Noninferiority hypotheses and choice of noninferiority margin

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 27, Issue 26, 2008, Pages 5392-5406

  Ng, Tie Hua ^a  

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

Author keywords

Active control; Binary; Hazard ratio; Mean ratio; Noninferiority margin; Odds ratio

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOASSAY; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 59449099750     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.3367     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) E9 Guideline. Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials. International Conference on Harmonization, 1998. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/ICH_E9-fnl.pdf (20 August 2007).
2. International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) E10 Guideline. Choice of Control Groups in Clinical Trials. International Conference on Harmonization, 2001. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/4155fnl.pdf (20 August 2007).
3. Ng T-H. A specification of treatment difference in the design of clinical trials with active controls. Drug Information Journal 1993; 27:705-719.
4. Ng T-H. Choice of delta in equivalence testing. Drug Information Journal 2001; 35:1517-1527.
5. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP). Points to consider on the choice of non-inferiority margin (Draft). CPMP /EWP/2158/99, Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP), 2004.
6. Seldrup J. Comments regarding CPMP|EWP|2158|99 draft: points to consider on the choice of non-inferiority margin. International Society for Clinical Biostatistics News, June 2004.
7. European Medicines Agency (EMEA). Committee for medicinal products for human use (CHMP). Guideline on the choice of the non-inferiority margin. EMEA|CPMP|EWP|2158|99, European Medicines Agency (EMEA), 2005.
8. Gupta G, Hsu H, Ng T-H, Tiwari T, Wang C. Statistical review experiences in equivalence testing at FDA/CBER. Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section. American Statistical Association: Alexandria, VA, 1999; 220-223.
9. Tsong Y, Wang S-J, Hung H-MJ, Cui L. Statistical issues on objectives, designs and analysis of non-inferiority test active controlled clinical trials. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 2003; 13:29-41.
10. Hung H-MJ, Wang S-J, O'Neill RT. A regulatory perspective on choice of margin and statistical inference issue in non-inferiority trials. Biometrical Journal 2005; 47:28-36.
11. Hauck WW, Anderson S. Some issues in the design and analysis of equivalence trials. Drug Information Journal 1999; 33:109-118.
12. Wang S-J, Hung H-MJ. Assessment of treatment efficacy in non-inferiority trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 2003; 24:147-155.
13. Schuirmann DJ. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. Journal ofPharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutic 1987; 15:657-680.
14. Rothmann M, Li N, Chen G, Chi GY-H, Temple R, Tsou H-H. Design and analysis of non-inferiority mortality trials in oncology. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22:239-264.
15. Laster LL, Johnson MF. Non-inferiority trials: the 'at least as good as' criterion. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22:187-200.
16. Simon R. Bayesian design and analysis of active control clinical trials. Biometrics 1999; 55:484-487.
17. Hshieh P, Ng T-H. Noninferiority testing with a given percentage of the control as the noninferiority margin. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Biopharmaceutical Section [CD-ROM]. American Statistical Association: Alexandria, VA, 2007; 1550-1551.
18. Wellek S. Statistical methods for the analysis of two-arm non-inferiority trials with binary outcomes. Biometrical Journal 2005; 47:48-61.
19. Garret AD. Therapeutic equivalence: fallacies and falsification. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22:741-762.
20. McCullagh P, Nelder JA. Generalized Linear Models. Chapman & Hall: New York, 1990; 31.
21. Tu D. On the use of the ratio or the odds ratio of cure rates in therapeutic equivalence clinical trials with binary endpoints. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 1998; 8:263-282.
22. Senn S. Consensus and controversy in pharmaceutical statistics (with Discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series D 2000; 49:135-176.