NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Treadwell J, Uhl S, Tipton K, et al. Assessing Equivalence and Noninferiority [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012 Jun.

Cover of Assessing Equivalence and Noninferiority

Assessing Equivalence and Noninferiority [Internet].

Show details

References

1.
Witte S, Victor N. Some problems with the investigation of noninferiority in meta-analysis. Methods Inf Med. 2004;43(5):470–4. [PubMed: 15702203]
2.
Lange S, Biester K. The equivalence of non-inferiority problem in systematic reviews. XIII Cochrane colloquium; 2005 Oct 22–26; Melbourne, Australia. 2005. [abstract P172]
3.
Prins H, de Haan R. Formal criteria for establishing equivalence in meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. 8th international Cochrane colloquium; 2000; Cape Town, South Africa. 2000. [abstract PB34]
4.
ICH Expert Working Group. ICH harmonised tripartite guideline: statistical principles for clinical trials. Geneva: International Conference on Harmonisation; Feb 5, 1998. p. 39. www​.ich.org/fileadmin​/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products​/Guidelines​/Efficacy/E9/Step4/E9_Guideline.pdf.
5.
Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) ICH topic E 10: choice of control group in clinical trials. London, UK: European Medicines Agency; Jan, 2001. p. 30.
6.
Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) Points to consider on switching between superiority and non-inferiority. London, UK: European Medicines Agency; Jul 27, 2000. p. 11. www​.ema.europa.eu/docs​/en_GB/document_library​/Scientific_guideline​/2009/09/WC500003658.pdf.
7.
Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) Note for guidance on the investigation of bioavailability and bioequivalence. London, UK: European Medicines Agency; Dec 14, 2000. p. 19.
8.
Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Common technical document for the registration of pharmaceuticals for human use, Clinical overview and clinical summary of module 2. Module 5: study reports. London, UK: European Medicines Agency; Jul, 2003. p. 44. www​.ema.europa.eu/docs​/en_GB/document_library​/Scientific_guideline​/2009/09/WC500002723.pdf.
9.
Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) Guideline on the choice of the non-inferiority margin. London, UK: European Medicines Agency; Jul 27, 2005. p. 11. www​.ema.europa.eu/docs​/en_GB/document_library​/Scientific_guideline​/2009/09/WC500003636.pdf.
10.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 4.3) Barton ACT: Commonwealth of Australia; Dec, 2008. p. 300. www​.pbs.gov.au/industry​/listing/elements​/pbac-guidelines/PBAC4.3.2.pdf.
11.
Points to be considered by the review staff involved in the evaluation process of new drug. Final. Tokyo, Japan: Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA); Apr 17, 2008. p. 6. www​.pmda.go.jp/english​/service/pdf/points.pdf.
12.
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Guidance for industry: non-inferiority clinical trials [draft guidance] Rockville, MD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; Mar, 2010. p. 66. www​.fda.gov/downloads​/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation​/Guidances/UCM202140.pdf.
13.
Guidance for industry on preparation of common technical document for import / manufacture and marketing approval of new drugs for human use (New Drug Application – NDA) New Delhi: Central Drugs Standard Control Organization; Nov, 2010. p. 110. http://cdsco​.nic.in/CTD_Guidance​%20-Final.pdf.
14.
Gomberg-Maitland M, Frison L, Halperin JL. Active-control clinical trials to establish equivalence or noninferiority: methodological and statistical concepts linked to quality. Am Heart J. 2003 Sep;146(3):398–403. [PubMed: 12947355]
15.
Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, et al. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 2006 Mar 8;295(10):1152–60. [PubMed: 16522836]
16.
Guidance for industry: statistical approaches to establishing bioequivalence. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; Jan, 2001. p. 48. www​.fda.gov/downloads​/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation​/Guidances/ucm070244.pdf.
17.
Aujensky D, Roy PM, Verschuren F, et al. Outpatient versus inpatient treatment for patients with acute pulmonary embolism: an international, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2011 Jul 2;378(9785):41–8. [PubMed: 21703676]
