Designing a non-inferiority study in kidney transplantation: A case study

Pharmaceutical Statistics

Volumn 10, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 427-432

  Witte, Steffen ^a   Schmidli, Heinz ^a   O'Hagan, Anthony ^b   Racine, Amy ^a  

^a NOVARTIS PHARMA AG   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

95 95 rule; constancy; hybrid approach; meta analysis; non inferiority margin; preservation method; synthesis approach

Indexed keywords

AZATHIOPRINE; CORTICOSTEROID; CYCLOSPORIN A; EVEROLIMUS; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID 2 MORPHOLINOETHYL ESTER; PLACEBO; RAPAMYCIN; TACROLIMUS;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMBINATION CHEMOTHERAPY; HUMAN; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT; KIDNEY GRAFT REJECTION; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MEDICAL ETHICS; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; PLACEBO EFFECT;

BAYES THEOREM; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; CONTROL GROUPS; DRUGS, INVESTIGATIONAL; HUMANS; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENTS; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PLACEBOS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 80053562749     PISSN: 15391604     EISSN: 15391612     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pst.511     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. International Conference on Harmonisation. Guidance on choice of control group and related design and conduct issues in clinical trials (ICH E10), 2000. Available at: (accessed 1 July 2011).
2. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Guideline on the choice of the non-inferiority margin. EMEA/CPMP/EWP/2158/99, 2005. Available at: (accessed 1 July 2011).
3. FDA/CDER/CBER. Guidance for Industry: Non-inferiority clinical trials (Draft) FDA/CDER/CBER, March 2010. Available at: (accessed 1 July 2011).
4. Kälble T, Alcaraz A, Budde K, Humke U, Karam G, Lucan M, Nicita G, Süsal C,. Immunosuppression after kidney transplantation. In Guidelines on renal transplantation. European Association of Urology (EAU): Arnhem, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 55-65.
5. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Transplant Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care of Kidney Transplant Recipients. American Journal of Transplantation 2009; 9 (Suppl 3): S10-S13.
6. Webster A, Taylor RS, Chapman JR, Craig JC,. Tacrolimus versus cyclosporin as primary immunosuppression for kidney transplant recipients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005; (4): CD003961.
7. Tedesco SH Jr, Cibrik D, Johnston T, Lackova E, Mange K, Panis C, Walker R, Wang Z, Zibari G, Kim YS,. Everolimus plus reduced-exposure CsA versus mycophenolic acid plus standard-exposure CsA in renal-transplant Recipients. American Journal of Transplantation 2010; 10: 1401-1413.
8. Wang SJ, Hung HMJ, Tsong Y,. Utility and pitfalls of some statistical methods in active controlled clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 2002; 23: 15-28. (Pubitemid 34164355)
9. Wiens BL,. Choosing an equivalence limit for noninferiority or equivalence studies. Controlled Clinical Trials 2002; 23: 2-14. (Pubitemid 34164354)
10. Rothmann M, Li N, Chen G, Chi GYH, Temple R, Tsou HH,. Design and analysis of non-inferiority mortality trials. Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22: 239-264. (Pubitemid 36163584)
11. Julious SA, Owen RJ,. A comparison of methods for sample size estimation for non-inferiority studies with binary outcomes. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2010. DOI: 10.1177/0962280210378945.
12. Dann RS, Koch GG,. Methods for one-sided testing of the difference between proportions and sample size considerations related to non-inferiority clinical trials. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2008; 7: 130-141. (Pubitemid 351943641)
13. Fisher LD,. Active control trials: what about a placebo? A method illustrated with clopidogrel, aspirin and placebo (abstract). Journal of the American College of Cardiology 1998; 31: 49A.
14. Hasselblad V, Kong DF,. Statistical methods for comparison to placebo in active-control trials. Drug Information Journal 2001; 35: 435-449. (Pubitemid 32524896)
15. Snapinn S, Jiang Q,. Controlling the type 1 error rate in non-inferiority trials. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27: 371-381. (Pubitemid 351227873)
16. 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)
17. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Points to consider on application with meta-analyses. EMEA/CPMP/EWP/2330/99, 2001. Available at: (accessed 1 July 2011).
18. Hauck WW, Anderson S,. Some issues in the design and analysis of equivalence trials. Drug Information Journal 1999; 33: 109-118. (Pubitemid 29104657)
19. Wang SJ, Hung HMJ,. Assessing treatment efficacy in noninferiority trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 2003; 24: 147-155. (Pubitemid 36412014)
20. Witte S,. Meta-analytische Methoden für à quivalenzfragestellungen. Dissertation, Forschungsberichte der Abteilung Medizinische Biometrie, Universität Heidelberg, 2005.
21. Schmidli H, Wandel S, Neuenschwander B,. The network meta-analytic- predictive approach to non-inferiority trials, 2011. Submitted.
22. Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spiegelhalter D,. WinBUGSâa Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Statistics and Computing 2000; 10: 325-337.
23. Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP,. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health care evaluation. Wiley: New York, 2004.
24. Julious SA, Wang SJ,. How biased are indirect comparisons, particularly when comparisons are made over time in clinical trials. Drug Information Journal 2008; 42 (6): 625-633.
25. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Statistical Review of NDA 21-560. Available at: (accessed 1 July 2011).