In non-inferiority clinical trials, a test treatment is compared to an active-control rather than to placebo. Such designs are considered when placebo is unethical or not feasible. The critical question is whether the test treatment would have been superior to placebo, had placebo been used in the non-inferiority trial. This question can only be addressed indirectly, based on information from relevant historical trials with data on active-control and placebo. The network meta-analytic-predictive approach to non-inferiority trials is based on a network meta-analysis of the data from the historical trials and the non-inferiority trial, and the prediction of the putative test vs. placebo effect in the non-inferiority trial. The approach extends previous work by incorporating between-trial variability for all relevant parameters and focusing on the parameters in the non-inferiority trial rather than on population means. Two prominent examples with binary outcomes are used to illustrate the approach.
TempleREllenbergSS. Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments. Part 1: ethical and scientific issues. Ann Intern Med2000; 133(6): 455–463.
2.
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(6): 464–470.
3.
LewisJA. The European regulatory experience. Stat Med2002; 21(19): 2931–2938.
4.
JonesBJarvisPLewisJAEbbuttAF. Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods. Br Med J1996; 313(7048): 36–39.
5.
EllenbergSS. Scientific and ethical issues in the use of placebo and active controls in clinical trials. J Bone Miner Res2003; 18(6): 1121–1124.
6.
HungHMWangSJO’NeillR. Challenges and regulatory experiences with non-inferiority trial design without placebo arm. Biometrical J2009; 51(2): 324–334.
7.
WhiteheadA. Meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2002.
8.
HigginsJPThompsonSGSpiegelhalterDJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J Royal Stat Soc Ser A2009; 172(1): 137–159.
9.
ICH E10. Choice of control group in clinical trials. London: European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, CPMP/ICH/364/396, http://www.ich.org/LOB/media/MEDIA486.pdf (2000, accessed January 2011).
FDA. Draft guidance for industry: non-inferiority clinical trials. Silver Spring, MD: FDA, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM202140.pdf (2010, accessed January 2011).
12.
HasselbladVKongDF. Statistical methods for comparison to placebo in active-control trials. Drug Inf J2001; 35: 435–449.
13.
HigginsJPWhiteheadA. Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. Stat Med1996; 15(24): 2733–2749.
14.
HasselbladV. Meta-analysis of multitreatment studies. Med Decis Making1998; 18: 37–43.
15.
LumleyT. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med2002; 21(16): 2313–2324.
16.
LuGAdesAE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med2004; 23(20): 3105–3124.
17.
LuGAdesAE. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc2006; 101(474): 447–459.
18.
SalantiGHigginsJPAdesAEIoannidisJP. Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res2008; 17(3): 279–301.
19.
NixonRMBansbackNBrennanA. Using mixed treatment comparisons and meta-regression to perform indirect comparisons to estimate the efficacy of biologic treatments in rheumatoid arthritis. Stat Med2007; 26(6): 1237–1254.
20.
ThijsVLemmensRFieuwsS. Network meta-analysis: simultaneous meta-analysis of common antiplatelet regimens after transient ischaemic attack or stroke. Eur Heart J2008; 29(9): 1086–1092.
21.
WandelSJüniPTendalBNüeschEVilligerPMWeltonNJ. Effects of glucosamine, chondroitin, or placebo in patients with osteoarthritis of hip or knee: network meta-analysis. Br Med J2010; 341: c4675–c4675.
22.
SimonR. Bayesian design and analysis of active control clinical trials. Biometrics1999; 55(2): 484–487.
23.
SaccoRLDienerHCYusufSCottonDOunpuuSLawtonWA. Aspirin and extended-release dipyridamole versus clopidogrel for recurrent stroke. N Engl J Med2008; 359(12): 1238–1251.
24.
KentDMThalerDE. Stroke prevention–insights from incoherence. N Engl J Med2008; 359(12): 1287–1289.
25.
BillerJ. Antiplatelet therapy in ischemic stroke: variability in clinical trials and its impact on choosing the appropriate therapy. J Neurol Sci2009; 284(1–2): 1–9.
26.
AlgraA. Digestion of the antiplatelets comparison of PRoFESS: 18-7=1?Stroke2009; 40(5): 1932–1935.
27.
LuGAdesAESuttonAJCooperNJBriggsAHCaldwellDM. Meta-analysis of mixed treatment comparisons at multiple follow-up times. Stat Med2007; 26(20): 3681–3699.
28.
PocockSJ. The combination of randomized and historical controls in clinical trials. J Chronic Dis1976; 29(3): 175–188.
29.
CarlinJB. Letter to the editor. Stat Med2000; 19(5): 753–759.
