Literature DB >> 20809482

Bio-creep in non-inferiority clinical trials.

Siobhan Everson-Stewart1, Scott S Emerson.   

Abstract

After a non-inferiority clinical trial, a new therapy may be accepted as effective, even if its treatment effect is slightly smaller than the current standard. It is therefore possible that, after a series of trials where the new therapy is slightly worse than the preceding drugs, an ineffective or harmful therapy might be incorrectly declared efficacious; this is known as 'bio-creep'. Several factors may influence the rate at which bio-creep occurs, including the distribution of the effects of the new agents being tested and how that changes over time, the choice of active comparator, the method used to account for the variability of the estimate of the effect of the active comparator, and changes in the effect of the active comparator from one trial to the next (violations of the constancy assumption). We performed a simulation study to examine which of these factors might lead to bio-creep and found that bio-creep was rare, except when the constancy assumption was violated.
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20809482     DOI: 10.1002/sim.4053

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  19 in total

Review 1.  Comparative Effectiveness Research in Pediatric Respiratory Disease: Promise and Pitfalls.

Authors:  Kathleen J Ramos; Ranjani Somayaji; David P Nichols; Christopher H Goss
Journal:  Paediatr Drugs       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 3.022

Review 2.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of antimicrobial treatment effect estimation in complicated urinary tract infection.

Authors:  Krishan P Singh; Gang Li; Fanny S Mitrani-Gold; Milena Kurtinecz; Jeffrey Wetherington; John F Tomayko; Linda M Mundy
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2013-08-12       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  Non-inferiority statistics and equivalence studies.

Authors:  J Walker
Journal:  BJA Educ       Date:  2019-04-24

5.  Detecting and accounting for violations of the constancy assumption in non-inferiority clinical trials.

Authors:  Joseph S Koopmeiners; Brian P Hobbs
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 3.021

Review 6.  Methodological aspects of superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials.

Authors:  Roumeliotis Stefanos; D 'Arrigo Graziella; Tripepi Giovanni
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2020-07-23       Impact factor: 3.397

7.  Novel Antibiotics May Be Noninferior but Are They Becoming Less Effective?: a Systematic Review.

Authors:  Anthony D Bai; Adam S Komorowski; Carson K L Lo; Pranav Tandon; Xena X Li; Vaibhav Mokashi; Anna Cvetkovic; Aidan Findlater; Laurel Liang; Mark Loeb; Dominik Mertz
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 8.  Single-Dose Dalbavancin: A Review in Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections.

Authors:  Karly P Garnock-Jones
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 9.546

9.  A simulation study evaluating bio-creep risk in serial non-inferiority clinical trials for preservation of effect.

Authors:  K Odem-Davis; T R Fleming
Journal:  Stat Biopharm Res       Date:  2015-01-01       Impact factor: 1.452

10.  Non-inferiority clinical trials: Practical issues and current regulatory perspective.

Authors:  Sandeep K Gupta
Journal:  Indian J Pharmacol       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.200

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.