Skip to main content
Log in

Further Comments on the Alpha-Spending Function

  • Published:
Statistics in Biosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The use of alpha-spending functions has become a powerful tool in designing group sequential trials since 1990. In this manuscript, we present practical problems that we encountered and suggest possible solutions. Since group sequential methods deal with only one endpoint, they have certain intrinsic limitations in medical research. As a result, we often modify the design in conducting clinical trials since the sequential statistical framework is not sophisticated enough to handle many practical problems related to multiple endpoints in clinical trials. Topics discussed include the choice of a primary endpoint; the use of symmetric and asymmetric boundaries in interim analysis; data-driven interim analyses; overruling of a group sequential boundary; comparison of two means and the use of logrank tests in survival trials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Armitage P, McPherson CK, Rowe BC (1969) Repeated significance tests on accumulating data. J R Stat Soc, Ser A 132:235–244

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Chen JYH, DeMets DL, Lan KKG (2003) Monitoring mortality at interim analyses while testing a composite endpoint at the final analysis. Control Clin Trials 24:16–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cook T, DeMets DL (2008) Introduction to statistical methods for clinical trials. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. DeMets DL, Ware JH (1980) Asymmetric group sequential boundaries for monitoring clinical trials. Biometrika 67:651–660

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. East5 Manual (2007) Cytel Inc., Cambridge, MA

  6. Ellenberg S, Fleming T, DeMets D (2002) Data monitoring committees in clinical trials: a practical perspective. Wiley, West Sussex

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL (1998) Fundamentals of clinical trials, 3rd edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hwang IK, Shih WJ, DeCani JS (1990) Group sequential designs using a family of type I error probability spending functions. Stat Med 9:1939–1445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim K, DeMets DL (1987) Design and analysis of group sequential tests based on the type I error spending rate function. Biometrika 74:149–154

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Lan KKG, DeMets DL (1983) Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials. Biometrika 70(3):659–663

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Lan KKG, DeMets DL (1989) Changing frequency of interim analysis in sequential monitoring. Biometrics 45:1017–1020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lan KKG, DeMets DL (1989) Group sequential procedures: Calendar versus information time. Stat Med 8:1191–1198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lan KKG, Lachin JM (1990) Implementation of group sequential logrank tests in a maximum duration trial. Biometrics 46:759–770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lan KKG, Lachin JM, Bautista O (2003) Overruling of a group sequential boundary—a stopping rule versus a guideline. Stat Med 22:3347–3355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lan KKG, Hu P, Proschan MA (2009) A conditional power approach to the evaluation of predictive power. Stat Biopharm Res 1(2):131–136. doi:10.1198/sbr.2009.0035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. O’Brien PC, Fleming TR (1979) A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics 35:549–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pampallona S, Tsiatis AA, Kim K (2001) Interim monitoring of group sequential trials using spending functions for the type I and type II error probabilities. Drug Inf J 35:1113–1121

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pocock SJ (1977) Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Biometrika 64:191–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Proschan MA (1999) Properties of spending function boundaries. Biometrika 86:466–473

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Proschan MA, Follmann DA, Waclawiw MA (1992) Effects of assumption violations on type I error rate in group sequential monitoring. Biometrics 48:1131–1133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Proschan MA, Lan KKG, Wittes JT (2006) Statistical monitoring of clinical trials: a unified approach. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Reboussin DM, DeMets DL, Kim KM, Lan KKG (1995) Programs for computing group sequential bounds using the Lan–DeMets method, Version 2.1, UW Department of Biostatistics, Technical Report No 95, October 1995

  23. Reboussin DM, DeMets DL, Kim KM, Lan KKG (2000) Computations for group sequential boundaries using the Lan–DeMets spending function method. Control Clin Trials 21(3):190–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Spiegelhalter DJ, Freedman LS, Blackburn PR (1986) Monitoring clinical trials: conditional or predictive power? Control Clin Trials 7:8–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Taylor AL, Ziesche S, Yancy C, Carson P, D’Agostino R Jr, Ferdinand K, Taylor M, Adams K, Sabolinski M, Worcel M, Cohn JN (for the African–American Heart Failure Trial Investigators) (2004) Combination of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine in blacks with heart failure. New Engl J Med 351(20):2049–2057

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. K. Gordon Lan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lan, K.K.G., DeMets, D. Further Comments on the Alpha-Spending Function. Stat Biosci 1, 95–111 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12561-009-9004-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12561-009-9004-3

Keywords

Navigation