Abstract
There are quite a few disorders for which regulatory agencies have required a treatment to demonstrate a statistically significant effect on multiple endpoints, each at the one-sided 2.5% level, before accepting the treatment’s efficacy for the disorders. Depending on the correlation among the endpoints, this requirement could lead to a substantial reduction in the study’s power to conclude the efficacy of a treatment. To investigate the prevalence of this requirement and propose possible solutions, a multiple-disciplinary Multiple Endpoints Expert Team sponsored by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America was formed in November 2003. The team recognized early that many researchers were not fully aware of the implications of requiring multiple co-primary endpoints. The team proposes possible solutions from both the medical and the statistical perspectives. The optimal solution is to reduce the number of multiple co-primary endpoints. If after careful considerations, multiple co-primary endpoints remain a scientific requirement, the team proposes statistical solutions and encourages that regulatory agencies be receptive to approaches that adopt modest upward adjustments of the nominal significance levels for testing individual endpoints. Finally, the team hopes that this report will draw more attention to the problem of multiple co-primary endpoints and stimulate further research.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hsu JC. Multiple Comparisons—Theory and Methods. Chapman and Hall: London, UK: 1996.
Sankoh AJ, Huque MF, Dubey SD. Some comments on frequently used multiple endpoint adjustment methods in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1997;16:2529–2542.
ICH E9. Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials. Step 5 guidance document, 2000. Available at: http://www.ich.org. Accessed November 11, 2006.
CPMP/EWP/908/99. Points to consider on multiplicity issues in clinical trials (adopted September 2002). Available at: http://www.emea.cu.int/pdfs/human/ewp/090899en.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2006.
Berger RL, Multiparameter hypothesis testing and acceptance sampling. Technometrics. 1982; 24:295–300.
Laska KM, Meisner MJ. Testing whether the identified treatment is best. Biometrics. 1989;45: 1139–1151.
Eaton ML, Muirhead RJ. On a multiple endpoints problem. J Stat Plann Infer. In press.
Kong L, Kohberger RC, Koch GG. Type 1 error and power in noninferiority/equivalence trials with correlated multiple endpoints: an example from vaccine development trials, J Biopharm Stat. 2004;14:893–907.
ICH E14. The Clinical Evaluation of QT/QTc Interval Prolongation and Proarrhythmic Potential for Non-antiarrhythrnic Drugs. Step 3 guidance document. 2004, Available at: http://www.ich.org. Accessed November 11, 2006.
Leung HM. O’Neill RT. Statistical assessment of combination drugs—a regulatory view. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association; August 7, 1986; Chicago, IL; Biopharmaceutical Subsection: 33–36.
Snapinn SM. Evaluating the efficacy of a combination therapy. Stat Med. 1987;6:657–665.
Temple RJ. A regulatory authorities opinion about surrogate endpoints. In: Nimmo WS, Tucker GT, eds. Clinical Measurement in Drug Evaluation. New York, NY: Wiley: 1995:322.
De Gruttola VG, Clax P, DeMets DL, et al. Considerations in the evaluation of surrogate endpoinls in clinical trials: summary of a National Institutes of Health Workshop. Control Clin Trials. 2001;22: 485–502.
O’Brien PC Procedures for comparing samples with multiple endpoints. Biometrics. 1984;40: 1079–1087.
Caro G. Caro J. O’Brien JA, Anton S, Jackson J. Migraine therapy: development and testing of a patient preference questionnaire. Headache, 1998; 38:602–607.
International Headache Society Clinical Trials Subcommittee. Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine: second edition. Cephalalgia. 2000;20:765–786.
DeMets DL, Califf RM. Lessons learned from recent cardiovascular clinical trials: part I. Circulations. 2002;106:746–751.
Dahlof B, Devercux RB, Kjeldsen SE, et al. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIEE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet. 2002;359:995–1003.
Sankoh AJ. D’Agostino RB, Huque MF, Efficacy endpoinl selection and multiplicity adjustment methods in clinical trials with inherent multiple endpoinl issues. Stat Med. 2003;22:3133–3150.
Offen WW, Helterbrand JD. Multiple comparison adjustments when two or more co-primary endpoints must all be statistically significant. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association: August 7, 1986; Chicago, IL; Biopharmaceutical Subsection.
Patel HI. Comparison of treatments in a combination therapy trial. J Biopharm Stat. 1991;1:171–183.
Snapinn SM, Sarkar SK. Assessing the superiority of a combination drug with a specific alternative. J Biopharm Stat. 1996;6:241–251.
Chuang-Stein C. Stryszak P, Dmilrienko A, Offen W. Challenge of multiple co-primary endpoinls; new approache. Stat Med. In press.
Casella G, Berger RL. Statistical Inference. 2nd ed. St. Paul, MN: Brooks/Cole: 2001.
Box GEP, Tiao GC. Bayesian inference in Statistical Analysts. New York: Wiley Classics Library; 1992. [Original work published 1973.]
Grieve A, Muirhead RJ, A Bayesian approach to the multiple endpoints problem. Unpublished manuscript.
food and Drug Administration. The Critical Path to New Medical Products. March 2004. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/oc/inilialives/crilicalpalh/whitepaper.hlml. Accessed November 11, 2006.
Dmitrienko A, Offen W, Westfall P. Gatekeeping testing strategies in clinical trials. Stat Med. 2003;22:2387–2400.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Offen, W., Chuang-Stein, C., Dmitrienko, A. et al. Multiple Co-primary Endpoints: Medical and Statistical Solutions: A Report from the Multiple Endpoints Expert Team of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Ther Innov Regul Sci 41, 31–46 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150704100105
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150704100105