13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Defining the noninferiority margin and analysing noninferiority: An overview

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Noninferiority trials are used to assess whether the effect of a new drug is not worse than an active comparator by more than a noninferiority margin. If the difference between the new drug and the active comparator does not exceed this prespecified margin, noninferiority can be concluded. This margin must be specified based on clinical and statistical reasoning; however, it is considered as one of the most challenging steps in the design of noninferiority trials. Regulators recommend that the margin should be defined based on the historical evidence of the active comparator (the latter is often the well‐established standard treatment of the disease), which can be performed by different approaches. There are several factors and assumptions that need to be accounted for during the process of defining the margin and during the analysis of noninferiority. Three methods are commonly used to analyse noninferiority trials: the fixed‐margin method; the point‐estimate method; and the synthesis method. This article provides an overview of analysing noninferiority and choosing the noninferiority margin.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

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

          Aspirin and extended-release dipyridamole versus clopidogrel for recurrent stroke.

          Recurrent stroke is a frequent, disabling event after ischemic stroke. This study compared the efficacy and safety of two antiplatelet regimens--aspirin plus extended-release dipyridamole (ASA-ERDP) versus clopidogrel. In this double-blind, 2-by-2 factorial trial, we randomly assigned patients to receive 25 mg of aspirin plus 200 mg of extended-release dipyridamole twice daily or to receive 75 mg of clopidogrel daily. The primary outcome was first recurrence of stroke. The secondary outcome was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from vascular causes. Sequential statistical testing of noninferiority (margin of 1.075), followed by superiority testing, was planned. A total of 20,332 patients were followed for a mean of 2.5 years. Recurrent stroke occurred in 916 patients (9.0%) receiving ASA-ERDP and in 898 patients (8.8%) receiving clopidogrel (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.11). The secondary outcome occurred in 1333 patients (13.1%) in each group (hazard ratio for ASA-ERDP, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.07). There were more major hemorrhagic events among ASA-ERDP recipients (419 [4.1%]) than among clopidogrel recipients (365 [3.6%]) (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.32), including intracranial hemorrhage (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.83). The net risk of recurrent stroke or major hemorrhagic event was similar in the two groups (1194 ASA-ERDP recipients [11.7%], vs. 1156 clopidogrel recipients [11.4%]; hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.11). The trial did not meet the predefined criteria for noninferiority but showed similar rates of recurrent stroke with ASA-ERDP and with clopidogrel. There is no evidence that either of the two treatments was superior to the other in the prevention of recurrent stroke. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00153062.) 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Ximelagatran vs warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a randomized trial.

            In patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, warfarin prevents ischemic stroke, but dose adjustment, coagulation monitoring, and bleeding limit its use. To compare the efficacy of the oral direct thrombin inhibitor ximelagatran with warfarin for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism. Double-blind, randomized, multicenter trial (2000-2001) conducted at 409 North American sites, involving 3922 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and additional stroke risk factors. Adjusted-dose warfarin (aiming for an international normalized ratio [INR] 2.0 to 3.0) or fixed-dose oral ximelagatran, 36 mg twice daily. The primary end point was all strokes (ischemic or hemorrhagic) and systemic embolic events. The primary analysis was based on demonstrating noninferiority within an absolute margin of 2.0% per year according to the intention-to-treat model. During 6405 patient-years (mean 20 months) of follow-up, 88 patients experienced primary events. The mean (SD) INR with warfarin (2.4 [0.8]) was within target during 68% of the treatment period. The primary event rate with ximelagatran was 1.6% per year and with warfarin was 1.2% per year (absolute difference, 0.45% per year; 95% confidence interval, -0.13% to 1.03% per year; P<.001 for the predefined noninferiority hypothesis). When all-cause mortality was included in addition to stroke and systemic embolic events, the rate difference was 0.10% per year (95% confidence interval, -0.97% to 1.2% per year; P = .86). There was no difference between treatment groups in rates of major bleeding, but total bleeding (major and minor) was lower with ximelagatran (37% vs 47% per year; 95% confidence interval for the difference, -14% to -6.0% per year; P<.001). Serum alanine aminotransferase levels rose to greater than 3 times the upper limit of normal in 6.0% of patients treated with ximelagatran, usually within 6 months and typically declined whether or not treatment continued; however, one case of documented fatal liver disease and one other suggestive case occurred. The results establish the efficacy of fixed-dose oral ximelagatran without coagulation monitoring compared with well-controlled warfarin for prevention of thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation requiring chronic anticoagulant therapy, but the potential for hepatotoxicity requires further investigation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Phase III trial of vandetanib compared with erlotinib in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

              Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. This phase III study assessed the efficacy of vandetanib versus erlotinib in unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after treatment failure with one to two prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. One thousand two hundred forty patients were randomly assigned to receive vandetanib 300 mg/d (n = 623) or erlotinib 150 mg/d (n = 617). The primary objective was to show superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) for vandetanib versus erlotinib. If the difference did not reach statistical significance for superiority, a noninferiority analysis was conducted. There was no significant improvement in PFS for patients treated with vandetanib versus erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95.22% CI, 0.87 to 1.10; P = .721); median PFS was 2.6 months for vandetanib and 2.0 months for erlotinib. There was also no significant difference for the secondary end points of overall survival (HR, 1.01; P = .830), objective response rate (both 12%), and time to deterioration of symptoms for pain (HR, 0.92; P = .289), dyspnea (HR, 1.07; P = .407), and cough (HR, 0.94; P = .455). Both agents showed equivalent PFS and overall survival in a preplanned noninferiority analysis. Adverse events (AEs; any grade) more frequent with vandetanib than erlotinib included diarrhea (50% v 38%, respectively) and hypertension (16% v 2%, respectively); rash was more frequent with erlotinib than vandetanib (38% v 28%, respectively). The overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was also higher with vandetanib than erlotinib (50% v 40%, respectively). In patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC, vandetanib showed antitumor activity but did not demonstrate an efficacy advantage compared with erlotinib. There was a higher incidence of some AEs with vandetanib.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                o.h.klungel@uu.nl
                Journal
                Br J Clin Pharmacol
                Br J Clin Pharmacol
                10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2125
                BCP
                British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0306-5251
                1365-2125
                06 April 2017
                August 2017
                06 April 2017
                : 83
                : 8 ( doiID: 10.1111/bcp.v83.8 )
                : 1636-1642
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology Utrecht University P.O.Box 80082 3508 TB Utrecht The Netherlands
                [ 2 ] Div. Julius Centrum UMC Utrecht Huispost Str. 6.131, P.O.Box 85500 3508 GA Utrecht The Netherlands
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Olaf H Klungel, Utrecht University, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, PO Box 80082, 3408, TB Utrecht, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 30 253 7324; Fax: +31 30 253 9166; E‐mail: o.h.klungel@ 123456uu.nl

                Article
                BCP13280 RU-00611-16.R3
                10.1111/bcp.13280
                5510081
                28252213
                cf9c1b16-bf09-4484-87a9-a267cfb93096
                © 2017 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                : 16 August 2016
                : 14 February 2017
                : 26 February 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 1, Pages: 7, Words: 3331
                Funding
                Funded by: Saudi Food and Drug Authority
                Award ID: PhD project
                Categories
                Clinical Trials
                Clinical Trials
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                bcp13280
                August 2017
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:5.1.4 mode:remove_FC converted:14.07.2017

                Pharmacology & Pharmaceutical medicine
                biostatistics,clinical trials,drug regulation,methodology,randomized controlled trials

                Comments

                Comment on this article