Abstract
When comparing a new treatment to a standard, it is common to analyze with the intent of showing that the response rate of the new treatment is not markedly lower than that of the standard. This requires a definition of noninferiority (how different the response rates can be). One definition proposed for antimicrobial products is an adaptive definition that allows a larger difference in response rates when lower response rates are observed. In this paper we discuss some advantages and disadvantages of this adaptive definition and seek alternative analysis methods that preserve the benefits while eliminating some of the drawbacks of the adaptive definition. One potential method is to analyze for equivalence using transformations. Analyzing for equivalence with the angular transformation or the log odds (but not the log) will preserve aspects of the adaptive definition such as requiring a smaller difference in response rates when currently available products have higher efficacy. Using a transformation has advantages over the adaptive definition, such as allowing for power calculations using standard formulae from the literature.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Blackwelder WC. ‘Proving the null hypothesis’ in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1982;3:345–353.
Bristol DR. Clinical equivalence. J Biopharm Stat 1999;9:549–561.
Food and Drug Administration. Points to Consider: Clinical Development and Labeling of Anti-infective Drug Products. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration Division of Anti-Infective Drug Products; October 26, 1992.
Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Developing Antimicrobial Drugs—General Considerations for Clinical Trials (Draft). Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration Division of Anti-Infective Drug Products; July 22, 1998.
Bristol DR. Determining equivalence and the impact of sample size in anti-infective studies: A point to consider. J Biopharm Stat 1996;6:319–326.
Makuch RW, Simon R. Sample size requirements for evaluating a conservative therapy. Cancer Treat Rep 1978;62:1037–1040.
Rao CR. Linear Statistical Inference and Its Applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1974.
Tu D. On the use of the ratio or odds ratio of response rates in therapeutic equivalence clinical trials with binary endpoints. J Biopharm Stat 1997;8:263–282.
Wiens BL, Iglewicz B. On testing equivalence of three populations. J Biopharm Stat 1999;9:465–483.
Cheng, JJ, Tsong Y, Kang S-H. Tests for equivalence or noninferiority between two proportions. Drug Inf J 2000;34:569–578.
Hauck WW, Anderson S. Some issues in the design and analysis of equivalence trials. Drug Inf J 1999;33:109–118.
Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. Br Med J 1995;310:452–454.
Breslow N, Day N. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research, Volume 1: The Analysis of Case-Control Studies. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1980.
DuBois DM, Wiens BL. The Breslow-Day Test as a Precursor to a Stratified Test of Equivalence. In ASA 1999 Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section. Baltimore, MD: American Statistical Association; 1999.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wiens, B.L., Iglewicz, B. Testing Noninferiority of Response Rates for Regulatory Filings Using Transformations. Ther Innov Regul Sci 35, 1165–1171 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150103500413
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150103500413