On robustness of noninferiority clinical trial designs against bias, variability, and nonconstancy.

Qing Liu, Yulan Li, Katherine Odem-Davis
Author Information
  1. Qing Liu: a AbacusCloud, LLC , Long Valley , New Jersey , USA.

Abstract

The regulatory guidelines on noninferiority (NI) trials emphasize constancy not only in the treatment effect over time but also in the trial design, clinical practice, and quality of the trial conduct and execution. In practice, the constancy assumption is generally impossible to justify; often, there are clear reasons to expect a loss of efficacy over time. There are also concerns about the inherent and publication bias in the historical data, and various sources of selection bias in the NI trial design. Thus, a conservative NI margin is often considered. However, different NI margin approaches are largely evaluated under the assumption of constancy and absence of bias, and therefore, controversies arise and are unresolved on the necessary degree of conservativeness. We develop a framework to quantify the robustness of any NI margin approach against inherent and publication bias in historical data, selection bias in trial design, and nonconstancy in reference effects. We introduce a consistency principle to address variability in the historical data. We control across-trial conditional error rates given a final NI trial design over a design specific robust range for reference effects. Following a conditionality principle, we provide a theoretical justification of the framework and the conditions for controlling across-trial unconditional type 1 error rates. We raise the issue of inherent bias in historical data with an illustrative example.

Keywords

References

  1. J Biopharm Stat. 2005;15(1):109-27 [PMID: 15702608]
  2. Clin Trials. 2011 Aug;8(4):432-9 [PMID: 21835862]
  3. Stat Med. 2003 Jan 30;22(2):239-64 [PMID: 12520560]
  4. Oncologist. 2010;15(5):492-5 [PMID: 20489186]
  5. Stat Biopharm Res. 2013 Jan 1;5(3): [PMID: 24187607]
  6. J Biopharm Stat. 2010 Nov;20(6):1178-219 [PMID: 21058114]
  7. Stat Med. 2006 May 30;25(10):1628-38 [PMID: 16639773]
  8. Stat Med. 2003 Jan 30;22(2):213-25 [PMID: 12520558]
  9. J Chronic Dis. 1979;32(1-2):51-63 [PMID: 447779]
  10. Stat Med. 2013 Feb 10;32(3):393-405 [PMID: 22991275]
  11. Biom J. 2005 Oct;47(5):616-22 [PMID: 16385902]
  12. N Engl J Med. 2011 Oct 27;365(17):1557-9 [PMID: 21992495]
  13. J Biopharm Stat. 2014;24(6):1225-38 [PMID: 25036815]
  14. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17(2):201-13 [PMID: 17365218]
  15. Stat Med. 2010 Jun 30;29(14):1477-87 [PMID: 20535762]

Grants

  1. KL2 TR000421/NCATS NIH HHS
  2. UL1 TR000423/NCATS NIH HHS
  3. UL1TR000423/NCATS NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Antineoplastic Agents
Bias
Biological Products
Clinical Trials as Topic
Computer Simulation
Double-Blind Method
Humans
Lymphoma, Follicular
Models, Statistical
Research Design
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome

Chemicals

Antineoplastic Agents
Biological Products

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0biasNItrialdesignhistoricaldataconstancyinherentmarginerrornoninferiorityeffecttimealsoclinicalpracticeassumptionoftenpublicationselectionframeworkrobustnessapproachnonconstancyreferenceeffectsprinciplevariabilityacross-trialconditionalratestype1regulatoryguidelinestrialsemphasizetreatmentqualityconductexecutiongenerallyimpossiblejustifyclearreasonsexpectlossefficacyconcernsvarioussourcesThusconservativeconsideredHoweverdifferentapproacheslargelyevaluatedabsencethereforecontroversiesariseunresolvednecessarydegreeconservativenessdevelopquantifyintroduceconsistencyaddresscontrolgivenfinalspecificrobustrangeFollowingconditionalityprovidetheoreticaljustificationconditionscontrollingunconditionalraiseissueillustrativeexampledesignsAcross-trialrateLowerpredictiveconfidenceboundRetentionSynthesis

Similar Articles

Cited By