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
  • [31] Understanding non-inferiority trials: an introduction
    Brasher, Penelope M. A.
    Dobson, Gary
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIA-JOURNAL CANADIEN D ANESTHESIE, 2014, 61 (05): : 389 - 392
  • [32] Using a single non-inferiority margin or a single preserved fraction for an entire pharmacological class may be invalid for the analysis of non-inferiority: A case study of statin non-inferiority trials
    Althunian, Turki
    de Boer, Anthonius
    Groenwold, Rolf H. H.
    Klungel, Olaf H.
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2018, 27 : 149 - 149
  • [33] The limitations of equivalence and non-inferiority trials
    Rief, Winfried
    Hofmann, Stefan G.
    PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE, 2019, 49 (02) : 349 - 350
  • [34] Switching between superiority and non-inferiority
    Murray, GD
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 2001, 52 (03) : 219 - 219
  • [35] Non-Inferiority Trials in Surgical Oncology
    Philipp Fueglistaler
    Michel Adamina
    Ulrich Guller
    Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2007, 14 : 1532 - 1539
  • [36] Futility stopping in non-inferiority trials
    Su, Zheng
    Stuntz, Mark
    CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS COMMUNICATIONS, 2019, 13
  • [37] The ethics of non-inferiority trials - Reply
    Garattini, Silvio
    Bertele', Vittorio
    LANCET, 2008, 371 (9616): : 896 - 897
  • [38] Statistical Question: Non-inferiority trials
    Sedgwick, Philip
    BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2011, 342
  • [39] Anger over non-inferiority trials
    不详
    NATURE REVIEWS DRUG DISCOVERY, 2006, 5 (10) : 808 - 809
  • [40] Is there a danger of “biocreep” with non-inferiority trials?
    Primrose Beryl
    Werner Vach
    Trials, 12 (Suppl 1)