19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Testing the Therapeutic Equivalence of Alogliptin, Linagliptin, Saxagliptin, Sitagliptin or Vildagliptin as Monotherapy or in Combination with Metformin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

      case-report

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          In studying the therapeutic evidence of innovative drug treatments, increasing attention is being devoted to differentiating between results that indicate no significant differences among the treatments under examination (“no proof of difference”) and results that demonstrate the therapeutic equivalence among the treatments (“proof of no difference”).

          Aim

          Our analysis was aimed at evaluating the degree of therapeutic equivalence for dipeptidylpeptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors given in type 2 diabetes as monotherapy or in combination with metformin.

          Methods

          Equivalence was determined by developing a standard Forest plot that incorporated the information on margins previously reported in randomized trials on these agents. The end point was HbA 1c change from baseline; the equivalence margin was set at ±0.25% change in HbA 1c. The clinical material was obtained from a systematic review on this topic.

          Results

          Given as monotherapy, linagliptin, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin (but not saxagliptin) met the equivalence criterion when compared with one another. Given in combination with metformin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin showed an equivalent effect whereas alogliptin did not satisfy the equivalence criterion.

          Conclusions

          Considering the most recent therapeutic guidelines, our results are of interest particularly as regards the information on DPP-4 inhibitors in combination with metformin. Four of the five DPP-4 inhibitors under examination clearly showed to have the same effectiveness; the fifth agent—alogliptin—failed to meet the equivalence criterion, but only because its superiority could not be excluded.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13300-014-0066-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Methodology of superiority vs. equivalence trials and non-inferiority trials.

          The randomized clinical trial (RCT) is generally accepted as the best method of comparing effects of therapies. Most often the aim of an RCT is to show that a new therapy is superior to an established therapy or placebo, i.e. they are planned and performed as superiority trials. Sometimes the aim of an RCT is just to show that a new therapy is not superior but equivalent to or not inferior to an established therapy, i.e. they are planned and performed as equivalence trials or non-inferiority trials. Since the types of trials have different aims, they differ significantly in various methodological aspects. The awareness of the methodological differences is generally quite limited. This paper reviews the methodology of these types of trials with special reference to differences in respect to planning, performance, analysis and reporting of the trial. In this context the relevant basal statistical concepts are reviewed. Some of the important points are illustrated by examples.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            How to demonstrate similarity by using noninferiority and equivalence statistical testing in radiology research.

            Demonstrating similarity between compared groups--that is, equivalence or noninferiority of the outcome of one group to the outcome of another group--requires a different analytic approach than determining the difference between groups--that is, superiority of one group over another. Neither a statistically significant difference between groups (P < .05) nor a lack of significant difference (P ≥ .05) from conventional statistical tests provides answers about equivalence/noninferiority. Statistical testing of equivalence/noninferiority generally uses a confidence interval, where equivalence/noninferiority is claimed when the confidence interval of the difference in outcome between compared groups is within a predetermined equivalence/noninferiority margin that represents a clinically or scientifically acceptable range of differences and is typically described by Δ. The equivalence/noninferiority margin should be justified both clinically and statistically, considering the loss in the main outcome and the compensatory gain, and be chosen conservatively to avoid making a false claim of equivalence/noninferiority for an inferior outcome. Sample size estimation needs to be specified for equivalence/noninferiority design, considering Δ in addition to other general factors. The need for equivalence/noninferiority research studies is expected to increase in radiology, and a good understanding of the fundamental principles of the methodology will be helpful for conducting as well as for interpreting such studies. © RSNA, 2013.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Erythropoietin in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: No Proof of Effectiveness or Proof of No Effectiveness?

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                andrea.messori.it@gmail.com , andrea.messori@estav-centro.toscana.it
                Journal
                Diabetes Ther
                Diabetes Ther
                Diabetes Therapy
                Springer Healthcare (Heidelberg )
                1869-6953
                1869-6961
                3 May 2014
                3 May 2014
                June 2014
                : 5
                : 1
                : 341-344
                Affiliations
                HTA Unit, ESTAV Toscana Centro, Regional Health Service, 50100 Florence, Italy
                Article
                66
                10.1007/s13300-014-0066-y
                4065299
                24793219
                5c056206-3c97-4d3b-a14a-af5c0441766c
                © The Author(s) 2014
                History
                : 29 March 2014
                Categories
                Brief Report
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Healthcare 2014

                Endocrinology & Diabetes
                dipeptidylpeptidase-4 inhibitors,dpp-4,equivalence,meta-analysis,type 2 diabetes

                Comments

                Comment on this article