehrotra, D. V. (2008). An efficient method for accommodating potentially under powered primary endpoints. Statistics in Medicine, 27, 5377–5391.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J. (2013). Testing each hypothesis marginally at alpha while still controlling FWER: How and when. Statistics in Medicine, 32, 1730–1738.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, R., Peritz, E., & Gabriel, K. R. (1976). On closed testing procedure with special reference to ordered analysis of variance. Biometrika, 63, 655–660.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, W., Hothorn, L. A., & Lehmacher, W. (1995). Multiple comparisons in drug clinical trials and preclinical assays: a-priori ordered hypotheses. In J. Vollman (Ed.), Biometrie in der chemische-pharmazeutichen Industrie (Vol. 6). Stuttgart: Fischer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, W., Glimm, E., & Bretz, F. (2011). Multiple and repeated testing of primary, co-primary and secondary hypotheses. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 3(3), 336–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, W., & Bretz, F. (2013). Mutiple testing in group Sequential trials using graphical approaches. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 5(4), 311–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, R. T. (1997). Secondary endpoints cannot be validly analyzed if primary endpoint does not demonstrate clear statistical significance. Controlled Clinical Trials, 18, 550–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, G., Wirths, M., & Keiser, M. (2014). Consistency-adjusted alpha allocation methods for a time-to-event analysis of composite endpoints. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 75, 151–161.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Sankoh, A. J., D’Agostino, R., & Huque, M. F. (2003). Efficacy endpoint selection and multiplicity adjustment methods in clinical trials with inherent multiple endpoint issues. Statistics in Medicine, 22, 3133–3150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sankoh, A. J., & Huque, M. F. (1997). Some comments on frequently used multiple endpoint adjustment methods I clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 16, 2529–2542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sankoh, A. J., Huque, M. F., Russel, H. K., & D’Agostino, R. (1999). Global two-groupmultiple endpoint adjustment methods in clinical trials. Drug Information Journal, 33, 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, Y., & Chi, G. Y. (2007). A method for testing a prespecified subgroup in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 26, 3535–3549.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Westfall, P. H., & Krishen, A. (2001). Optimally weighted, fixed sequence, and gatekeeping multiple testing procedures. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 99, 25–40.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens, B. L. (2003). A fixed sequence Bonferroni procedure for testing multiple endpoints. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 2, 211–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens, B. L., & Dmitrienko, A. (2005). The fallback procedure for evaluating a single family of hypotheses. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 15, 929–942.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D. A. (1971). A test for differences between treatment means when several dose levels are compared with a zero dose control. Biometrics, 27, 103–117. Correction: 31: 1019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xi, D., & Tamhane, A. C. (2015). Allocating significance levels in group sequential procedures for multiple endpoints. Biometrical Journal, 57(1), 90–107.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Dr. Lisa LaVange for supporting this chapter. We are also thankful to Drs. Frank Bretz and Dong Xi for providing detailed comments which helped in improving the readability of the materials presented.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Huque .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Ethics declarations

This paper reflects the views of the authors and must not be construed to represent FDA ’s views or policies.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Huque, M., Mushti, S., Alosh, M. (2018). Recycling of Significance Levels in Testing Multiple Hypotheses of Confirmatory Clinical Trials. In: Peace, K., Chen, DG., Menon, S. (eds) Biopharmaceutical Applied Statistics Symposium . ICSA Book Series in Statistics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7820-0_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics