Indirect comparisons in the comparative efficacy and non-inferiority settings

Pharmaceutical Statistics

Volumn 10, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 420-426

  Snapinn, Steven ^a   Jiang, Qi ^a  

^a AMGEN INC   (United States)

Author keywords

ICH E10; power; preservation of effect; regulatory approval; sample size

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG RESEARCH; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; PLACEBO EFFECT; SAMPLE SIZE; STANDARD;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; CONTROL GROUPS; DRUG AND NARCOTIC CONTROL; DRUG APPROVAL; HUMANS; INTERNATIONALITY; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PLACEBOS; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 80053479579     PISSN: 15391604     EISSN: 15391612     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pst.509     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. ICH E-10. International Conference on Harmonization: Choice of Control Group in Clinical Trials, January 2001. Available at:.
2. Julious SA, Wang S-J,. How biased are indirect comparisons, particularly when comparisons are made over time in controlled trials? Drug Information Journal 2008; 42: 625-633.
3. FDA Guidance for Industry: Non-Inferiority Clinical Trials, March 2010. Available at:.
4. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP): Guideline on the choice of the non-inferiority margin, July 2005. Available at:.
5. Peterson P, Carroll K, Chuang-Stein C, Ho Y-Y, Jiang Q, Li G, Sanchez M, Sax R, Wang Y-C, Snapinn S,. PISC expert team white paper: Toward a consistent standard of evidence when evaluating the efficacy of an experimental treatment from a randomized, active-controlled trial. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research 2010; 2: 522-531.
6. Snapinn S,. Alternatives for discounting in the analysis of noninferiority trials. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 2004; 14: 263-273. (Pubitemid 38715780)
7. Sutton A, Ades AE, Cooper N, Abrams K,. Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26: 753-767.
8. Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, Lee K, Boersma C, Annemans L, Cappelleri JC,. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: Report of the ISPOR task force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices: Part 1. Value in Health 2011; 14: 417-428.
9. Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, Scott DA, Itzler R, Cappelleri JC, Boersma C, Thompson D, Larholt KM, Diaz M, Barrett A,. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: Report of the ISPOR task force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices: Part 2. Value in Health 2011; 14: 429-437.
10. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD,. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1997; 50: 683-691. (Pubitemid 27341818)
11. Snapinn S, Jiang Q,. Preservation of effect and the regulatory approval of new treatments on the basis of non-inferiority trials. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27: 382-391. (Pubitemid 351227874)
12. O'Kelly M, Julious SA, Pyke S, Day S, Todd S, Seldrup J, Matcham J,. Making available information from studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry: some current practices. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2011; 10: 60-69.
13. Matcham J, Julious S, Pyke S, O'Kelly M, Todd S, Seldrup J, Day S,. Proposed best practice for statisticians in the reporting and publication of pharmaceutical industry-sponsored clinical trials. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2011; 10: 70-73.
14. Pyke S, Julious SA, Day S, O'Kelly M, Todd S, Matcham J, Seldrup J,. The potential for bias in reporting of industry-sponsored clinical trials. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2011; 10: 74-79.