Challenges of Non-Inferiority Trial Designs R. Sridhara, Ph.D.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Equivalence Tests in Clinical Trials
Advertisements

Hypothesis Testing Goal: Make statement(s) regarding unknown population parameter values based on sample data Elements of a hypothesis test: Null hypothesis.
Study Size Planning for Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
A Flexible Two Stage Design in Active Control Non-inferiority Trials Gang Chen, Yong-Cheng Wang, and George Chi † Division of Biometrics I, CDER, FDA Qing.
H. Lundbeck A/S16-Apr-151 Perspectives on Non-Inferiority Clinical Trials – based on draft FDA guidance doc DSBS 20 May 2010.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Notice: Archived Document The content in this document is provided on the FDA’s website for reference purposes only.
Objectives (BPS chapter 15)
Statistical Issues in Contraceptive Trials
Confidence Intervals © Scott Evans, Ph.D..
1 A Bayesian Non-Inferiority Approach to Evaluation of Bridging Studies Chin-Fu Hsiao, Jen-Pei Liu Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics National.
Inference (CI / Tests) for Comparing 2 Proportions.
RAMPART Statistical Analysis Plan Valerie Durkalski NETT Statistical and Data Management Center Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics & Epidemiology.
Today Today: Finish Chapter 9, start Chapter 10 Sections from Chapter 9: 9.1, 9.4, 9.5, 9.10 (know just class notes for these sections) Recommended Questions:
Sample Size Determination
Sample Size Determination Ziad Taib March 7, 2014.
Power and Non-Inferiority Richard L. Amdur, Ph.D. Chief, Biostatistics & Data Management Core, DC VAMC Assistant Professor, Depts. of Psychiatry & Surgery.
Tests of significance: The basics BPS chapter 15 © 2006 W.H. Freeman and Company.
1 Non-inferiority designs for relapse prevention of schizophrenia Gene Laska Ph.D. Department of Psychiatry NYU School of Medicine Nathan Kline Institute.
Abraxane ® (paclitaxel protein-bound particles for injectable suspension). Each 50 mL vial contains 100 mg of paclitaxel and 900 mg of human albumin.
Tests of significance: The basics BPS chapter 15 © 2006 W.H. Freeman and Company.
NY, 14 December 2007 Emmanuel Lesaffre Biostatistical Centre, K.U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Dept of Biostatistics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Understanding the Concept of Equivalence and Non-Inferiority Trials CM Gibson, 2000.
CI - 1 Cure Rate Models and Adjuvant Trial Design for ECOG Melanoma Studies in the Past, Present, and Future Joseph Ibrahim, PhD Harvard School of Public.
Biostatistics Case Studies 2015 Youngju Pak, PhD. Biostatistician Session 2: Sample Size & Power for Inequality and Equivalence Studies.
Chapter 6 Introduction to Statistical Inference. Introduction Goal: Make statements regarding a population (or state of nature) based on a sample of measurements.
Health and Disease in Populations 2001 Sources of variation (2) Jane Hutton (Paul Burton)
Introduction to inference Tests of significance IPS chapter 6.2 © 2006 W.H. Freeman and Company.
1 Statistical Review Dr. Shan Sun-Mitchell. 2 ENT Primary endpoint: Time to treatment failure by day 50 Placebo BDP Patients randomized Number.
Understanding real research 4. Randomised controlled trials.
Agresti/Franklin Statistics, 1 of 122 Chapter 8 Statistical inference: Significance Tests About Hypotheses Learn …. To use an inferential method called.
Biostatistics Class 6 Hypothesis Testing: One-Sample Inference 2/29/2000.
1 Presented by Eugene Laska, Ph.D. at the Arthritis Advisory Committee meeting 07/30/02.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Notice: Archived Document The content in this document is provided on the FDA’s website for reference purposes only.
