The Utility of Active-Controlled Noninferiority/Equivalence Trials in Drug Development
Tóm tắt
Clinical trials designed with the objective of demonstrating that a test treatment is noninferior or equivalent to an active control treatment have long been used in drug development. In general, in order to fulfil the requirement of a New Drug Application, a sponsor needs to conduct randomised clinical trials to demonstrate that the test treatment is effective. With placebo control in the clinical trial, efficacy of the test treatment is demonstrated by showing that the test treatment is statistically and clinically superior to placebo. However, because of the ethical concerns of exposing patients to placebo when there is a proven therapeutic method available, many clinical trials can only be designed with the approved active control treatment. Because of the lack of placebo exposure in the current clinical trial, neither the sponsor nor the regulatory reviewer can assess whether the test treatment is superior to placebo directly. When the concept of noninferiority and equivalence of bioequivalence trials is applied to this type of trial, it complicates the efficacy assessment of the test treatment (superior to placebo) because of the indirectness of the comparison. This article discusses the fundamental concepts of noninferiority and equivalence testing applied in some specific drug products and how they are extended in the application for the interpretation for ‘test treatment is superior to placebo’ assessment. It also discusses why such an application makes the drug evaluation so complicated. The limitations and recommendations for the use of noninferiority or equivalence testing will also be considered.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Schuirmann DJ. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1987; 15: 657–80
Tsong Y, Zhang JJ, Wang S-J. Group sequential design and analysis of clinical equivalence assessment for generic nonsystemic drug products. J Biopharm Stat 2004; 14: 359–73
Ellenberg SS, Temple R. Placebo-controlled trials and active-controlled trials in the evaluation of new treatment. Part 2: practical issues and scientific cases. Ann Intern Med 2000; 133 (6): 464–70
Temple R, Ellenberg SS. Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments. Part 1: ethical and scientific issues. Ann Intern Med 2000; 133 (6): 455–63
Hauschke D, Kieser M, Diletti E, et al. Sample size determination for proving equivalence based on the ratio of two means for normally distributed data. Stat Med 1999; 18: 93–105
Pigeot I, Schäfer J, Röhmel J, et al. Assessing non-inferiority of a new treatment in a three-arm clinical trial including a placebo. Stat Med 2003; 22: 883–99
Committee for Medicine Products for Human (CHMP). Guidance on the choice of the non-inferiority margin. CPMP/EWP/2158/99 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/ewp/215899en.pdf [Accessed 2007 Jan 26]
Tsong Y, Wang S-J, Hung H-M, et al. Statistical issues on objective, design and analysis of noninferiority active-controlled clinical trial. J Biopharm Stat 2003; 13: 29–41
Hung H-MJ, Wang S-J, Tsong Y, et al. Some fundamental issues for non- inferiority testing in active controlled trials. Stat Med 2003; 22: 213–25
ICH harmonised tripartite guideline. Statistical principles for clinical trials: E9 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ich.org/LOB/media/MEDIA485.pdf [Accessed 2007 Jan 31]
ICH harmonised tripartite guideline. Choice of control group and related issues in clinical trials: E10 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ich.org/LOB/media/MEDIA486.pdf [Accessed 2007 Jan 31]
Tsong Y, Higgins K, Wang S-J, et al. An overview of equivalence testing: CDER reviewers’ perspective. Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section of the Joint Statistics Meetings of the American Statistical Association. 1999, 219
Holmgren EB. Establishing equivalence by showing that a specified percentage of the effect of the active control over placebo is maintained. J Biopharm Stat 1999; 9: 651–9
Snapinn SM. Alternatives of discounting in the analysis of noninferiority trials. J Biopharm Stat 2004; 14: 263–73
Farrington CP, Manning G. Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference or non-unity relative risk. Stat Med 1990; 9: 1447–54
Tsong Y, Levenson M, Zhang, J. Choice of γ and the dependence of non-inferiority active controlled clinical trials. Stat Med. In press
Tsong Y, Zhang J, Levenson M. Choice of δ and the dependence of non-inferiority active controlled clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat 2007: 17 (2): 279–88
Morikawa T, Yoshida M. A useful testing strategy in phase III trials: combined test of superiority and test of equivalence. J Biopharm Stat 1995; 5: 297–306
Tsong Y, Zhang JJ, et al. Testing superiority and non-inferiority hypotheses in active controlled clinical trials. Biometrical J 2005; 47 (1): 62–74
Tsong, Y, Zhang JJ. Simultaneous test for superiority and non-inferiority hypotheses in active controlled clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat 2007: 17 (2): 247–57