A proof of concept phase II non-inferiority criterion

被引:22
|
作者
Neuenschwander, Beat [1 ]
Rouyrre, Nicolas [1 ]
Hollaender, Norbert [1 ]
Zuber, Emmanuel [1 ]
Branson, Michael [1 ]
机构
[1] Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland
关键词
Bayesian; level of proof; proof of concept; oncology; progression-free survival; time-to-event; DESIGN; TRIALS; ISSUES;
D O I
10.1002/sim.3997
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Traditional phase III non-inferiority trials require compelling evidence that the treatment vs control effect theta is better than a pre-specified non-inferiority margin theta(NI). The standard approach compares this margin to the 95 per cent confidence interval of the effect parameter. In the phase II setting, in order to declare Proof of Concept (PoC) for non-inferiority and proceed in the development of the drug, different criteria that are specifically tailored toward company internal decision making may be more appropriate. For example, less evidence may be needed as long as the effect estimate is reasonably convincing. We propose a non-inferiority design that addresses the specifics of the phase II setting. The requirements are that (1) the effect estimate be better than a critical threshold theta(C), and (2) the type I error with regard to theta(NI) is controlled at a pre-specified level. This design is compared with the traditional design from a frequentist as well as a Bayesian perspective, where the latter relies on the Level of Proof (LoP) metric, i.e. the probability that the true effect is better than effect values of interest. Clinical input is required to establish the value theta(C), which makes the design transparent and improves interactions within clinical teams. The proposed design is illustrated for a non-inferiority trial for a time-to-event endpoint in oncology. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:1618 / 1627
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Non-inferiority trials: the 'at least as good as' criterion
    Laster, LL
    Johnson, MF
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2003, 22 (02) : 187 - 200
  • [2] Non-inferiority trials: the "at least as good as" criterion.
    Laster, LL
    Johnson, MF
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 2002, 81 : A219 - A219
  • [3] Non-inferiority trials:: the 'at least as good as' criterion with dichotomous data
    Laster, LL
    Johnson, MF
    Kotler, ML
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2006, 25 (07) : 1115 - 1130
  • [4] The impact of an inappropriate non-inferiority margin in a non-inferiority trial
    Gupta, Reena
    Gupta, Himanshu
    Banker, Manish
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2016, 31 (12) : 2892 - 2893
  • [5] Sample size calculation for phase II non-inferiority stroke imaging trial
    Phan, T.
    Ma, H.
    CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES, 2014, 37 : 346 - 346
  • [6] Sample Size Calculation for Phase II Non-Inferiority Stroke Imaging Trial
    Thanh Phan
    Ma, Henry
    CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES, 2014, 38 : 34 - 35
  • [7] Reply: The impact of an inappropriate non-inferiority margin in a non-inferiority trial
    Groenewoud, Eva
    Kollen, Boudewijn
    Macklon, Nick
    Cohlen, Ben
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2016, 31 (12) : 2893 - 2893
  • [8] Testing for non-inferiority
    Murphy, Thomas D.
    Carson, John
    Standardization News, 2016, 44 (03) : 34 - 35
  • [9] Is this a non-inferiority trial?
    O'Halloran, Peter
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 2013, 202 (02) : 154 - 154
  • [10] PHASE II STUDY EVALUATING THE NON-INFERIORITY OF THE DEVICE FLEXITHERALIGHT® COMPARED TO CONVENTIONAL PDT
    Vicentini, Claire
    Tylcz, Jean-Baptiste
    Maire, Cyril
    Betrouni, Nacim
    Mortier, Laurent
    Mordon, Serge
    LASERS IN SURGERY AND MEDICINE, 2016, 48 : 51 - 51