Literature DB >> 16395994

A regulatory perspective on choice of margin and statistical inference issue in non-inferiority trials.

H M James Hung1, Sue-Jane Wang, Robert O'Neill.   

Abstract

Without a placebo arm, any non-inferiority inference involving assessment of the placebo effect under the active control trial setting is difficult. The statistical risk for falsely concluding non-inferiority cannot be evaluated unless the constancy assumption approximately holds that the effect of the active control under the historical trial setting where the control effect can be assessed carries to the noninferiority trial setting. The constancy assumption cannot be checked because of missing the placebo arm in the non-inferiority trial. Depending on how serious the violation of the assumption is thought to be, one may need to seek an alternative design strategy that includes a cushion for a very conservative non-inferiority analysis or shows superiority of the experimental treatment over the control. Determination of the non-inferiority margin depends on what objective the non-inferiority analysis is intended to achieve. The margin can be a fixed margin or a margin functionally defined. Between-trial differences always exist and need to be properly considered.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16395994     DOI: 10.1002/bimj.200410084

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biom J        ISSN: 0323-3847            Impact factor:   2.207


  14 in total

Review 1.  Rationale for and methods of superiority, noninferiority, or equivalence designs in orthopaedic, controlled trials.

Authors:  Patrick Vavken
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-01-19       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  The challenges of determining noninferiority margins: a case study of noninferiority randomized controlled trials of novel oral anticoagulants.

Authors:  Grace Wangge; Kit C B Roes; Anthonius de Boer; Arno W Hoes; Mirjam J Knol
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2012-08-20       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 3.  Mosaic effectiveness: measuring the impact of novel PrEP methods.

Authors:  David V Glidden; Megha L Mehrotra; David T Dunn; Elvin H Geng
Journal:  Lancet HIV       Date:  2019-09-27       Impact factor: 12.767

4.  Including Non-inferiority Trials in Contemporary Meta-analyses of Chronic Medical Conditions: a Meta-epidemiological Study.

Authors:  Zhen Wang; Tarek Nayfeh; Nigar Sofiyeva; Oscar J Ponte; Rami Rajjoub; Konstantinos Malandris; Mohamed Seisa; Haitao Chu; Mohammad Hassan Murad
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-04-21       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Challenges in the design and analysis of non-inferiority trials: a case study.

Authors:  Valerie Durkalski; Robert Silbergleit; Daniel Lowenstein
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2011-09-15       Impact factor: 2.486

6.  Bayesian design of noninferiority trials for medical devices using historical data.

Authors:  Ming-Hui Chen; Joseph G Ibrahim; Peter Lam; Alan Yu; Yuanye Zhang
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Modelling of the outcome of non-inferiority trials by integration of historical data.

Authors:  Alberto Russu; Erik van Zwet; Giuseppe De Nicolao; Oscar Della Pasqua
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2011-08-21       Impact factor: 2.745

Review 8.  Room for improvement in conducting and reporting non-inferiority randomized controlled trials on drugs: a systematic review.

Authors:  Grace Wangge; Olaf H Klungel; Kit C B Roes; Anthonius de Boer; Arno W Hoes; Mirjam J Knol
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-10-27       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Advancing Novel PrEP Products - Alternatives to Non-Inferiority.

Authors:  David V Glidden
Journal:  Stat Commun Infect Dis       Date:  2019-08-06

10.  Randomized Controlled Trials 6: Determining the Sample Size and Power for Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies.

Authors:  Tom Greene
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.