Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2012; 51(04): 309-317
DOI: 10.3414/ME11-01-0044
Original Articles
Schattauer GmbH

Multiplicity Adjustment for Composite Binary Endpoints

G. Rauch
1   Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
,
M. Kieser
1   Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received:19 May 2011

accepted:01 February 2012

Publication Date:
20 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Background: Binary composite outcome measures are increasingly used as primary endpoints in clinical trials. Composite endpoints combine several events of interest within a single variable. However, as the effect observed for the composite does not necessarily reflect the effects for the individual components, it is recommended in the literature to additionally evaluate each component separately.

Objectives: The task is to define an adequate multiple test procedure which focuses on the composite outcome measure but allows for a confirmatory interpretation of the components in case of large effects.

Methods: In this paper, we determine the correlation matrix for a multiple binary endpoint problem of a composite endpoint and its components based on the normal approximation test statistic for rates. Thereby, we assume multinomial distributed components. We use this correlation to calculate the adjusted local significance levels. We discuss how to use our approach for a more informative formulation of the test problem. Our work is illustrated by two clinical trial examples.

Results: By taking into account the special correlation structure between a binary composite outcome and its components, an adequate multiple test procedure to assess the composite and its components can be defined based on an approximate multivariate normal distribution without much loss in power compared to a test problem formulated exclusively for the composite.

Conclusions: By incorporating the correlation under the null hypotheses, the global power for the multiple test problem assessing both the composite and its components can be increased as compared to simple Bonferroni-adjustment. Thus, a confirmatory analysis of the composite and its components might be possible without a large increase in sample size as compared to a single endpoint problem formulated exclusively for the composite

Keywords

Binary endpoints - clinical trials - composite endpoints - correlation matrix - multiple testing
 

  • References

  • 1 Lubsen J, Kirwan BA. Combined endpoints: can we use them? Stat Med. 2002; 21: 2959-7290.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kleist P. Composite endpoints for clinical trials: current perspectives. International J Pharmaceut Med 2007; 21: 187-198.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Freemantle N, Calvert M, Wood J, Eastaugh J, Griffin C. Composite outcomes in randomized trials - greater precision but with greater uncertainty?. J Amer Med Assoc 2003; 289: 756-757.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Freemantle N, Calvert M. Composite and surrogate outcomes in randomised controlled trials. Brit Med J 2007; 334: 756-757.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Chi GYH. Some issues with composite endpoints in clinical trials. Fund Clin Pharmacol 2005; 19: 609-619.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ferreira-Gonzles I, Permanyer-Miralda G, Domingo-Salvany A, Busse JW, Heels-Ansdell D, Montori VM, Akl EA, Bryant DM, Alonso-Coello P, Alonso J, Worster A, Upadhye S, Jaeschke R, Schnemann HJ, Pacheco-Huergo V, Wu P, Mills EJ, Guyatt GH. Problems with the use of composite endpoints in cardiovascular trials: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Brit Med J 2007; 334: 786-793.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bethel MA, Holman R, Haffner SM, Califf RM, Huntsman-Labed A, Hua TA, Murray J. Determing the most appropriate components for a composite clinical trial outcome. Am Heart J 2008; 156: 633-640.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 ICH guideline, Statistical principles for clinical trials (E9), 1999 http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ich/036396en.pdf (assessed 13.10.2010).
    PubMed
  • 9 CPMP Guideline Points to consider on multiplicity issues in clinical trials, 2002 http://www.tga.gov.au/docs/pdf/euguide/ewp/090899en.pdf (accessed 21.01.2011).
    PubMed
  • 10 Lydersen S, Fagerland MW, Laake P. Recommended tests for association in 2 ´ 2 tables. Stat Med 2009; 28: 1159-1175.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 1979; 6: 65-70.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bauer P, Röhmel J, Maurer W, Hothorn L. Testing strategies in multi-dose experiments including active control. Stat Med 1998; 17: 2133-2146.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Dmitrienko A, Offen WW, Westfall PH. Gatekeeping strategies for clinical trials that do not require all primary effects to be significant. Stat Med 2003; 22: 2387-2400.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Chen X, Luo X, Caprizzi T. The application of enhanced gatekeeping strategies. Stat Med 2005; 24: 1385-1397.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Westfall P. Improving power by dichotomizing (even under normality). Am Stat 2011; 3 (02) 353-362.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Wiens BL. A fixed sequence Bonferroni procedure for testing multiple endpoints. Pharm Stat 2003; 2: 211-215.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Wiens BL, Dmitrienko A. The fallback procedure for evaluating a single family of hypotheses. J Biopharm Stat 2005; 15: 929-942.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Westfall PH, Krishen A. Optimally weighted, fixed sequence, and gatekeeping multiple testing procedures. J Stat Plan Infer 2001; 99: 25-40.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bretz F, Maurer W, Brannath W, Posch M. A graphical approach to sequentially rejective multiple test procedures. Stat Med 2009; 28: 586-604.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Huque M, Alosh M, Bhore R. Addressing multiplicity issues of a composite endpoint and its components in clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat 2011; 21: 610-634.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 James S. Approximate multinormal probabilities applied to correlated multiple endpoints in clinical trials. Stat Med 1991; 10: 1123-1135.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Leon AC, Heo M. A comparison of multiplicity adjustment strategies for correlated binary endpoints. J Biopharm Stat 2005; 15: 839-855.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 The CAPRICORN Investigators Effect of carvedilol on outcome after myocardial infarction in patients with left-ventricular dysfunction: the CAPRICORN randomised trial. Lancet 2001; 357: 1385-1390.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Sozu T, Sugimoto T, Hamasaki T. Sample size determination in clinical trials with multiple co-primary binary endpoints. Stat Med 2010; 29: 2169-2179.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Carcía-Pagán JC, Caca K, Bureau C, Laleman W, Appenrodt B, Luca A, Abraldes JG, Nevens F, Vinel JP, Mössner J, Bosch J. Early use of TIPS in patients with cirrhosis and varicel bleeding. New Engl J Med 2010; 362: 2370-2379.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 The MOMS Investigators A Randomized Trial of Prenatal versus Postnatal Repair of Myelomeningocele. New Engl J Med 2011; 364: 993-1004.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Bretz F, Landgrebe J, Brunner E. Multiplicity Issues in Microarray Experiments. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44: 431-437.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar