Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 42642984

Family-Wise Error Rate Control in Clinical Trials With Overlapping Populations.

Remi Luschei·Werner Brannath
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We consider clinical trials with multiple, overlapping patient populations that test multiple treatment policies specifically tailored to these populations. Such designs may lead to multiplicity issues, as false statements will affect several populations. For type I error control, often the family-wise error rate (FWER) is controlled, which is the probability to reject at least one true null hypothesis. If the joint distribution of the test statistics is known, the FWER level can be exhausted by determining critical values or adjusted-levels. The adjustment is typically done under the common ANOVA assumptions. However, the performed tests are then only valid under the rather strong assumption of homogeneous null effects, that is, when the null hypothesis applies to all subpopulations and their intersections. We show that under cancelling null effects, when heterogeneous effects cancel out in some or all subpopulations, this procedure does not provide FWER control. We also suggest different alternatives and compare them in terms of FWER control and their power.

Explore related subjects

HumansClinical Trials as TopicTreatment Effect HeterogeneityModels, StatisticalPrecision MedicineComputer SimulationData Interpretation, Statisticalbootstrapfamily‐wise error ratemultiple testingpersonalized medicinesubgroup effect heterogeneityJournal Article

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Remi Luschei, Werner Brannath. 2026. Family-Wise Error Rate Control in Clinical Trials With Overlapping Populations.. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.70730

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Journal Article resourceComputer Simulation subjectHumans subjectJournal Article subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Heterogeneity in Teriflunomide Treatment Arms: A Systematic Review and Meta‑Regression of Randomised Multiple Sclerosis Trials.

BACKGROUND: Teriflunomide is widely used as an active comparator in Phase 3 randomised trials for relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). Temporal changes in disease activity within teriflunomide-treated cohorts have not been systematically examined. OBJECTIVES: To assess temporal trends in relapse and disability outcomes across teriflunomide arms of Phase 3 multiple sclerosis (MS) trials and identify predictors of between-trial heterogeneity. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of Phase 3 randomised controlled trials including a teriflunomide arm. PubMed, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to October 2025. Annualised relapse rate (ARR) and 12- and 24-week confirmed disability worsening (CDW) were extracted together with baseline characteristics. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Random-effects meta-analyses, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Twelve teriflunomide cohorts from eight trials involving 4,900 adults with RMS were included. ARR ranged from 0.11 to 0.37 with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 94%). Trial start year was inversely associated with ARR and explained a large proportion of between-study variability in exploratory meta-regression analyses. Confirmed disability worsening outcomes also showed substantial heterogeneity with a weaker trend toward lower event rates in more recent trials. CONCLUSION: Teriflunomide-treated trial populations have shifted toward lower relapse activity over time, and trial start year was the principal predictor of between-trial heterogeneity in ARR in exploratory analyses. These findings most plausibly reflect evolving recruitment and diagnostic practices rather than changes in drug efficacy. Accounting for these temporal dynamics is essential when interpreting outcomes from RMS trial using teriflunomide as comparator.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

A GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of olive leaf or olive pomace supplementation on cardiometabolic and anthropometric health markers.

AIMS: Cardiometabolic diseases (CMDs) are major contributors to global morbidity and mortality, and dietary bioactives such as polyphenols may modulate key risk factors. Olive by-products, particularly olive leaves (OL) and olive pomace (OP), are rich in phenolic compounds with antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and cardiometabolic effects demonstrated across in vitro, preclinical, and clinical studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: This GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis included 30 randomized controlled trials (n = 1726) evaluating OL or OP supplementation on 21 standardized biomarkers, encompassing inflammatory markers, lipid profile, glycemic control, insulin sensitivity, anthropometric measures, and blood pressure. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models, with effect sizes calculated as mean differences (or standardized mean differences for oxLDL). Between-study heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics, and sensitivity and subgroup analyses explored potential sources of variability. Publication bias was evaluated using Begg's test and funnel plots where appropriate. OL supplementation significantly improved lipid parameters (total cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL-C, ApoB, oxLDL) and increased ApoA1, while reducing TNF-α, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, and BMI. No significant effects were observed on glycemic markers. OP supplementation showed no consistent cardiometabolic benefits and was associated with an increase in IL-8. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to high, with several outcomes downgraded due to imprecision, heterogeneity, or limited study numbers. CONCLUSION: These findings support the targeted use of OL as an adjunctive strategy for cardiometabolic risk management. Evidence for OP supplementation remains limited, underscoring the need for well-powered, high-quality RCTs to clarify its clinical effects.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Effectiveness of Wearable Digital Therapeutics in Improving Sleep Outcomes Among Individuals With Insomnia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Wearable devices are increasingly used for sleep monitoring and as adjunctive treatment. Existing meta-analyses mostly pool composite digital therapies and rarely isolate stand-alone wearables or distinguish between objective and subjective end points. Whether stand-alone wearable interventions improve sleep outcomes in adults with insomnia, and which factors moderate treatment heterogeneity, remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of wearable digital interventions on sleep outcomes in adults with insomnia versus control strategies and explore moderators of effectiveness, including device-wearing position, intervention duration, and control type, using meta-regression. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses) 2020 statement and the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses Literature Search Extension) guideline. Five electronic databases and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to May 18, 2026. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating wearable digital interventions in adults with insomnia compared with sham, waitlist, usual care, or active control conditions and had an intervention duration of at least 1 week. Study screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment were carried out independently by 2 reviewers. Pooled estimates were calculated using a restricted maximum likelihood random-effects model with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman correction. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic, and 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated for the primary analyses. The certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs (N=910) were included. Wearable digital interventions were associated with a significant reduction in objective sleep-onset latency (SOL; mean difference [MD] -4.52, 95% CI -8.38 to -0.67, PI -9.52 to 0.47 min) and a significant improvement in subjective sleep efficiency (SE; MD 2.00%, 95% CI 1.90%-2.11%, PI 1.85%-2.15%). Subjective total sleep time (TST) also showed a significant increase (MD 19.11, 95% CI 2.98-35.24, PI -16.20 to 54.43 minutes). Meta-regression showed that control type, intervention duration, and device location did not explain the heterogeneity of the insomnia severity index (ISI) (R²=0). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of pooled ISI estimates, and an Egger test indicated no small-study effects (P=.07). Certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to high. CONCLUSIONS: Wearable digital interventions provide selective benefits for objective SOL, subjective SE, and subjective TST in adults with insomnia, with no improvement in overall ISI. Despite statistically significant effects on several sleep parameters, wide PIs, substantial heterogeneity, and limited study numbers indicate preliminary, nonconclusive findings. Wearables should be viewed as affordable adjunctive tools requiring further validation, not substitutes for first-line cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia. Large-scale, long-term RCTs with standardized protocols and patient-level external validation are required to consolidate the evidence base.

Humans↗