Method of balanced adjustment in testing co-primary endpoints
- PMID: 20683896
- DOI: 10.1002/sim.3950
Method of balanced adjustment in testing co-primary endpoints
Abstract
In a clinical trial, if there are three or more co-primary endpoints, the type II error could increase depending on the correlation among the endpoints and their treatment effect sizes. To keep the type II error under control one may have to consider larger sample sizes. However, in cases where treatment effect size of at least one of the endpoints is likely to be small, the required sample size estimates can exceed reasonable bounds. Patel (1991) proposed an approach that adjusts the significance level for testing each primary endpoint based on the idea of restricting the null space. In Chuang-Stein et al. (2007), the upward adjustment to the significance levels is based on controlling an average type I error rate. In the scenario that statistical significance of each individual hypothesis is not required, we introduce a compromise testing approach in which the significance level for a co-primary endpoint is adjusted upward only if the treatment shows high significance in one (or more than one) of the remaining co-primary endpoints. The adjustment depends on the correlation among the endpoints: larger adjustment is needed for cases of smaller correlation. The method is applicable for the scenario where the null space is restricted. Our testing approach controls maximum joint false positive rate over the restricted null space.
Copyright (c) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Similar articles
-
Challenge of multiple co-primary endpoints: a new approach.Stat Med. 2007 Mar 15;26(6):1181-92. doi: 10.1002/sim.2604. Stat Med. 2007. PMID: 16927251
-
Hierarchical testing of multiple endpoints in group-sequential trials.Stat Med. 2010 Jan 30;29(2):219-28. doi: 10.1002/sim.3748. Stat Med. 2010. PMID: 19827011
-
Power and sample size when multiple endpoints are considered.Pharm Stat. 2007 Jul-Sep;6(3):161-70. doi: 10.1002/pst.301. Pharm Stat. 2007. PMID: 17674404
-
How to deal with multiple endpoints in clinical trials.Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2006 Dec;20(6):515-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-8206.2006.00437.x. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2006. PMID: 17109645 Review.
-
Design and analysis issues of multiregional clinical trials with different regional primary endpoints.J Biopharm Stat. 2012 Sep;22(5):1051-9. doi: 10.1080/10543406.2012.701586. J Biopharm Stat. 2012. PMID: 22946949 Review.
Cited by
-
Sample Size Requirements to Test Subgroup-Specific Treatment Effects in Cluster-Randomized Trials.Prev Sci. 2024 Jul;25(Suppl 3):356-370. doi: 10.1007/s11121-023-01590-6. Epub 2023 Oct 10. Prev Sci. 2024. PMID: 37816835 Free PMC article.
-
Power analysis for cluster randomized trials with continuous coprimary endpoints.Biometrics. 2023 Jun;79(2):1293-1305. doi: 10.1111/biom.13692. Epub 2022 May 23. Biometrics. 2023. PMID: 35531926 Free PMC article.
-
Sample size estimation using a latent variable model for mixed outcome co-primary, multiple primary and composite endpoints.Stat Med. 2022 Jun 15;41(13):2303-2316. doi: 10.1002/sim.9356. Epub 2022 Feb 23. Stat Med. 2022. PMID: 35199380 Free PMC article.
-
Group-Sequential Strategies in Clinical Trials with Multiple Co-Primary Outcomes.Stat Biopharm Res. 2015;7(1):36-54. doi: 10.1080/19466315.2014.1003090. Stat Biopharm Res. 2015. PMID: 25844122 Free PMC article.
-
Fallback tests for co-primary endpoints.Stat Med. 2016 Jul 20;35(16):2669-86. doi: 10.1002/sim.6911. Epub 2016 Feb 25. Stat Med. 2016. PMID: 26919166 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Medical