TACT method for non-inferiority testing in active controlled trials

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 227-238

  Wang, Sue Jane ^a   Hung, H M James ^a  

^a CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Alpha error and power; Confidence interval method; Efficacy; Non inferiority margin; Preservation of control effect; Synthesis method

Indexed keywords

ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID; DALTEPARIN; HEPARIN; PLACEBO;

ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG RESEARCH; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS; DRUG EVALUATION; HUMANS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PLACEBOS; RESEARCH DESIGN; STATISTICS;

EID: 0037472705     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.1316     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Temple R. Difficulties in evaluating positive control trials. Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section of American Statistical Association 1983; 1-7.
2. Fleming TR. Treatment evaluation in active control studies. Cancer Treatment Reports 1987; 71:1061-1064.
3. Pledger G, Hall DB. Active control equivalence studies: do they address the efficacy issue? In Statistical Issues in Drug Research and Development. Marcel Dekker: New York, 1990; 226-238.
4. Jones B, Jarvis P, Lewis JA, Ebbutt AF. Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods. British Medical Journal 1996; 313:36-39.
5. Temple R. Problems in interpreting active control equivalence trials. Accountability in Research 1996; 4: 267-275.
6. Ebbutt AF, Frith L. Practical issues in equivalence trials. Statistics in Medicine 1998; 17:1691-1701.
7. Rohmel J. Therapeutic equivalence investigations: statistical considerations. Statistics in Medicine 1998; 17:1703-1714.
8. Tsong Y, Higgins K, Wang SJ, Hung HMJ. An overview of equivalence testing - CDER reviewers' perspective. Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section of the American Statistical Association 1999; 214-219.
9. Siegel JP. Equivalence and noninferiority trials. American Heart Journal 2000; 139:S166-S170.
10. Fleming TR. Design and interpretation of equivalence trials. American Heart Journal 2000; 139:S171-S176.
11. Temple R, Ellenberg SS. Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments - Part 1: Ethical and scientific issues. Annals of Internal Medicine 2000; 133:455-463.
12. Ellenberg SS, Temple R. Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments-Part 2: Practical issues and specific cases. Annals of Internal Medicine 2000; 133:464-470.
13. International Conference on Harmonization: Guidance on choice of control group and related design and conduct issues in clinical trials (ICH E-10). Food and Drug Administration, DHHS, July 2000.
14. CBER/FDA Memorandum. Summary of CBER considerations on selected aspects of active controlled trial design and analysis for the evaluation of thrombolytics in acute MI, June 1999.
15. Makuch R, Simon R. Sample size requirements for evaluating a conservative therapy. Cancer Treatment Reports 1978; 62(7):1037-1040.
16. Durrleman S, Simon R. Planning and monitoring of equivalence studies. Biometrics 1990; 46(2):329-336.
17. Holmgren EB. Establishing equivalence by showing that a prespecified percentage of the effect of the active control over placebo is maintained. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 1999; 9(4):651-659.
18. Fisher LD, Gent M, Büller HR. Active-control trials: How would a new agent compare with placebo? A method illustrated with clopidogrel, aspirin, and placebo. American Heart Journal 2001; 141:26-32.
19. Hasselblad V, Kong DF. Statistical methods for comparison to placebo in active-control trials. Drug Information Journal 2001; 35:435-449.
20. Wang SJ, Hung HMJ, Tsong Y. Utility and pitfall of some statistical methods in active controlled clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 2002; 23(1):15-28.
21. Simon R. Bayesian design and analysis of active control clinical trials. Biometrics 1999; 55:484-487.
22. Hung HMJ, Wang SJ, Tsong Y, Lawrence J, O'Neill RT. Some fundamental issues with non-inferiority testing in active controlled trials. Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section of American Statistics Association 2001.
23. Lan KKG, DeMets DL. Design and analysis of group sequential tests based on the type I error spending function. Biometrika 1983; 74:149-154.
24. O'Brien PC, Fleming TR. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics 1979; 35:549-556.
25. Wallentin L, Fragmin during instability in Coronary Artery Disease (FRISC) study group. Low-molecular-weight heparin during instability in coronary artery disease. Lancet 1996; 347:561-568.
26. Klein W, Buchwald A, Hillis SE, Monrad S, Sanz G, Gurpie AGG, Meer J, Olaisson E, Undeland S, Ludwig K, for the FRIC Investigators. Comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin with unfractionated heparin acutely and with placebo for 6 weeks in the management of unstable coronary artery disease, Fragmin in unstable coronary artery disease study (FRIC). Circulation 1997; 96:61-68.
27. Cui L, Hung HMJ, Wang SJ. Modification of sample size in group sequential trials. Biometrics 1999; 55: 853-857.