Literature DB >> 20683896

Method of balanced adjustment in testing co-primary endpoints.

George Kordzakhia1, Ohidul Siddiqui, Mohammad F Huque.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20683896     DOI: 10.1002/sim.3950

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  8 in total

Review 1.  Design, data monitoring, and analysis of clinical trials with co-primary endpoints: A review.

Authors:  Toshimitsu Hamasaki; Scott R Evans; Koko Asakura
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2017-10-30       Impact factor: 1.051

2.  Group-Sequential Strategies in Clinical Trials with Multiple Co-Primary Outcomes.

Authors:  Toshimitsu Hamasaki; Koko Asakura; Scott R Evans; Tomoyuki Sugimoto; Takashi Sozu
Journal:  Stat Biopharm Res       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.452

3.  A logrank test-based method for sizing clinical trials with two co-primary time-to-event endpoints.

Authors:  Tomoyuki Sugimoto; Takashi Sozu; Toshimitsu Hamasaki; Scott R Evans
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2013-01-10       Impact factor: 5.899

4.  Sample size determination in group-sequential clinical trials with two co-primary endpoints.

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

5.  Sample Size Considerations in Clinical Trials when Comparing Two Interventions using Multiple Co-Primary Binary Relative Risk Contrasts.

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

6.  Interim evaluation of efficacy or futility in group-sequential trials with multiple co-primary endpoints.

Authors:  Koko Asakura; Toshimitsu Hamasaki; Scott R Evans
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 2.207

7.  Fallback tests for co-primary endpoints.

Authors:  Robin Ristl; Florian Frommlet; Armin Koch; Martin Posch
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Sample size estimation using a latent variable model for mixed outcome co-primary, multiple primary and composite endpoints.

Authors:  Martina E McMenamin; Jessica K Barrett; Anna Berglind; James M S Wason
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 2.497

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.