What is a non-inferiority trial, and what particular challenges do such trials present? Andrew Nunn MRC Clinical Trials Unit 20th February 2012.
Lecture 16 Section 8.1 Objectives: Testing Statistical Hypotheses − Stating hypotheses statements − Type I and II errors − Conducting a hypothesis test.
Medical Statistics as a science
Equivalence Trials: Understanding the Statistical and Clinical Issues Christopher Cannon, M.D. C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. Brigham and Women’s HospitalBeth.
Zometa for Patients with Bone Metastases Overview and Review of Study 010 Grant Williams, M.D. Medical Team Leader Division of Oncology Drug Products.
1 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 4 WHAT IS A CONFIDENCE INTERVAL? WHAT IS A CONFIDENCE INTERVAL? confidence interval A confidence interval estimates a population parameter.
2006, Tianjin, China sf.ppt - Faragalli 1 Statistical Hypotheses and Methods in Clinical Trials with Active Control Non-inferiority Design Yong-Cheng.
1 Study Design Issues and Considerations in HUS Trials Yan Wang, Ph.D. Statistical Reviewer Division of Biometrics IV OB/OTS/CDER/FDA April 12, 2007.
Introduction to inference Tests of significance IPS chapter 6.2 © 2006 W.H. Freeman and Company.
Joel Singer, Programme Head, Methodology and Statistics, CIHR Canadian HIV Trials Network.
Statistical significance using Confidence Intervals
1 BLA Sipuleucel-T (APC-8015) FDA Statistical Review and Findings Bo-Guang Zhen, PhD Statistical Reviewer, OBE, CBER March 29, 2007 Cellular, Tissue.
Course: Research in Biomedicine and Health III Seminar 5: Critical assessment of evidence.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم.
Study Designs for Acute Otitis Media: What can each design tell us? C. George Rochester, Ph.D. Anti-Infective Advisory Committee Meeting, July 11, 2002.
Zometa for Prostate Cancer Bone Metastases Protocol 039 Amna Ibrahim, M.D. Oncology Drug Products FDA.
Biostatistics Case Studies 2006 Peter D. Christenson Biostatistician Session 1: Demonstrating Equivalence of Active Treatments:
Biostatistics Case Studies 2016 Youngju Pak, PhD. Biostatistician Session 2 Understanding Equivalence and Noninferiority testing.
Estimating a Population Proportion ADM 2304 – Winter 2012 ©Tony Quon.
Remaining Challenges in Assessing Non-Inferiority Steven Snapinn DIA Statistics Community Virtual Journal Club December 16, 2014 Based on Paper with Qi.
Double-blind, randomized trial in 4,162 patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome
Lecture Notes and Electronic Presentations, © 2013 Dr. Kelly Significance and Sample Size Refresher Harrison W. Kelly III, Ph.D. Lecture # 3.
Inference for a Single Population Proportion (p)
Sample Size Considerations
Biostatistics Case Studies 2007
How many study subjects are required ? (Estimation of Sample size) By Dr.Shaik Shaffi Ahamed Associate Professor Dept. of Family & Community Medicine.
Adaptive non-inferiority margins under observable non-constancy
Confidence Intervals and p-values
Why experimental design are important
Chapter 8: Inference for Proportions
Tests of significance: The basics
Issues in Hypothesis Testing in the Context of Extrapolation
Statistical significance using p-value
Volume 46, Issue 5, Pages (May 2007)
HOPE-3 Trial design: Patients without known cardiovascular disease, and with an intermediate risk of cardiovascular events, were randomized in a 2 x 2.
Medical Statistics Exam Technique and Coaching, Part 2 Richard Kay Statistical Consultant RK Statistics Ltd 22/09/2019.
Aparna Raychaudhuri, Ph. D
Presentation transcript:

