Literature DB >> 17365228

Mixed noninferiority margin and statistical tests in active controlled trials.

Hsiao-Hui Tsou1, Chin-Fu Hsiao, Shein-Chung Chow, Lilly Yue, Yunling Xu, Shiowjen Lee.   

Abstract

In an active controlled noninferiority trial without a placebo arm, one of the major considerations is the selection of the noninferiority margin. Although the ICH E10 guideline provides general principles for the selection of appropriate noninferiority margins, there are no established rules or gold standards for the selection of noninferiority margins in active control trials. Hung et al. (2003) proposed a margin selection based on relative risk. However, with relative risk, it is difficult to adjust for covariates. On the other hand, Chow and Shao (2006) proposed a method for selecting noninferiority margins based on treatment difference. The determination of noninferiority margin based on either a test for treatment difference or a test for relative risk would be critical. In this paper, we propose a method for noninferiority testing with the use of a mixed null hypothesis. The mixed null hypothesis consists of a margin based on treatment difference and a margin based on relative risk. Both noninferiority margins will simultaneously satisfy the principles as described in the ICH E10 guideline. Statistical tests for mixed noninferiority margin are also derived. An example concerning the efficacy of a test therapy to an active control on a clinical adverse event in the target patient population with cardiovascular disease is presented to illustrate the proposed method. Simulation studies were also conducted to assess the type I error rate and the power.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17365228     DOI: 10.1080/10543400601183861

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biopharm Stat        ISSN: 1054-3406            Impact factor:   1.051


  3 in total

1.  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

2.  Conditional equivalence testing: An alternative remedy for publication bias.

Authors:  Harlan Campbell; Paul Gustafson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-13       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Comparison of once- versus twice-daily administration of insulin detemir, used with mealtime insulin aspart, in basal-bolus therapy for type 1 diabetes: assessment of detemir administration in a progressive treat-to-target trial (ADAPT).

Authors:  Jean-Pierre Le Floch; Marc Lévy; Helen Mosnier-Pudar; Frank Nobels; Sylvie Laroche; Sophie Gonbert; Eveline Eschwege; Pierre Fontaine
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2008-10-22       Impact factor: 19.112

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.