Equivalence Trials: Understanding the Statistical and Clinical Issues Christopher Cannon, M.D. C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. Brigham and Women’s HospitalBeth.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A ggrastat- Phase of the AGGRASTAT to ZOCOR (A to Z) Trial Comparison of the safety and efficacy of unfractionated heparin versus enoxaparin in combination.
Advertisements

1 Voriconazole NDAs and Empiric Antifungal Therapy of Febrile Neutropenic Patients Study 603 John H. Powers, M.D. Medical Officer Division.
Coronary Revascularisation in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus Dr Rod Stables The Cardiothoracic Centre Liverpool UK.
“Adjunctive Therapy” Non ST segment elevation ACS Dr M R Thomas King’s College Hospital. Advanced Angioplasty 2002.
Study by: Granger et al. NEJM, September 2011,Vol No. 11 Presented by: Amelia Crawford PA-S2 Apixaban versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.
Mean for sample of n=10 n = 10: t = 1.361df = 9Critical value = Conclusion: accept the null hypothesis; no difference between this sample.
1 Equivalence and Bioequivalence: Frequentist and Bayesian views on sample size Mike Campbell ScHARR CHEBS FOCUS fortnight 1/04/03.
RAMPART Statistical Analysis Plan Valerie Durkalski NETT Statistical and Data Management Center Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics & Epidemiology.
Critical Appraisal of an Article on Therapy (2). Formulate Clinical Question Patient/ population Intervention Comparison Outcome (s) Women with IBS Alosetron.
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.
Inference for proportions - Comparing 2 proportions IPS chapter 8.2 © 2006 W.H. Freeman and Company.
Understanding the Concept of Equivalence and Non-Inferiority Trials CM Gibson, 2000.
Statistical Issues in the Design of a Trial, Part 2 Karen Pieper, MS Duke Clinical Research Institute.
Challenges of Non-Inferiority Trial Designs R. Sridhara, Ph.D.
Biostatistics Class 6 Hypothesis Testing: One-Sample Inference 2/29/2000.
Athens Cardiology Update CADILLAC Study Blood Transfusion after Myocardial Infarction: Friend, Foe or double-edged Sword? Georgios I. Papaioannou,
통계적 추론 (Statistical Inference) 삼성생명과학연구소 통계지원팀 김선우 1.
A Randomized Trial of Dabigatran versus Warfarin in the Treatment of Acute Venous Thromboembolism Schulman S et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract 205.
Lecture 9: Analysis of intervention studies Randomized trial - categorical outcome Measures of risk: –incidence rate of an adverse event (death, etc) It.
Baseline Characteristics Current or Former Smoker Diabetic Hypertension 25.7 Prior MI Prior Heart Failure.
Do Tirofiban And ReoPro Give Similar Efficacy Outcomes Trial Presented at AHA Scientific Sessions Nov. 15, 2000.
1 Confidence Intervals for Two Proportions Section 6.1.
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.
Compliance Original Study Design Randomised Surgical care Medical care.
1 Advanced Angioplasty London, England 27 January, 2006 Jörg Michael Rustige,MD Medical Director Lilly Critical Care Europe, Geneva.
LESSON 1 LESSON 1 Establishment of:
Relative Risk Therapy A Better Therapy B Better COMPASS 95% CI no worse than 1.5 TARGET 95% CI no worse than 1.47 ASSENT-2.
Risk of bolus thrombolytics Shamir Mehta, MD Director, Coronary Care Unit McMaster University Medical Center Hamilton, Ontario Paul Armstrong, MD Professor.
Comparing Two Proportions. AP Statistics Chap 13-2 Two Population Proportions The point estimate for the difference is p 1 – p 2 Population proportions.
Anticoagulation to the max A Michael Lincoff MD Cardiologist Division of Cardiology Cleveland Clinic Cleveland, OH.
Bayesian approach to equivalence study of medical device 1 1.
The IDEAL Cholesterol Christopher Cannon, M.D. TIMI Study Group Brigham and Women’s Hospital Cannon CP. JAMA 2005;294:
VBWG OASIS-6 The Sixth Organization to Assess Strategies in Acute Ischemic Syndromes trial.
Gregg W. Stone MD for the ACUITY Investigators Gregg W. Stone MD for the ACUITY Investigators A Prospective, Randomized Trial of Bivalirudin in Acute Coronary.
1 Risk Benefit and Conclusions George Sledge, MD Indiana University School of Medicine.
AntiThrombotic Therapy in the Cath Lab: Preliminary Results from the NICE Trials Cindy L. Grines, M.D. William Beaumont Hospital Royal Oak, Michigan Cindy.
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.
Gregg W. Stone MD for the ACUITY Investigators A Prospective, Randomized Trial of Bivalirudin in Acute Coronary Syndromes Final One-Year Results from the.
High-risk ST elevation MI patients (>4 mm elevation), Sx < 12 hrs 5 PCI centers (n=443) and 22 referring hospitals (n=1,129), transfer in < 3 hrs High-risk.
Double-blind, randomized trial in 4,162 patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome
Equivalence Trials: Understanding the Statistical and Clinical Issues Christopher Cannon, M.D. C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. Brigham and Women’s HospitalBeth.
Date of download: 7/9/2016 Copyright © The American College of Cardiology. All rights reserved. From: ACC/AHA guidelines for percutaneous coronary intervention.
1 Do Tirofiban And ReoPro Give Similar Efficacy Outcomes Trial N Engl J Med 2001;344:
Clinical Outcomes with Newer Antihyperglycemic Agents
(p for noninferiority = 0.01)
Sample Size Considerations
Clinical Outcomes with Newer Antihyperglycemic Agents
The Importance of Adequately Powered Studies
Comparing Two Proportions
ACC 2004: SCD-HeFT, PROVE-IT, and SYNERGY under debate
Neal B, et al. Diabetes Care 2015;38:403–411
AIM HIGH Niacin plus Statin to prevent vascular events
The following slides are based on a presentation at a Satellite Symposium in association with the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Lake Louise, Alberta,
% decrease in LDL-C at 24 weeks from baseline
% decrease in LDL-C at 24 weeks from baseline
New LDL-C Lipid Targets
LATITUDE-TIMI 60 Trial design: Patients hospitalized with AMI on guideline-recommended therapy were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either losmapimod 7.5.
Thursday Case of the Day
BASKET-PROVE II Trial design: Subjects with stable or unstable coronary artery disease undergoing stent implantation were randomized to a biodegradable-polymer.
Updates in Cardiovascular Medicine
WHAT’S NEW WITH THE TREATMENTS FOR HIGH-RISK DYSLIPIDEMIA?
FOURIER Trial design: Patients with established cardiovascular disease on statin therapy were randomized to evolocumab 140 mg subcutaneous every 2 weeks.
Ezetimibe/simvastatin
Statistical significance using p-value
EPILOG Results: Balloon Angioplasty/Bail-out Stenting
HOPE-3 Trial design: Patients without known cardiovascular disease, and with an intermediate risk of cardiovascular events, were randomized in a 2 x 2.
OASIS-5: Study Design Randomize N=20,078 Enoxaparin (N=10,021)
The following slides highlight a report on a presentation at the American College of Cardiology 2004, Scientific Sessions, in New Orleans, Louisiana on.
Presentation transcript:

