A valid formulation of the analysis of noninferiority trials under random effects meta-analysis

被引:22
作者
Brittain, Erica H. [1 ]
Fay, Michael P. [1 ]
Follmann, Dean A. [1 ]
机构
[1] NIAID, Biostat Res Branch, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
关键词
Active control trial; Clinical trial; Meta-analysis; Noninferiority trial; Random effects; Synthesis method; NON-INFERIORITY TRIALS; DESIGN; ISSUES;
D O I
10.1093/biostatistics/kxs006
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
A noninferiority (NI) trial is sometimes employed to show efficacy of a new treatment when it is unethical to randomize current patients to placebo because of the established efficacy of a standard treatment. Under this framework, if the NI trial determines that the treatment advantage of the standard to the new drug (i.e. S-N) is less than the historic advantage of the standard to placebo (S-P), then the efficacy of the new treatment (N-P) is established indirectly. We explicitly combine information from the NI trial with estimates from a random effects model, allowing study-to-study variability in k historic trials. Existing methods under random effects, such as the synthesis method, fail to account for the variability of the true standard versus placebo effect in the NI trial. Our method effectively uses a prediction interval for the missing standard versus placebo effect rather than a confidence interval of the mean. The consequences are to increase the variance of the synthesis method by incorporating a prediction variance term and to approximate the null distribution of the new statistic with a t with k-1 degrees of freedom instead of the standard normal. Thus, it is harder to conclude NI of the new to (predicted) placebo, compared with traditional methods, especially when k is small or when between study variability is large. When the between study variances are nonzero, we demonstrate substantial Type I error rate inflation with conventional approaches; simulations suggest that the new procedure has only modest inflation, and it is very conservative when between study variances are zero. An example is used to illustrate practical issues.
引用
收藏
页码:637 / 649
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: An update
    DerSimonian, Rebecca
    Kacker, Raghu
    CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS, 2007, 28 (02) : 105 - 114
  • [2] Nocebo effects in multiple sclerosis trials: a meta-analysis
    Papadopoulos, D.
    Mitsikostas, D. D.
    MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL, 2010, 16 (07) : 816 - 828
  • [3] Bayesian methods for the design and analysis of noninferiority trials
    Gamalo-Siebers, Margaret
    Gao, Aijun
    Lakshminarayanan, Mani
    Liu, Guanghan
    Natanegara, Fanni
    Railkar, Radha
    Schmidli, Heinz
    Song, Guochen
    JOURNAL OF BIOPHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS, 2016, 26 (05) : 823 - 841
  • [4] Meta-analysis combining parallel and cross-over trials with random effects
    Curtin, Francois
    RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2017, 8 (03) : 263 - 274
  • [5] Effects of different interventions on internet addiction: A meta-analysis of random controlled trials
    Zhang, Xueqing
    Zhang, Jianghui
    Zhang, Kexin
    Ren, Juan
    Lu, Xiaoyan
    Wang, Tianli
    Yang, Huayu
    Guo, Haiyun
    Yuan, Guojing
    Zhu, Zhihui
    Hao, Jiahu
    Sun, Ying
    Su, Puyu
    Yang, Linsheng
    Zhang, Zhihua
    JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS, 2022, 313 : 56 - 71
  • [6] Consequences of Inaccurate Assumptions in Coronary Stent Noninferiority Trials A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Simonato, Matheus
    Ben-Yehuda, Ori
    Vincent, Flavien
    Zhang, Zixuan
    Redfors, Bjoern
    JAMA CARDIOLOGY, 2022, 7 (03) : 320 - 327
  • [7] Some problems with the investigation of noninferiority in meta-analysis
    Witte, S
    Victor, N
    METHODS OF INFORMATION IN MEDICINE, 2004, 43 (05) : 470 - 474
  • [8] The interpretation of random-effects meta-analysis in decision models
    Ades, AE
    Lu, G
    Higgins, JPT
    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2005, 25 (06) : 646 - 654
  • [9] Meta-analysis: Random-effects model
    Spineli, Loukia M.
    Pandis, Nikolaos
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2020, 157 (02) : 280 - 282
  • [10] Empirical vs natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis
    Shuster, Jonathan J.
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2010, 29 (12) : 1259 - 1265