PAIN
Volume 139, Issue 3 , Pages 485-493, 31 October 2008

Analyzing multiple endpoints in clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations

  • Dennis C. Turk

      Affiliations

    • Department of Anesthesiology, University of Washington, P.O. Box 356540, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +1 (206) 616 2626; fax: +1 (206) 543 2958.
  • ,
  • Robert H. Dworkin

      Affiliations

    • Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
  • ,
  • Michael P. McDermott

      Affiliations

    • Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
  • ,
  • Nicholas Bellamy

      Affiliations

    • Mayne Medical School, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  • ,
  • Laurie B. Burke

      Affiliations

    • United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA
  • ,
  • Julie M. Chandler

      Affiliations

    • Epidemiology, Merck & Co., Blue Bell, PA, USA
  • ,
  • Charles S. Cleeland

      Affiliations

    • Department of Symptom Relief, MD Anderson Cancer Center
  • ,
  • Penney Cowan

      Affiliations

    • American Chronic Pain Association, Rocklin, CA, USA
  • ,
  • Rozalina Dimitrova

      Affiliations

    • Clinical Research, Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA, USA
  • ,
  • John T. Farrar

      Affiliations

    • Center for Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
  • ,
  • Sharon Hertz

      Affiliations

    • United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA
  • ,
  • Joseph F. Heyse

      Affiliations

    • Epidemiology, Merck & Co., Blue Bell, PA, USA
  • ,
  • Smriti Iyengar

      Affiliations

    • Lilly Corporate Center, Eli Lilly & Co, Indianapolis, IN, USA
  • ,
  • Alejandro R. Jadad

      Affiliations

    • Center for Global Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • ,
  • Gary W. Jay

      Affiliations

    • Schwarz Biosciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
  • ,
  • John A. Jermano

      Affiliations

    • NeurogesX, Inc., San Carlos, CA, USA
  • ,
  • Nathaniel P. Katz

      Affiliations

    • Analgesic Research, Needham, MA, USA
  • ,
  • Donald C. Manning

      Affiliations

    • Celgene Corporation, Summit, NJ, USA
  • ,
  • Susan Martin

      Affiliations

    • Pfizer, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI, USA
  • ,
  • Mitchell B. Max

      Affiliations

    • Department of Anesthesiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
  • ,
  • Patrick McGrath

      Affiliations

    • Department of Psychology, Dalhousie University, Canada
  • ,
  • Henry J. McQuay

      Affiliations

    • Pain Relief, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
  • ,
  • Steve Quessy

      Affiliations

    • GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
  • ,
  • Bob A. Rappaport

      Affiliations

    • United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA
  • ,
  • Dennis A. Revicki

      Affiliations

    • United Biosource Corporation, Bethesda, MD, USA
  • ,
  • Margaret Rothman

      Affiliations

    • Johnson & Johnson, Raritan, NJ, USA
  • ,
  • Joseph W. Stauffer

      Affiliations

    • Alpharma, Piscataway, NJ, USA
  • ,
  • Ola Svensson

      Affiliations

    • AstraZeneca R&D, Sodertalje, Sweden
  • ,
  • Richard E. White

      Affiliations

    • Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc, Chadds Ford, PA USA
  • ,
  • James Witter

      Affiliations

    • United States Food and Drug Administration, now at United States National Institutes of Health, USA

Received 12 March 2008; received in revised form 11 June 2008; accepted 30 June 2008. published online 15 August 2008.

Abstract 

The increasing complexity of randomized clinical trials and the practice of obtaining a wide variety of measurements from study participants have made the consideration of multiple endpoints a critically important issue in the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials. Failure to consider important outcomes can limit the validity and utility of clinical trials; specifying multiple endpoints for the evaluation of treatment efficacy, however, can increase the rate of false positive conclusions about the efficacy of a treatment. We describe the use of multiple endpoints in the design, analysis, and interpretation of pain clinical trials, and review available strategies and methods for addressing multiplicity. To decrease the probability of a Type I error (i.e., the likelihood of obtaining statistically significant results by chance) in pain clinical trials, the use of gatekeeping procedures and other methods that correct for multiple analyses is recommended when a single primary endpoint does not adequately reflect the overall benefits of treatment. We emphasize the importance of specifying in advance the outcomes and clinical decision rule that will serve as the basis for determining that a treatment is efficacious and the methods that will be used to control the overall Type I error rate.

Keywords: Multiple endpoints, Multiplicity, Clinical trials, Treatment outcomes, Chronic pain, Acute pain, Sampling error, Type I error

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0304-3959(08)00373-4

doi:10.1016/j.pain.2008.06.025

PAIN
Volume 139, Issue 3 , Pages 485-493, 31 October 2008