Analyzing noninferiority trials: it is time for advantage deficit assessment – an observational study of published noninferiority trials

References

• D’Agostino RB, Massaro JM, Sullivan LM. Non-inferiority trials: design concepts and issues – the encounters of academic consultants in statistics. Stat Med. 2003;22:169–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleming TR, Odem-Davis K, Rothmann MD, Shen YL. Some essential considerations in the design and conduct of non-inferiority trials. Clin Trials. 2011;8:432–439.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fueglistaler P, Adamina M, Guller U. Non-inferiority trials in surgical oncology. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:1532–1539.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Guideline on the choice of the noninferiority margin. London, UK: European Medicines Agency; 2005. Available from: http://www.emea.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003636.pdf. Accessed January 1, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry non-inferiority clinical trials – draft guidance. 2010. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM202140.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Garattini S, LiBassi L, Bertele V. Placebo or active control? Either, as long as it is in the patient’s interest. WHO Drug Information. 2003;17:253–256.
   Google Scholar
• Wangge G, Klungel OH, Roes KCB, de Boer A, Hoes AW, Knol MJ. Should non-inferiority drug trials be banned altogether? Drug Discov Today. 2013;18:601–604.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Mulla SM, Scott IA, Jackevicius CA, You JJ. Patient engagement and shared decision-making. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29:562.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman RM, McNaughton-Collins M. The superiority of patient engagement and shared decision-making in noninferiority trials. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29:16–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulla SM, Scott IA, Jackevicius CA, You JJ, Guyatt GH. How to use a noninferiority trial: users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA. 2012;308:2605–2611.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer P, Brannath W, Posch M. Multiple testing for identifying effective and safe treatments. Biom J. 2001;43:605–616.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bretz F, Maurer W, Brannath W, Posch M. A graphical approach to sequentially rejective multiple test procedures. Stat Med. 2009;28:586–604.
   Google Scholar
• Bretz F, Posch M, Glimm E, Klinglmueller F, Maurer W, Rohmeyer K. Graphical approaches for multiple comparison procedures using weighted Bonferroni, Simes, or parametric tests. Biom J. 2011;53:894–913.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burman C-F, Sonesson C, Guilbaud O. A recycling framework for the construction of Bonferroni-based multiple tests. Stat Med. 2009;28: 739–761.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durkalski VL, Berger VW. Re-formulating non-inferiority trials as superiority trials: the case of binary outcomes. Biom J. 2009;51:185–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guilbaud O. Note on simultaneous inferences about non-inferiority and superiority for a primary and a secondary endpoint. Biom J. 2011;53:927–937.
   Google Scholar
• Nishikawa M, Tango T, Ohtaki M. Statistical tests based on new composite hypotheses in clinical trials reflecting the relative clinical importance of multiple endpoints quantitatively. Biom J. 2009;51:749–762.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bristol DR. Superior safety in noninferiority trials. Biom J. 2005;47:75–81.
   Google Scholar
• Eichler H-G, Bloechl-Daum B, Abadie E, Barnett D, KÖnig F, Pearson S. Relative efficacy of drugs: an emerging issue between regulatory agencies and third-party payers. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9:277–291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett CL, Nebeker JR, Lyons E, et al. The research on adverse drug events and reports (radar) project. JAMA. 2005;293:2131–2140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsintis DP, Mache EL. CIOMS and ICH initiatives in pharmacovigilance and risk management. Drug Saf. 2004;27:509–517.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards DIR, Wiholm B-E, Martinez C. Concepts in risk-benefit assessment. Drug Saf. 1996;15:1–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zafiropoulos N, Phillips L. Evaluating benefit risk: an agency perspective. Regulatory Rapporteur. 2012;9:5–8.
   Google Scholar
• Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Benefit-Risk Methodology Project. London, UK: The European Medicines Agency; 2009. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Report/2011/07/WC500109477.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration. Structured approach to benefit-risk assessment in drug regulatory decision-making: Draft PDUFA V implementation plan – February 2013, Fiscal Years 2013–2017. Silver Spring, MD, USA: US Food and Drug Administration; 2013. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/UCM329758.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Guo JJ, Pandey S, Doyle J, Bian B, Lis Y, Raisch DW. A review of quantitative risk–benefit methodologies for assessing drug safety and efficacy – report of the ISPOR Risk-Benefit Management Working Group. Value Health. 2010;13:657–666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynd LD, O’Brien BJ. Advances in risk-benefit evaluation using probabilistic simulation methods: an application to the prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:795–803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaffer ML, Watterberg KL. Joint distribution approaches to simultaneously quantifying benefit and risk. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:48.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Drummond MF. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, editors. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. 1st ed. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Briggs A, Fenn P. Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ. 1998;7:723–740.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegel C, Laska E, Meisner M. Statistical methods for cost-effectiveness analyses. Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:387–406.
   Google Scholar
• Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(2 Suppl):S68–S80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ginzler EM, Dooley MA, Aranow C, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil or intravenous cyclophosphamide for lupus nephritis. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2219–2228.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bousser M-G, Amarenco P, Chamorro A, et al. Terutroban versus aspirin in patients with cerebral ischaemic events (PERFORM):a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial. Lancet. 2011;377:2013–2022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aujesky D, Roy P-M, Verschuren F, et al. Outpatient versus inpatient treatment for patients with acute pulmonary embolism: an international, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2011;378:41–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heijnen EM, Eijkemans MJ, De Klerk C, et al. A mild treatment strategy for in-vitro fertilisation: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2007;369:743–749.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaidya JS, Joseph DJ, Tobias JS, et al. Targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole breast radiotherapy for breast cancer (TARGIT-A trial):an international, prospective, randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2010;376:91–102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gladstone BP, Vach W. Choice of non-inferiority (NI) margins does not protect against degradation of treatment effects on an average – an observational study of registered and published NI trials. PLoS One. 2014;9:e103616.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernabe RD, Wangge G, Knol MJ, et al. Phase IV non-inferiority trials and additional claims of benefit. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13:70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiller P, Burchardi N, Niestroj M, Kieser M. Quality of reporting of clinical non-inferiority and equivalence randomised trials – update and extension. Trials. 2012;13:214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullard A. Patient-focused drug development programme takes first steps. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2013;12:651–652.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Information on benefit-risk of medicines: patients’, consumers’ and healthcare professionals’ expectations. London, UK: European Medicines Agency; 2009. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2009/12/WC500018433.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2014.
   Google Scholar