ArticlePharmaceutical statistics
A Cautionary Note on Regional Consistency Evaluation With Multiple Primary Endpoints in Multiregional Clinical Trials.
Article in Pharmaceutical statistics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In multiregional clinical trials (MRCTs), regional consistency probabilities (RCPs) must be evaluated at the trial design stage in addition to the power for the entire trial population. The Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare guidance proposes two widely used criteria for this purpose, referred to as Method 1 and Method 2. While multiplicity adjustment for familywise error rate control is standard practice when multiple primary endpoints are employed, its implications for regional consistency evaluation in MRCTs have not been addressed in the existing literature. In this article, we demonstrate that applying unadjusted consistency thresholds under the Bonferroni procedure leads to monotone inflation of the null RCP with increasing number of endpoints for both Method 1 and Method 2, because the Bonferroni-adjusted critical value progressively selects more extreme overall treatment effect estimates, which in turn inflates the probability of satisfying the regional consistency criterion even when the true treatment effect is absent. To correct for this inflation, we propose adjusted consistency thresholds that restore the null RCP to its single-endpoint reference level, and show that these thresholds can be efficiently obtained via a standard root-finding algorithm. Through numerical studies, we demonstrate that the proposed adjusted thresholds result in only a modest reduction in RCP under the alternative hypothesis, and that thresholds derived under the Bonferroni procedure also prevent null RCP inflation when step-down procedures such as Holm, Hochberg, and Hommel are applied. The methodology is illustrated using a hypothetical MRCT with multiple primary endpoints, and an R package "rcpmcp" implementing all proposed methods is publicly available on GitHub.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.