Exploring different objectives in non-inferiority trials

被引:0
作者
Tweed, Conor D. [1 ]
Quartagno, Matteo [1 ]
Clements, Michelle N. [1 ]
Turner, Rebecca M. [1 ]
Nunn, Andrew J. [1 ]
Dunn, David T. [1 ]
White, Ian R. [1 ]
Copas, Andrew J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Coll London UCL, Med Res Council MRC Clin Trials Unit, London WC1V 6LJ, England
来源
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL | 2024年 / 385卷
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
CLINICAL-TRIALS; NONINFERIORITY; DESIGN;
D O I
10.1136/bmj-2023-078000
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Non -inferiority trials compare the efficacy of a new treatment with an existing one where the new treatment is expected to have broadly similar efficacy to the existing treatment, but where other benefits might make the new treatment desirable. These trials might aim to demonstrate that a new treatment is either an alternative to, or a replacement for, the current treatment. In this article, how treatment comparisons can be based only on efficacy, or on both efficacy and other benefits, is explained, and guidance on how to choose the correct objective for a trial is given. This choice should influence the design of the trial (eg, choosing the non -inferiority margin and secondary outcomes), analysis, and reporting of the trial. Most noninferiority trials aim to show only that a new treatment is an alternative to the standard of care. Being more transparent about the trial objective, however, could mean that more trials are conducted with an emphasis on the risk -benefit trade-off for a new treatment and generate more clinically meaningful trial results with a greater effect on practice.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 23 条
  • [1] Individually shortened duration versus standard duration of elastic compression therapy for prevention of post-thrombotic syndrome: a cost-effectiveness analysis
    Amin, Elham E.
    ten Cate-Hoek, Arina J.
    Bouman, Annemieke C.
    Meijer, Karina
    Tick, Lidwine
    Middeldorp, Saskia
    Mostard, Guy
    ten Wolde, Marije
    van den Heiligenberg, Simone
    van Wissen, Sanne
    van de Poet, Marlene
    Villalta, Sabina
    Serne, Erik
    Otten, Hans Martin
    Klappe, Edith
    Prandoni, Paolo
    Prins, Martin H.
    ten Cate, Hugo
    Joore, Manuela A.
    [J]. LANCET HAEMATOLOGY, 2018, 5 (11): : E512 - E519
  • [2] [Anonymous], ICH E9 statistical principles for clinical trials
  • [3] A Bayesian non-inferiority approach using experts' margin elicitation application to the monitoring of safety events
    Aupiais, Camille
    Alberti, Corinne
    Schmitz, Thomas
    Baud, Olivier
    Ursino, Moreno
    Zohar, Sarah
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2019, 19 (01)
  • [4] Sample Size Estimation for Non-Inferiority Trials: Frequentist Approach versus Decision Theory Approach
    Bouman, A. C.
    ten Cate-Hoek, A. J.
    Ramaekers, B. L. T.
    Joore, M. A.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (06):
  • [5] Methodology of superiority vs. equivalence trials and non-inferiority trials
    Christensen, Erik
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY, 2007, 46 (05) : 947 - 954
  • [6] Clinical trials with moving targets: a commentary on a non-inferiority trial in testicular cancer
    Cullen, M
    Stenning, S
    [J]. LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2004, 5 (02) : 129 - 132
  • [7] Superiority and non-inferiority: two sides of the same coin?
    Dunn, David T.
    Copas, Andrew J.
    Brocklehurst, Peter
    [J]. TRIALS, 2018, 19
  • [8] European Medicines Agency, 2005, Guideline on the choice of the non-inferiority margin
  • [9] Some essential considerations in the design and conduct of non-inferiority trials
    Fleming, Thomas R.
    Odem-Davis, Katherine
    Rothmann, Mark D.
    Shen, Yuan Li
    [J]. CLINICAL TRIALS, 2011, 8 (04) : 432 - 439
  • [10] Factors associated with clinical trials that fail and opportunities for improving the likelihood of success: A review
    Fogel, David B.
    [J]. CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS COMMUNICATIONS, 2018, 11 : 156 - 164