Planning and analysis of three-arm non-inferiority trials with binary endpoints

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 253-273

  Kieser, Meinhard ^a,b   Friede, Tim ^c  

^a DR WILLMAR SCHWABE GMBH AND CO KG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^c NOVARTIS PHARMA AG   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Binomial probabilities; Hypothesis testing; Non inferiority trial; Sample size; Three arm design

Indexed keywords

DULOXETINE; PAROXETINE; PLACEBO;

ACCURACY; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; DEPRESSION; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; EXPERIMENTATION; HAMILTON SCALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; METHODOLOGY; MULTICENTER STUDY; NULL HYPOTHESIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PLANNING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REMISSION; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DEPRESSION; HUMANS; PAROXETINE; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE; SEROTONIN UPTAKE INHIBITORS; STATISTICS; THERAPEUTIC EQUIVALENCY; THIOPHENES;

EID: 33846191097     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.2543     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Temple R. Difficulties in evaluating positive control trials. Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section of the American Statistical Association 1983; 1-7.
2. Jones B, Jarvis P, Lewis JA, Ebbutt AF. Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods. British Medical Journal 1996; 313:36-39.
3. Temple R, Problems in interpreting active control equivalence trials. Accountability in Research 1996; 4:267-275.
4. Röhmel J. Therapeutic equivalence investigations: statistical considerations. Statistics in Medicine 1998; 17:1703-1714.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Temple R, Ellenberg SS. Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments - Part 2: Practical issues anal specific cases. Annals of Internal Medicine 2000; 133:464-470.
8. D'Agostino RB, Massaro JM, Sullivan LM. Non-inferiority trials: design concepts and issues - the encounters of academic consultants in statistics. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22:169-186.
9. Hung HMJ, Wang SJ, Tsong Y, Lawrence J, O'Neill RT. Some fundamental issues with non-inferiority testing in active controlled trials. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22:213-225.
10. Rothmann M, Li N, Chen G, Chi GYH, Temple R, Tsou HH. Design and analysis of non-inferiority mortality trials in oncology. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22:239-264.
11. CPMP Guideline on the choice of the non-inferiority margin (CPMP/EWP/ 2158/99). At http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/ewp/215899en.pdf, 2005.
12. Simon R. Bayesian design and analysis of active control clinical trials. Biometrics 1999; 55:484-487.
13. Koch A, Röhmel J. Hypothesis testing in the 'Gold Standard' design for proving the efficacy of an experimental treatment relative to placebo and a reference. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 2004; 14:315-325.
14. Goldstein DJ, Lu Y, Detke MJ, Wiltse C, Mallinckrodt C, Demitrack MA. Duloxetine in the treatment of depression. A double-blind placebo-controlled comparison with paroxetine. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2004; 24:389-398.
15. Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1960; 23:56-62.
16. Nierenberg AA, Wright EC. Evolution of remission as the new standard in the treatment of depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 1999; 60(suppl. 22):7-11.
17. Koch GG, Tangen CM. Nonparametric analysis of covariance and its role in noninferiority clinical trials. Drug Information Journal 1999; 33:1145-1159.
18. Pigeot I, Schäfer J, Röhmel J, Hauschke D. Assessing non-inferiority of a new treatment in a three-arm clinical trial including a placebo. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22:883-899.
19. Blackwelder WC. Proving the null hypothesis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1982; 3:345-353.
20. Miettinen OS, Nurminen M. Comparative analysis of two rates. Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226.
21. Farrington CP, Manning G. Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference or non-unity relative risk. Statistics in Medicine 1990; 9:1447-1454.
22. Tang M-L, Tang N-S. Tests of noninferiority via rate difference for three-arm clinical trials with placebo. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 2004; 14:337-347.
23. Lachin J. Introduction to sample size determination and power analysis for clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1981; 2:93-113.
24. Sahai H, Khurshid A. Formulae and tables for the determination of sample sizes and power in clinical trials for testing differences in proportions for the two-sample design: a review. Statistics in Medicine 1996; 15:1-21.
25. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/IML User's Guide, Version 8. SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, 1999.
26. Brittain E, Schlesselman JJ. Optimal allocation for the comparison of proportions. Biometrics 1982; 38:1003-1009.
27. De Boo TM, Zielhuis GA. Minimization of sample size when comparing two small probabilities in a non-inferiority safety trial. Statistics in Medicine 2004; 23:1683-1699.
28. Skipka G, Munk A, Freitag G. Unconditional exact tests for the difference of binomial probabilities - contrasted and compared. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 2004; 47:757-773.
29. Röhmel J, Wassmer G. Letter to the Editor: Minimization of sample size when comparing two small probabilities in a non-inferiority safety trial by de Boo TM and Zielhuis GA (with rejoinder by the authors). Statistics in Medicine 2004; 23:3393-3396.
30. ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guideline. Choice of control group and related issues in clinical trials (CPMP/ICH/364/96). At http://www.emea.eu.int/ pdfs/human/ich/036496en.pdf, 2000.
31. Roebruck P, Kühn A. Comparisons of tests and sample size formulas for proving therapeutic equivalence based on the difference of binomial probabilities. Statistics in Medicine 1995; 14:1583-1594.
32. Friede T, Kieser M. Sample size recalculation for binary data in internal pilot study designs. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2004; 3:269-279.