Assessing overall evidence from noninferiority trials with shared historical data

Adaptive Designs for Non-inferiority Trials with Multiple Experimental Treatments

The increase in the popularity of non-inferiority clinical trials represents the increasing need to search for substitutes for some reference (standard) treatments. A new treatment would be preferred to the standard treatment if the benefits of adopting it outweigh a possible clinically insignificant reduction in treatment efficacy (non-inferiority margin). Statistical procedures have recently been developed for treatment comparisons in non-inferiority clinical trials that have multiple experimental (new) treatments. An ethical concern for non-inferiority trials is that some patients undergo the less effective treatments; this problem is more serious when multiple experimental treatments are included in a balanced trial in which the sample sizes are the same for all experimental treatments. With the aim of giving fewer patients the inferior treatments, we propose a response-adaptive treatment allocation scheme that is based on the doubly adaptive biased coin design. The proposed adaptive design is also shown to be superior to the balanced design in terms of testing power.

Testing of non-inferiority and superiority for three-arm clinical studies with multiple experimental treatments

The purpose of a non-inferiority trial is to assert the efficacy of an experimental treatment compared with a reference treatment by showing that the experimental treatment retains a substantial proportion of the efficacy of the reference treatment. Statistical methods have been developed to test multiple experimental treatments in three-arm non-inferiority trials. In this paper, we report the development of procedures that simultaneously test the non-inferiority and the superiority of experimental treatments after the assay sensitivity has been established. The advantage of the proposed test procedures is the additional ability to identify superior treatments while retaining an non-inferiority testing power comparable to that of existing testing procedures. Single-step and stepwise procedures are derived and then compared with each other to determine their relative testing power and testing error in a simulation study. Finally, the suggested procedures are illustrated with two clinical examples.

Avoiding ambiguity with the Type I error rate in noninferiority trials

This review article sets out to examine the Type I error rates used in noninferiority trials. Most papers regarding noninferiority trials only state Type I error rate without mentioning clearly which Type I error rate is evaluated. Therefore, the Type I error rate in one paper is often different from the Type I error rate in another paper, which can confuse readers and makes it difficult to understand papers. Which Type I error rate should be evaluated is related directly to which paradigm is employed in the analysis of noninferiority trial, and to how the historical data are treated. This article reviews the characteristics of the within-trial Type I error rate and the unconditional across-trial Type I error rate which have frequently been examined in noninferiority trials. The conditional across-trial Type I error rate is also briefly discussed. In noninferiority trials comparing a new treatment with an active control without a placebo arm, it is argued that the within-trial Type I error rate should be controlled in order to obtain approval of the new treatment from the regulatory agencies. I hope that this article can help readers understand the difference between two paradigms employed in noninferiority trials.