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
  • [41] When inferiority meets non-inferiority : Implications for interim analyses
    Bratton, Daniel J.
    Williams, Hywel C.
    Kahan, Brennan C.
    Phillips, Patrick P. J.
    Nunn, Andrew J.
    CLINICAL TRIALS, 2012, 9 (05) : 605 - 609
  • [42] Assessing non-inferiority: A combination approach
    Gao, Ping
    Ware, James H.
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2008, 27 (03) : 392 - 406
  • [43] Remaining Challenges in Assessing Non-Inferiority
    Snapinn, Steven
    Jiang, Qi
    THERAPEUTIC INNOVATION & REGULATORY SCIENCE, 2014, 48 (01) : 62 - 67
  • [44] Research Note: Non-inferiority trials
    Hinman, Rana S.
    Kasza, Jessica
    JOURNAL OF PHYSIOTHERAPY, 2023, 69 (02) : 129 - 132
  • [45] Non-inferiority testing with a variable margin
    Zhang, Zhiwei
    BIOMETRICAL JOURNAL, 2006, 48 (06) : 948 - 965
  • [46] Remaining Challenges in Assessing Non-Inferiority
    Steven Snapinn
    Qi Jiang
    Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 2014, 48 : 62 - 67
  • [47] Superiority, Equivalence, and Non-Inferiority Trials
    Lesaffre, Emmanuel
    BULLETIN OF THE HOSPITAL FOR JOINT DISEASES, 2008, 66 (02): : 150 - 154
  • [48] Current issues in non-inferiority trials
    Flerning, Thomas R.
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2008, 27 (03) : 317 - 332
  • [49] Time to end the non-inferiority complex?
    Julious, Steven A.
    PHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS, 2011, 10 (05) : 393 - 394
  • [50] Two-stage winner designs for non-inferiority trials with pre-specified non-inferiority margin
    Wang, Pin-Wen
    Lu, Shou-En
    Lin, Yong
    Shih, Weichung J.
    Lan, K. K. Gordon
    JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL PLANNING AND INFERENCE, 2017, 183 : 44 - 61