Challenges of Non-Inferiority Trial Designs R. Sridhara, Ph.D.

12/6/06Pediatric Advisory Committe2 Terminology Superiority = Drug T better than Placebo (P) or T better than Active Control (C) C may or may not have known efficacy Non-inferiority (NI) = T not much less effective than C  ‘Was Not Different’ or ‘Similar’ C must have known efficacy

12/6/06Pediatric Advisory Committe3 Clinical Trials to Demonstrate Efficacy Superiority Claim First choice Direct evidence Non-inferiority Claim Last choice Indirect evidence Interpretation could be misleading

12/6/06Pediatric Advisory Committe4 Non-inferiority Claim Implies: 1.The effect of T and C are close 2.T and C may be both equally beneficial or T and C may be both equally not beneficial

12/6/06Pediatric Advisory Committe5 Assumptions for NI consideration C has an effect (compared to placebo, P) Therefore, C can not be another experimental therapy in NI trial Can reliably estimate C effect size * C effect size compared to P Control (C) effect in the future study population will be same as in the historical population.

12/6/06Pediatric Advisory Committe6 Non-inferiority Trial Design Considerations Endpoint - Overall Survival - Progression-free Survival - Response Rate Control Effect  % Retention

12/6/06Pediatric Advisory Committe7 Non-inferiority or Superiority Challenges with Non-inferiority Trial How well we know the effect of the control How much of the control effect can we afford to give up At least ‘  ’% retention of the control effect necessary to make sure that the new treatment is significantly better than placebo

12/6/06Pediatric Advisory Committe8 Superiority trial designs with OS as the primary endpoint Null Hypothesis, H 0 : HR(T/C) = 1 vs. Alternative, H 1 : HR (T/C) < 1 if T is better than C

12/6/06Pediatric Advisory Committe9 Non-inferiority trial designs with OS as the primary endpoint H 0 : HR(T/C) ≥ M vs. H 1 : HR (T/C) = 1 if the two are expected to be similar, Or H 1 : HR(T/C) = 0.95, for example, if the new treatment (T) is expected to be slightly better M is the margin determined based on the active control (C) effect size estimated from historical trials and percentage of the effect to be retained HR > 1 implies, T is worse than C

12/6/06Pediatric Advisory Committe10 Percent Retention and Estimated Active Control Effect Size Non-inferiority ≈ “not much less effective” ‘X’ is the effect size of the active control; example: Point estimate of HR (C/P) = 0.5 (or HR(P/C) = 2.0) implies an estimate of active control effect size was a 50% reduction in the risk of event (ex: death) Percent retention is a percentage of ‘X’ that is retained; example: a 50% retention of the 50% effect size is 25% effect size, i.e., the putative HR(T/P) = 0.75 (or HR(P/T) = 1.33)

12/6/06Pediatric Advisory Committe11 Estimates of True Control Effect Lower 95% C.L. (  << 0.025) Lower  % C.L. (  = 0.025) Point Estimate (  >> 0.025)

12/6/06Pediatric Advisory Committe12 Methods for estimating active control effect size: No method is ideal and no particular method is endorsed by the Agency All methods assume that the control effect has not changed over time Some methods do not consider the variation between and within studies Other methods incorporate variation between and within studies

12/6/06Pediatric Advisory Committe13 Hypothetical Example of a NI Trial with Overall Survival Endpoint Suppose HR(P/C) = 2.0 (95% CI: 1.9, 2.1) Then, Lower 70% Confidence limit = 1.97

12/6/06Pediatric Advisory Committe14 Hypothetical example: Estimates of True Control Effect Lower 95% C.L. of HR = 1.9 Lower 70% C.L. of HR: 1.97 Point Estimate HR(P/C) = 2.0

12/6/06Pediatric Advisory Committe15 Hypothetical Example of a NI Trial with Overall Survival Endpoint Suppose we want to retain 50% of 1.97, i.e., HR(P/T) = 1.49, and we can accrue 100 patients per unit time If H 1 : HR(T/C) = 1, then N = 407 events or 1045 patients will be required If H 1 : HR(T/C) = 0.95, then N = 290 events or 836 patients

12/6/06Pediatric Advisory Committe16 Sample Size Depends On: How good the historical data is: One randomized study – large confidence interval – more uncertainty about the effect size Many randomized studies – smaller confidence interval – unless there were fundamental differences in the conduct of the studies: population, dose, etc.

12/6/06Pediatric Advisory Committe17 Summary - 1 Superiority trials provide direct evidence New drug can be compared to placebo or control (established or not) Non-inferiority trials provide indirect evidence New drug must be compared to established control Interpretation can be misleading

12/6/06Pediatric Advisory Committe18 Summary - 2 For NI trial consideration, active control effect must be well characterized Able to estimate effect size Control effect is same now as before NI trials are generally large Sample sizes for a NI trial is dependent on the estimate of control effect, population, % retention and the alternative hypothesis

12/6/06Pediatric Advisory Committe19 Summary - 3 In considering NI trial, any potential loss of efficacy must be weighed against risk-benefit ratio Failed superiority does not imply non- inferiority