Exact Randomized Two‐Stage Phase 2 Clinical Trial Designs for Two Binary Co‐Primary Endpoints

Phase 2 clinical trials typically rely on a single primary endpoint, yet in many settings, treatment efficacy must be demonstrated across multiple co-primary endpoints. Such settings require intersection-union hypothesis testing, in which the global null hypothesis is rejected only when all individual component hypotheses are rejected. Existing phase 2 designs for binary endpoints are largely restricted to single-arm or single-endpoint settings, or rely on large-sample normal approximations for two-arm trials, which may be inadequate when sample sizes are small. We developed exact and simulation-based methods for designing two-arm, two-stage phase 2 trials with two co-primary binary endpoints using the bivariate binomial distribution, allowing different correlations between endpoints across treatment arms. The proposed framework identifies optimal designs that minimize the expected sample size and minimax designs that minimize the maximum sample size, while allowing early termination for futility at the first stage. For small sample sizes (approximately <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:semantics><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi> <mml:mo>≤</mml:mo> <mml:mn>25</mml:mn></mml:mrow> <mml:annotation>$$ n\le 25 $$</mml:annotation></mml:semantics> </mml:math> per arm), the exact method is computationally feasible and yields analytically exact operating characteristics under the assumed bivariate binomial distribution. For larger sample sizes, however, exact computations become intensive. To address this, we evaluated a simulation-based approach and a normal approximation by comparing their performance against the exact method. The simulation approach selected designs that closely matched those from the exact method, whereas the normal approximation often deviated. Therefore, we recommend the simulation-based method as a computationally efficient and accurate alternative for moderate-to-large sample size trials.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Statistics in Medicine
Published
2026-02-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.70424
Primary Topic
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Exact Randomized Two‐Stage Phase 2 Clinical Trial Designs for Two Binary Co‐Primary Endpoints

Clement Ma, Aya A. Mitani, M. Ishrat Husain, Hyejung Jung
Statistics in Medicine
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
article

Exact Randomized Two‐Stage Phase 2 Clinical Trial Designs for Two Binary Co‐Primary Endpoints

Clement Ma, Aya A. Mitani, M. Ishrat Husain, Hyejung Jung
article en

Abstract

Phase 2 clinical trials typically rely on a single primary endpoint, yet in many settings, treatment efficacy must be demonstrated across multiple co-primary endpoints. Such settings require intersection-union hypothesis testing, in which the global null hypothesis is rejected only when all individual component hypotheses are rejected. Existing phase 2 designs for binary endpoints are largely restricted to single-arm or single-endpoint settings, or rely on large-sample normal approximations for two-arm trials, which may be inadequate when sample sizes are small. We developed exact and simulation-based methods for designing two-arm, two-stage phase 2 trials with two co-primary binary endpoints using the bivariate binomial distribution, allowing different correlations between endpoints across treatment arms. The proposed framework identifies optimal designs that minimize the expected sample size and minimax designs that minimize the maximum sample size, while allowing early termination for futility at the first stage. For small sample sizes (approximately <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:semantics><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi> <mml:mo>≤</mml:mo> <mml:mn>25</mml:mn></mml:mrow> <mml:annotation>$$ n\le 25 $$</mml:annotation></mml:semantics> </mml:math> per arm), the exact method is computationally feasible and yields analytically exact operating characteristics under the assumed bivariate binomial distribution. For larger sample sizes, however, exact computations become intensive. To address this, we evaluated a simulation-based approach and a normal approximation by comparing their performance against the exact method. The simulation approach selected designs that closely matched those from the exact method, whereas the normal approximation often deviated. Therefore, we recommend the simulation-based method as a computationally efficient and accurate alternative for moderate-to-large sample size trials.

Statistics in MedicineVol. 45(3-5)
University Health Network (CA), Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA), University of Toronto (CA), Public Health Ontario (CA), Ontario Brain Institute (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 62%
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.