Equivalence Trials: Understanding the Statistical and Clinical Issues Christopher Cannon, M.D. C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. Brigham and Women’s HospitalBeth Israel Deaconess Med Center

Superiority Trials l When a drug in a new class is developed, it is usually tested vs. placebo, in addition to the other standard therapies, to determine if it improves outcomes. Examples: New Classes: Placebo-controlled trials 4S – statin GISSI-1, ISIS-2 – streptokinase GISSI-1, ISIS-2 – streptokinase ASSET – t-PA ASSET – t-PA EPIC, PURSUIT, PRISM-PLUS – IIb/IIIa inhibitors EPIC, PURSUIT, PRISM-PLUS – IIb/IIIa inhibitors

Superiority trials (2) l If a new drug in an existing class is developed, there are 3 ways to test it: l Superiority testing vs. placebo in a different patient population, or related indication Example: CARE, LIPID – pravastation (Pts with lower LDL levels than in 4S trial) EPILOG, EPISTENT, ESPRIT - IIb/IIIa inhibitors in low risk patients, and/or stented patients EPILOG, EPISTENT, ESPRIT - IIb/IIIa inhibitors in low risk patients, and/or stented patients

Superiority trials (3) l If a new drug in an existing class is developed, and it has properties that make it potentially superior to an existing drug (or device) in that class: l Superiority testing of new drug (device) vs. older drug l Examples: GUSTO – I: t-PA vs. streptokinase ESSENCE, TIMI 11B: enoxaparin vs. unfractionated heparin ESSENCE, TIMI 11B: enoxaparin vs. unfractionated heparin STRESS, BENESTENT: stents vs. balloon angioplasty STRESS, BENESTENT: stents vs. balloon angioplasty

Equivalence Trials – Why? If on the other hand, a new drug (or device) is felt likely to be similar to the old drug, and the hypothesis is that they are similar, the third way to compare 2 drugs is an “equivalence” or “non-inferiority” trial l This would be the case if one expects similar overall outcomes for major outcomes (death, MI etc), with perhaps some advantages on other aspects (pharmacokinetics – once/day vs. twice/day dosing, fewer side effects) l If that class of drugs is established as a standard of care, one cannot remove it from clinical care, to test the new drug against placebo.

Hypothetical Trial Drug A vs. Drug B for stenting 500 patients randomized 250 per group. 30 day rate of stent thrombosis 4 (1.6%) for Group A 4 (1.6%) for Group B Are the drugs equivalent?

Hypothetical trial - Answer NO – too small sample size. How do you tell? Confidence intervals 4/250 = 1.6%, 95% CI (0.44% – 4.0%)

Absolute Difference 04.5 Confidence Intervals to Compare Two Treatments Drug A Drug B Large trial 40/ /2500 (1.6%)(1.6%) Small trial 4/250 4/250 (1.6%)(1.6%)

Design of Non-Inferiority Trials Region of non-inferiority must be defined in advance  If the upper bound 95% Confidence Interval of the difference between two treatments lies entirely below the pre-specified boundary then these treatments may be considered clinically equivalent Region of non-inferiority must be defined in advance  If the upper bound 95% Confidence Interval of the difference between two treatments lies entirely below the pre-specified boundary then these treatments may be considered clinically equivalent

Superiority vs. Equivalence Trial Design Superiority: l Hypothesis is Treatment A is better than Treatment B l Statistical testing: Prove that Tx A is not equal to Tx B (disprove Null hypothesis) Non-Inferiority (Clinical Equivalence): l Hypothesis is Tx A is at least as good as Tx B l Statistical testing: Prove that Tx A is not worse than Tx B Equivalence: l Statistical testing: Prove that Tx B is not worse (and not better) than Tx A

Relative Risk Designing a Non-inferiority Trial Standard Therapy Aggressive Therapy Non-inferiority “clinical equivalence” 420/ /2000 (21%)(20%) Superiority 800/ /4000 (20%)(16%) Equivalence 4000/ /20000 (20%)(20%) 0.8