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
  • [21] The tyranny of non-inferiority trials
    Tannock, Ian F.
    Buyse, Marc
    De Backer, Mickael
    Earl, Helena
    Goldstein, Daniel A.
    Ratain, Mark
    Saltz, Leonard B.
    Sonke, Gabe S.
    Strohbehn, Garth W.
    LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2024, 25 (10): : e520 - e525
  • [22] Superiority, equivalence or non-inferiority?
    Cipriani, Andrea
    Girlanda, Francesca
    Barbui, Corrado
    EPIDEMIOLOGIA E PSICHIATRIA SOCIALE-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRIC SCIENCES, 2009, 18 (04): : 311 - 313
  • [23] The YOMEGA non-inferiority trial
    Musella, Mario
    Vitiello, Antonio
    LANCET, 2019, 394 (10207): : 1412 - 1412
  • [24] Is the non-inferiority conclusion true?
    Schutte, Soleil S.
    REGIONAL ANESTHESIA AND PAIN MEDICINE, 2025,
  • [25] Chapter 6 Non-inferiority Trial
    Peter Pang
    实用休克杂志(中英文), 2019, 3 (04) : 254 - 256
  • [26] RE: A NOTE ON NON-INFERIORITY MARGINS
    Al Deeb, Mohammad
    Azad, Aftab
    Barbic, David
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2015, 17 (03) : 239 - 239
  • [27] Subgroup discovery in non-inferiority trials
    Fazzari, Melissa J.
    Kim, Mimi Y.
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2021, 40 (24) : 5174 - 5187
  • [28] Equivalence and Non-inferiority Trials of CAM
    Ernst, Edzard
    EVIDENCE-BASED COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE, 2004, 1 (01) : 9 - 10
  • [29] Non-inferiority statistics and equivalence studies
    Walker, J.
    BJA EDUCATION, 2019, 19 (08) : 267 - 271
  • [30] Non-inferiority trials in surgical oncology
    Fueglistaler, Philipp
    Adamina, Michel
    Guller, Ulrich
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2007, 14 (05) : 1532 - 1539