Search

Non-inferiority (NI) trials enable a direct comparison of the relative benefit-to-risk profiles of an experimental intervention and a standard-of-care regimen. When the standard has clinical efficacy of substantial magnitude that is precisely estimated ideally using data from multiple adequate and well-controlled trials, with such estimates being relevant to the setting of the NI trial, then the NI trial can provide the scientific and regulatory evidence required to reliably assess the efficacy of the new intervention. In clinical practice, considerable uncertainty remains regarding when such trials should be conducted, how they should be designed, what standards for quality of trial conduct must be achieved, and how results should be interpreted. Recent examples will be considered to provide important insights and to highlight some of the challenges that remain to be adequately addressed regarding the use of the NI approach for the evaluation of new interventions. 'Imputed placebo' and 'margin'-based approaches to NI trial design will be considered, as well as the risk of 'bio-creep' with repeated NI trials, use of NI trials when determining whether excess safety risks can be ruled out, higher standards regarding quality of study conduct required with NI trials, and the myth that NI trials always require huge sample sizes. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the standard approach to designing definitive clinical trials, the primary endpoint and test statistic to be used for the primary analysis are specified before trial initiation. The false positive error rate for the null hypothesis and statistical power to detect the targeted size of treatment effect are also specified. Standard monitoring procedures, such as the group sequential guidelines, enable interim monitoring while maintaining the integrity of this approach. In contrast, adaptive monitoring procedures seek to provide flexibility to modify these pre-specified design features during the course of the trial. However, these procedures have several undesirable properties, including lesser statistical efficiency, reduced interpretability of primary outcome results, basing design changes on unreliable interim estimates of efficacy, risks to the integrity and credibility of the trial, loss of flexibility to use emerging results from external sources to alter key design features, and overemphasis of the importance of statistical significance relative to clinical significance. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]