1 / 15

Perspectives on Non-Inferiority Clinical Trials – based on draft FDA guidance doc DSBS 20 May 2010

Perspectives on Non-Inferiority Clinical Trials – based on draft FDA guidance doc DSBS 20 May 2010. Key contents in FDA draft guidance. Margins M1 = effect of active control M2 = ”clinical” margin (fraction of M1) Analysis methods Fixed Margin method Synthesis method. Notation.

rian
Télécharger la présentation

Perspectives on Non-Inferiority Clinical Trials – based on draft FDA guidance doc DSBS 20 May 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Perspectives on Non-Inferiority Clinical Trials– based on draft FDA guidance docDSBS 20 May 2010 H. Lundbeck A/S24-May-141

  2. Key contents in FDA draft guidance • Margins • M1 = effect of active control • M2 = ”clinical” margin (fraction of M1) • Analysis methods • Fixed Margin method • Synthesis method H. Lundbeck A/S24-May-142

  3. Notation • δCP = effect of active control vs placebo • δTC = effect of test drug vs active control • δTP = effect of test drug vs placebo = δTC + δCP NB: A positive figure indicates ”better” H. Lundbeck A/S24-May-143

  4. Base logic of NI test • If δCP = M1, then showing that δTC > -M1 amounts to showing that δTP > 0, since δTP = δTC + δCP • Showing that δTC is greater than some fraction f of M1, δTC > -fM1 (=M2), amounts to showing that δTC + fδCP > 0 or δTC + δCP = δTP > (1-f)δCP , i.e. that a fraction (1-f) of the effect of C has been preserved H. Lundbeck A/S24-May-144

  5. Inferences based on 95% CI for δTC T superior to C demonstrated Preservation of p % benefit demonstrated T superior to P demonstrated δTC=0 M1(δTP=0) M2 Preserved: p=0% 0%<p<100% p=100% H. Lundbeck A/S24-May-145

  6. Analysis methods • Fixed Margin • Use historical estimate of δCP and its SE to derive a fixed margin for the test (typically lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI) • Synthesis • Treat historical estimate of δCP as a random variable • Assume independence between historical data and NI trial and use as analysis basis • δTP = δTC + δCP • V(δTP) = V(δTC)+ V(δCP) H. Lundbeck A/S24-May-146

  7. Fixed Margin versus Synthesis criteria H. Lundbeck A/S24-May-147

  8. Fixed Margin versus Synthesis criteria • Fixed margin method inefficient and overly conservative (Rothmann et al., Stats in Med 22: 239-264, 2003) • Synthesis method more efficient and takes the variability of both historical data and NI trial data into account in a natural way H. Lundbeck A/S24-May-148

  9. Fixed Margin M1 Fixed Margin M2 Synthesis M1 Synthesis M2 FDA position on margins and methods More conservative method Preferred option More conservative margin H. Lundbeck A/S24-May-149

  10. The case for ”One Standard of Evidence”(PhRMA PISC Expert Team White Paper, BASS XV, 2008) • The traditional standard of evidence for efficacy of a new treatment T is statistically significant evidence that δTP > 0 • Why should an arbitrarily higher standard of evidence (δTP > δ > 0) be used when an active-controlled (AC) trial has been used? • Preservation margin is arbitrary • Preserving less than p% does not imply ineffectiveness of T • In contrast, δTP = 0 has a definite objective clinical meaning • Requiring a higher standard of evidence for AC trials institutes a regulatory bias in favor of the first drug to be approved (requiring preservation of p% may lead to rejection of T even thought T is better than C) H. Lundbeck A/S24-May-1410

  11. Hypothetical example: 95% CIs relative to P T and C are both superior to P and data suggests that T might be better than C but because C was approved first and T does not meet the p% margin T can’t be approved C vs P T vs P p % margin δTP=0 H. Lundbeck A/S24-May-1411

  12. Example: Metastatic Bladder Cancer • Randomized trial* of Gemzar + cisplatin compared to MVA + cisplatin • An earlier randomized trial** showed superioty of MVA + cisplatin to cisplatin • In our notation T=Gemzar, C=MVA, P=cisplatin • δTC = log hazard ratio (MVA over Gemzar) • δCP = log hazard ratio (”no treatment” over MVA) • δTP = log hazard ratio (”no treatment” over Gemzar) * Von der Masse et al.: JCO, 18:3068-3077 ** Loehrer et al.: JCO, 10:1066-1073 H. Lundbeck A/S24-May-1412

  13. Metastatic Bladder Cancer cont’d • Point estimates • Synthesis method estimated 90.7% preservation of benefit but lower 95% bound was only 11.7% • So ”preservation of 50% benefit” criterion was not met but Gemzar+cisplatin was statistically superior to cisplatin alone (2-sided pvalue=0.035) H. Lundbeck A/S24-May-1413

  14. Metastatic Bladder Cancer cont’d • Assuming constancy of δCPacross trials • Gemzar improves survival when added to cisplatin (p=0.035) • Gemzar+cisplatin was estimated to have similar efficacy as MVA+cisplatin (estimated HR=0.96) • Why do a test for preservation of effect? H. Lundbeck A/S24-May-1414

  15. Conclusions • One standard of evidence for efficacy should be used – superiority to placebo – regardless of the design used (placebo- or active-controlled) • The synthesis method should be used rather than the fixed margin method for better efficiency H. Lundbeck A/S24-May-1415

More Related