The purpose of a non-inferiority trial is to assert the efficacy of an experimental treatment compared with a reference treatment by showing that the experimental treatment retains a substantial proportion of the efficacy of the reference treatment. Statistical methods have been developed to test multiple experimental treatments in three-arm non-inferiority trials. In this paper, we report the development of procedures that simultaneously test the non-inferiority and the superiority of experimental treatments after the assay sensitivity has been established. The advantage of the proposed test procedures is the additional ability to identify superior treatments while retaining an non-inferiority testing power comparable to that of existing testing procedures. Single-step and stepwise procedures are derived and then compared with each other to determine their relative testing power and testing error in a simulation study. Finally, the suggested procedures are illustrated with two clinical examples.
BeckTHaasenCVertheinU, et al.Maintenance treatment for opioid dependence with slow-release oral morphine: A randomized cross-over, non-inferiority study versus methadone. Addiction2014; 109: 617–626.
2.
FlemingTRPowersJH. Issues in noninferiority trials: The evidence in community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis2008; 47: S108–S120.
3.
BurgerHUBeyerUAbtM. Issues in the assessment of non-inferiority: Perspectives drawn from case studies. Pharm Stat2011; 10: 433–439.
FlemingTROdem-DavisKRothmannMD, et al.Some essential considerations in the design and conduct of non-inferiority trials. Clin Trials2011; 8: 432–439.
7.
VietaECruzN. Head to head comparisons as an alternative to placebo-controlled trials. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol2012; 22: 800–803.
8.
HungHMJWangSJO'NeillR. Challenges and regulatory experiences with non-inferiority trial design without placebo arm. Biometric J2009; 51: 324–334.
9.
EllenbergSSTempleR. Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments. Part 2: Practical issues and specific cases. Ann Intern Med2000; 133: 464–470.
10.
JuliousSAWangSJ. How biased are indirect comparisons, particularly when comparisons are made over time in controlled trials. Drug Inf J2008; 42: 625–633.
11.
SoonGZhangZTsongY, et al.Assessing overall evidence from noninferiority trials with shared historical data. Stat Med2013; 32: 2349–2363.
12.
TsongYLevensonMZhangJ, et al.Choice of λ-margin and dependency of non-inferiority trials. Stat Med2008; 27: 520–528.
13.
Russell-JonesDVaagASchmitzO, et al.Liraglutide vs insulin glargine and placebo in combination with metformin and sulfonylurea therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus (LEAD-5 met+SU): A randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia2009; 52: 2046–2055.
NgTH. Issues of simultaneous tests for noninferiority and superiority. J Biopharma Stat2003; 13: 629–639.
16.
TsongYZhangJ. Testing superiority and non-inferiority hypotheses in active controlled clinical trials. Biometric J2005; 47: 62–74.
17.
ÖhrnFJennisonC. Optimal group-sequential designs for simultaneous testing of superiority and non-inferiority. Stat Med2010; 29: 743–759.
18.
SundarSSinhaPKRaiM, et al.Comparison of short-course multidrug treatment with standard therapy for visceral leishmaniasis in India: An open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet2011; 377: 477–486.
19.
BachelezHVan de KerkhofP, et al.Tofacitinib versus etanercept or placebo in moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis: A phase 3 randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet2015; 386: 552–561.
20.
KwongKSCheungSHHayterAJ, et al.Extension of three-arm non-inferiority studies to trials with multiple new treatments. Stat Med2012; 31: 2833–2843.
21.
KwongKSCheungSHHayterAJ. Step-up procedures for non-inferiority tests with multiple experimental treatments. Stat Methods Med Res2016; 25: 1290–1302.
22.
StuckeKKieserM. A general approach for sample size calculation for the three-arm ‘gold standard’ non-inferiority design. Stat Med2012; 31: 3579–3596.
23.
HidaETangoT. On the three-arm non-inferiority trial including a placebo with a prespecified margin. Stat Med2011; 30: 224–231.
24.
DunnettCWTamhaneAC. A step-up multiple test procedure. J Am Stat Assoc1992; 87: 162–170.
25.
KwongKSLiuW. Calculation of critical values for Dunnett and Tamhane's step-up multiple test procedure. Stat Probab Lett2000; 49: 411–416.
26.
MarcusRPeritzEGabrielKR. On closed testing procedures with special reference to ordered analysis of variance. Biometrika1976; 63: 655–660.
27.
NauckMFridAHermansenK, et al.Efficacy and safety comparison of liraglutide, glimepiride, and placebo, all in combination with metformin, in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care2009; 32: 84–90.
28.
MarreMShawJBrändleM, et al.Liraglutide, a once-daily human GLP-1 analogue, added to a sulphonylurea over 26 weeks procedures greater improvements in glycaemic and weight control compared with adding rosiglitazone or placebo in subjects with Type 2 diabetes (LEAD-1SU). Diabetic Med2009; 26: 268–278.
29.
LiuW. Multiple tests of a non-hierarchical finite family of hypotheses. J R Stat Soc Series B1996; 58: 455–461.
30.
DunnettCWTamhaneAC. Step-down multiple tests for comparing treatments with a control in unbalanced one-way layouts. Stat Med1991; 10: 939–947.
31.
KwongKSCheungSHChanWS. Multiple testing to establish superiority/equivalence of a new treatment compared with k standard treatments for unbalanced designs. Biometrics2004; 60: 491–498.
32.
MorikawaTYoshidaM. A useful testing strategy in phase III trials: Combined test of superiority and test of equivalence. J Biopharma Stat1995; 5: 297–306.
33.
DunnettCWTamhaneAC. Multiple testing to establish superiority/equivalence of a new treatment compared with k standard treatments. Stat Med1997; 16: 2489–2506.
34.
KoyamaTSampsonARGleserLJ. A framework for two-stage adaptive procedures to simultaneously test non-inferiority and superiority. Stat Med2005; 24: 2439–2456.
35.
KwongKSCheungSHWenMJ. Sample size determination in step-up testing procedures for multiple comparisons with a control. Stat Med2010; 29: 2743–2756.
36.
DonohueJFFogartyCLötvallJ, et al.Once-daily bronchodilators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Indacaterol versus tiotropium. Am J Respir Crit Care Med2010; 182: 155–162.
37.
Lavalle-GonzálezFJJanuszewiczAJDavidsonJ, et al.Efficacy and safety of canagliflozin compared with placebo and sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes on background metformin monotherapy: A randomised trial. Diabetologia2013; 56: 2582–2592.
38.
BergenstalRMWyshamCMacConellL, et al.Efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly versus sitagliptin or pioglitazone as an adjunct to metformin for treatment of type 2 diabetes (DURATION-2): A randomised trial. Lancet2010; 376: 431–439.
39.
WangSJJungHMJTsongY, et al.Group sequential test strategies for superiority and non-inferiority hypotheses in active controlled clinical trials. Stat Med2001; 20: 1903–1912.
40.
ShihWJQuanHLiG. Two-stage adaptive strategy for superiority and non-inferiority hypotheses in active controlled clinical trials. Stat Med2004; 23: 2781–2798.
41.
AloshMBretzFHuqueM. Advanced multiplicity adjustment methods in clinical trials. Stat Med2014; 33: 693–713.
42.
SugitaniTBretzFMaurerW. A simple and flexible graphical approach for adaptive group-sequential clinical trials. J Biopharma Stat2016; 26: 202–216.
43.
DunnettCWTamhaneAC. Step-up multiple testing of parameters with unequally correlated estimates. Biometrics1995; 51: 217–227.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