18.
Matilde Sanchez M, Chen X. Choosing the analysis population in non-inferiority studies: per protocol or intent-to-treat. Stat Med. 2006 Apr 15;25(7):1169–81. http://rds​.epi-ucsf.org​/ticr/syllabus/courses​/26/2007/01/23/Other​/readings/ITT%20vs​%20PP%20non-inf%20trials.pdf. [PubMed: 16397861]
19.
Assessing the risk of bias of individual studies when comparing medical interventions. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Jun 9, 2011. p. 30. www​.effectivehealthcare​.ahrq.gov/index.cfm​/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports​/?productid=714&pageaction​=displayproduct.
20.
Treadwell JR. Methods project 1: existing guidance for individual trials. Plymouth Meeting, PA: ECRI Institute; Jun 29, 2011. p. 39.
21.
Wangge G, Klungel OH, Roes KC, et al. Room for improvement in conducting and reporting non-inferiority randomized controlled trials on drugs: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2010. p. e13550. www​.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov​/pmc/articles/PMC2965079. [PMC free article: PMC2965079] [PubMed: 21048948]
22.
Scott IA. Non-inferiority trials: determining whether alternative treatments are good enough. Med J Aust. 2009 Mar 16;190(6):326–30. www​.mja.com.au/public​/issues/190_06_160309/sco10995_fm.html. [PubMed: 19296815]
23.
D’Agostino RB Sr, Massaro JM, Sullivan LM. Non-inferiority trials: design concepts and issues—the encounters of academic consultants in statistics. Stat Med. 2003 Jan;22(2):169–86. [PubMed: 12520555]
24.
Sutter S. Family practice news [database online] Rockville, MD: International Medical News Group, LLC; Sep 7, 2011. [Accessed September 8, 2011]. FDA panel to consider rivaroxaban’s comparative efficacy; p. 4. www​.familypracticenews​.com/index.php?id=2934&type​=98&tx​_ttnews[tt_news]​=62576&cHash=da03e20e36.
25.
Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, et al. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1557–9. www​.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10​.1056/NEJMoa1009638. [PubMed: 22267443]
26.
Morrissey JP, Dalton KM, Steadman HJ, et al. Assessing gaps between policy and practice in Medicaid disenrollment of jail detainees with severe mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 2006 Jun;57(6):803–8. [PubMed: 16754756]
27.
Schunemann HJ, Guyatt GH. Commentary--goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from? Health Serv Res. Apr, 2005. pp. 593–7. www​.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov​/pmc/articles/PMC1361157/pdf/hesr_00374​.pdf. [PMC free article: PMC1361157] [PubMed: 15762909]
28.
Lemieux J, Beaton DE, Hogg-Johnson S, et al. Three methods for minimally important difference: no relationship was found with the net proportion of patients improving. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 May;60(5):448–55. www​.sciencedirect.com​/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey​=B6T84-4MJC1Y5-7-5&_cdi​=5076&_user​=851995&_pii​=S0895435606003234&​_origin​=&_coverDate=05​/31/2007&_sk​=999399994&view​=c&wchp​=dGLzVzz-zSkWB&_valck​=1&md5​=944e41c59e1e716b5d451a64b1bed015&ie=/sdarticle. [PubMed: 17419955]
29.
Troosters T. How important is a minimal difference. Eur Respir J. 2011 Apr;37(4):755–6. http://erj​.ersjournals​.com/content/37/4/755.full.pdf. [PubMed: 21454895]
30.
Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, et al. Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain. 2008 Feb;9(2):105–21. [PubMed: 18055266]
31.
Committee for medicinal products for human use (CHMP) guideline on the choice of the non-inferiority margin. Stat Med. 2006 May 30;25(10):1628–38. [PubMed: 16639773]
32.
Hagg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A, et al. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2003 Feb;12(1):12–20. [PubMed: 12592542]
33.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988. p. 567.
34.
ICH Expert Working Group. ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guideline: choice of control group and related issues in clinical trials E10. Jul 20, 2000. [Accessed March 16, 2012]. p. 35. www​.sourcesolution.com​/speakup/resources​/download/E10-_Choice​_of_Control_Group_and​_Related_Issues_in_Clinical_Trials.pdf.
35.
Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, et al. Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol. 2001 Feb;28(2):406–12. [PubMed: 11246688]