30.
van HouwelingenHCArendsLRStijnenT. Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat Med2002; 21(4): 589–624.
NeuenschwanderBCapkun-NiggliGBransonMSpiegelhalterDJ. Summarizing historical information on controls in clinical trials. Clin Trials2010; 7(1): 5–18.
33.
StijnenTHamzaTHOzdemirP. Random effects meta-analysis of event outcome in the framework of the generalized linear mixed model with applications in sparse data. Stat Med2010; 29(29): 3046–3067.
34.
SpiegelhalterDJAbramsKRMylesJP. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
35.
GelmanA. Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models. Bayesian Analysis2006; 1: 515–533.
36.
PullenayegumEM. An informed reference prior for between-study heterogeneity in meta-analyses of binary outcomes. Stat Med2011; 30(26): 3082–3094.
37.
GelfandAESmithAFM. Sampling-based approaches to calculating marginal densities. J Am Stat Assoc1990; 85: 398–409.
38.
LunnDJThomasABestNSpiegelhalterD. WinBUGS - a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Comput2000; 10: 325–337.
39.
CohenMDemersCGurfinkelEPTurpieAGFromellGJGoodmanS. Low-molecular-weight heparins in non-ST-segment elevation ischemia: the ESSENCE trial. Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin versus intravenous unfractionated heparin, in non-Q-wave Coronary Events. Am J Cardiol1998; 82(5B): 19L–24L.
40.
OlerAWhooleyMAOlerJGradyD. Adding heparin to aspirin reduces the incidence of myocardial infarction and death in patients with unstable angina. A meta-analysis. JAMA1996; 276(10): 811–815.
41.
FisherLDGentMBüllerHR. Active-control trials: how would a new agent compare with placebo? A method illustrated with clopidogrel, aspirin, and placebo. Am Heart J2001; 141(1): 26–32.
42.
DurrlemanSChaikinP. The use of putative placebo in active control trials: two applications in a regulatory setting. Stat Med2003; 22(6): 941–952.
43.
FlemingTR. Current issues in non-inferiority trials. Stat Med2008; 27(3): 317–332.
44.
SalantiGAdesAEIoannidisJP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol2011; 64(2): 163–171.
45.
WangSJHungHMTsongY. Utility and pitfalls of some statistical methods in active controlled clinical trials. Control Clin Trials2002; 23(1): 15–28.
46.
SennSJ. ‘Equivalence is different’ - some comments on therapeutic equivalence. Biometrical J2005; 47: 104–107.
47.
SnapinnSJiangQ. Preservation of effect and the regulatory approval of new treatments on the basis of non-inferiority trials. Stat Med2008; 27(3): 382–391.
48.
RothmannMLiNChenGChiGYTempleRTsouHH. Design and analysis of non-inferiority mortality trials in oncology. Stat Med2003; 22(2): 239–264.
49.
Julious SA and Owen RJ. A comparison of methods for sample size estimation for non-inferiority studies with binary outcomes. Stat Methods Med Res 2010; DOI: 10.1177/0962280210378945.
50.
JansenJP. Network meta-analysis of survival data with fractional polynomials. BMC Med Res Methodol2011; 11(1): 61–61.
51.
WitteSSchmidliHO’HaganARacine-PoonA. Designing a non-inferiority study in kidney transplantation: a case study. Pharm Stat2011; 10: 427–432.
52.
DiasSWeltonNJCaldwellDMAdesAE. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med2010; 29(7–8): 932–944.
53.
GouldAL. Another view of active-controlled trials. Control Clin Trials1991; 12(4): 474–485.
54.
IbrahimJGChenMH. Power prior distributions for regression models. Stat Sci2000; 15: 46–60.
55.
NeuenschwanderBBransonMSpiegelhalterDJ. A note on the power prior. Stat Med2009; 28(28): 3562–3566.
56.
HobbsBPCarlinBPMandrekarSJSargentDJ. Hierarchical commensurate and power prior models for adaptive incorporation of historical information in clinical trials. Biometrics2011; 67(3): 1047–1056.
JuliousSAWangSJ. Issues with indirect comparisons in clinical trials particularly with respect to non-inferiority trials. Drug Inf J2008; 42(6): 625–633.
59.
SpiegelhalterDJBestNGCarlinBPVan Der LindeA. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J Royal Stat Soc Ser B2002; 64: 583–639.
60.
JuliousSA. Time to end the non-inferiority complex?Pharm Stat2011; 10: 393–394.
61.
AldersonNECampbellGD’AgostinoREllenbergSLindborgSO’NeillR. Statistical issues: a roundtable discussion. Clin Trials2005; 2: 364–372.
