BACKGROUND: When the efficacy of a treatment in a randomized controlled trial is required for multiple primary endpoints, trial design and analysis differ from trial requiring efficacy in only one of the multiple endpoints. METHODS: We consider a two-arm clinical trial requiring efficacy analysis for multiple primary endpoints, formulating the appropriate null and alternative hypotheses for the test of treatment efficacy. We study the significance level/statistical power of an intersection-union test (IUT) in this situation. We compare IUT with the intuitive approach (selecting the maximum sample size over those obtained from testing individual primary endpoints one by one) for determination of sample size. RESULTS: The proposed IUT reserves the same Type I error rate as shared by all endpoint-specific tests. The statistical power of the proposed IUT is no more than the minimum from the individual tests. The maximum sample size from multiple endpoint-specific tests is often inadequate for the test of treatment efficacy, especially when the standardized effect sizes are similar. Finally, the IUT can be applied to Alzheimer's disease treatment trials in which two primary endpoints are typically used. CONCLUSIONS: The IUT is a valid method for use in the design and analysis of clinical trials requiring efficacy at multiple primary endpoints.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: When the efficacy of a treatment in a randomized controlled trial is required for multiple primary endpoints, trial design and analysis differ from trial requiring efficacy in only one of the multiple endpoints. METHODS: We consider a two-arm clinical trial requiring efficacy analysis for multiple primary endpoints, formulating the appropriate null and alternative hypotheses for the test of treatment efficacy. We study the significance level/statistical power of an intersection-union test (IUT) in this situation. We compare IUT with the intuitive approach (selecting the maximum sample size over those obtained from testing individual primary endpoints one by one) for determination of sample size. RESULTS: The proposed IUT reserves the same Type I error rate as shared by all endpoint-specific tests. The statistical power of the proposed IUT is no more than the minimum from the individual tests. The maximum sample size from multiple endpoint-specific tests is often inadequate for the test of treatment efficacy, especially when the standardized effect sizes are similar. Finally, the IUT can be applied to Alzheimer's disease treatment trials in which two primary endpoints are typically used. CONCLUSIONS: The IUT is a valid method for use in the design and analysis of clinical trials requiring efficacy at multiple primary endpoints.
Authors: Peter H Van Ness; Peter A Charpentier; Edward H Ip; Xiaoyan Leng; Terrence E Murphy; Janet A Tooze; Heather G Allore Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: K Tim Buddingh; Ben M Bosma; Brenda Samaniego-Cameron; Henk O ten Cate Hoedemaker; H Sijbrand Hofker; Gooitzen M van Dam; Rutger J Ploeg; Vincent B Nieuwenhuijs Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-10-10 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Koko Asakura; Toshimitsu Hamasaki; Tomoyuki Sugimoto; Kenichi Hayashi; Scott R Evans; Takashi Sozu Journal: Stat Med Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Yuki Ando; Toshimitsu Hamasaki; Scott R Evans; Koko Asakura; Tomoyuki Sugimoto; Takashi Sozu; Yuko Ohno Journal: Stat Biopharm Res Date: 2015-06-24 Impact factor: 1.452
Authors: Monica Taljaard; Fan Li; Bo Qin; Caroline Cui; Leyi Zhang; Stuart G Nicholls; Kelly Carroll; Susan L Mitchell Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 2.486