36.
Beninato M, Gill-Body KM, Salles S, et al. Determination of the minimal clinically important difference in the FIM instrument in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006 Jan;87(1):32–9. [PubMed: 16401435]
37.
Garattini S, Bertele’ V. Ethics in clinical research. J Hepatol. 2009 Oct;51(4):792–7. [PubMed: 19664839]
38.
Gentile I, Borgia G. Surrogate endpoints and non-inferiority trials in chronic viral hepatitis. J Hepatol. 2010 May;52(5):778. [PubMed: 20347500]
39.
Siegel JP. Equivalence and noninferiority trials. Am Heart J. 2000 Apr;139(4):S166–70. [PubMed: 10740125]
40.
Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, et al. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Feb;61(2):102–9. [PubMed: 18177782]
41.
Owens DK, Lohr KN, Atkins D, et al. Grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions—Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 May;63(5):513–23. [PubMed: 19595577]
42.
Stettler C, Wandel S, Allemann S, et al. Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2007 Sep 15;370(9591):937–48. [PubMed: 17869634]
43.
Fu R, Gartlehner G, Grant M, et al. Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Nov;64(11):1187–97. Epub 2011 Apr 7. [PubMed: 21477993]
44.
Fu R, Gartlehner G, Grant M, et al. Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Oct, 2010. Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. p. 25. http:​//effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov.
45.
Meier P, Baker P, Jost D, et al. Chest compressions before defibrillation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. BMC Med. 2010;8:52. [PMC free article: PMC2942789] [PubMed: 20828395]
46.
O’Hagan L, Luce BR. A primer on Bayesian statistics in health economics and outcomes research. Bethesda, MD: MEDTAP International, Inc; 2003. p. 72. www​.shef.ac.uk/content​/1/c6/02/55/92/primer.pdf.
47.
Quilici S, Abrams KR, Nicolas A, et al. Meta-analysis of the efficacy and tolerability of pramipexole versus ropinirole in the treatment of restless legs syndrome. Sleep Med. 2008 Oct;9(7):715–26. [PubMed: 18226947]
48.
Furukawa TA, Barbui C, Cipriani A, et al. Imputing missing standard deviations in meta-analyses can provide accurate results. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Jan;59(1):7–10. [PubMed: 16360555]
49.
Thiessen Philbrook H, Barrowman N, Garg AX. Imputing variance estimates do not alter the conclusions of a meta-analysis with continuous outcomes: a case study of changes in renal function after living kidney donation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Mar;60(3):228–40. [PubMed: 17292016]
50.
Bingham CO 3rd, Sebba AI, Rubin BR, et al. Efficacy and safety of etoricoxib 30 mg and celecoxib 200 mg in the treatment of osteoarthritis in two identically designed, randomized, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority studies. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007 Mar;46(3):496–507. http://rheumatology​.oxfordjournals​.org/content/46/3/496​.full.pdf. [PubMed: 16936327]
51.
ECRI Institute. Inhaled insulin for type 1 diabetes, ECRI Institute evidence report No. 149. Plymouth Meeting, PA: ECRI Institute Health Technology Assessment Information Service; Sep, 2007. p. 147.
52.
ECRI Institute. Inhaled insulin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, Windows on Medical Technology No. 146. Plymouth Meeting, PA: ECRI Institute Health Technology Assessment Information Service; Jun 1, 2007. p. 141. http://www​.ecri.org.
53.
Weng TC, Yang YH, Lin SJ, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the therapeutic equivalence of statins. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2010 Apr;35(2):139–51. [PubMed: 20456733]
54.
Beauchamp MK, Nonoyama M, Goldstein RS, et al. Interval versus continuous training in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—a systematic review. Thorax. 2010 Feb;65(2):157–64. [PubMed: 19996334]
55.
Eyawo O, Nachega J, Lefebvre P, et al. Efficacy and safety of prostaglandin analogues in patients with predominantly primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a meta-analysis. Clin Ophthalmol. 2009;3:447–56. [PMC free article: PMC2724035] [PubMed: 19684868]

Views

Related information

  • PMC
    PubMed Central citations
  • PubMed
    Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...