Controlling the type 1 error rate in non‐inferiority trials

Two different approaches have been proposed for establishing the efficacy of an experimental therapy through a non-inferiority trial: The fixed-margin approach involves first defining a non-inferiority margin and then demonstrating that the experimental therapy is not worse than the control by more than this amount, and the synthesis approach involves combining the data from the non-inferiority trial with the data from historical trials evaluating the effect of the control. In this paper, we introduce a unified approach that has both these approaches as special cases and show how the parameters of this approach can be selected to control the unconditional type 1 error rate in the presence of departures from the assumptions of assay sensitivity and constancy. It is shown that the fixed-margin approach can be extremely inefficient and that it is always possible to achieve equivalent control of the unconditional type 1 error rate, with higher power, by using an appropriately chosen synthesis method.

[1]  David F. Kong,et al.  Statistical Methods for Comparison to Placebo in Active-Control Trials , 2001 .

[2]  Steven M Snapinn,et al.  Alternatives for Discounting in the Analysis of Noninferiority Trials , 2004, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[3]  Sin-Ho Jung,et al.  Sample Size Computation for Two-Sample Noninferiority Log-Rank Test , 2005, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[4]  Sanjay Kaul,et al.  Good Enough: A Primer on the Analysis and Interpretation of Noninferiority Trials , 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[5]  J A Lewis,et al.  Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods , 1996, BMJ.

[6]  I. Chan POWER AND SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION FOR NONINFERIORITY TRIALS USING AN EXACT METHOD , 2002, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[7]  S S Ellenberg,et al.  Placebo-Controlled Trials and Active-Control Trials in the Evaluation of New Treatments. Part 1: Ethical and Scientific Issues , 2000, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[8]  E. Holmgren,et al.  Establishing equivalence by showing that a specified percentage of the effect of the active control over placebo is maintained. , 1999, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[9]  R. D'Agostino,et al.  Non‐inferiority trials: design concepts and issues – the encounters of academic consultants in statistics , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  Yi Tsong,et al.  Utility and pitfalls of some statistical methods in active controlled clinical trials. , 2002, Controlled clinical trials.

[11]  H M James Hung,et al.  TACT method for non‐inferiority testing in active controlled trials , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  Mark Rothmann,et al.  Design and analysis of non‐inferiority mortality trials in oncology , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  S. Ellenberg,et al.  Placebo-Controlled Trials and Active-Control Trials in the Evaluation of New Treatments. Part 2: Practical Issues and Specific Cases , 2000, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[14]  Walter W. Hauck,et al.  Some Issues in the Design and Analysis of Equivalence Trials , 1999 .

[15]  Paul Zhang A Simple Formula for Sample Size Calculation in Equivalence Studies , 2003, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[16]  Yi Tsong,et al.  Some fundamental issues with non‐inferiority testing in active controlled trials , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[17]  J P Siegel,et al.  Equivalence and noninferiority trials. , 2000, American heart journal.