Phase IV non-inferiority trials and additional claims of benefit
| Autor: | Bernabe, Rosemarie D L C, Wangge, Grace, Knol, Mirjam J, Klungel, Olaf H, van Delden, Johannes J M, de Boer, Anthonius, Hoes, Arno W, Raaijmakers, Jan A M, van Thiel, Ghislaine J M W, Sub Pharmacotherapy, Theoretical, Dep Farmaceutische wetenschappen, Sub Gen. Pharmacoepi and Clinical Pharm, Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Sub Pharmacotherapy, Theoretical, Dep Farmaceutische wetenschappen, Sub Gen. Pharmacoepi and Clinical Pharm, Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2013 |
| Předmět: |
Male
safety medicine.medical_specialty Active Comparator Epidemiology Health Informatics Clinical Trials Phase IV as Topic Risk Assessment Non-inferiority Non inferiority male Statistical analyses Medicine Humans human phase 4 clinical trial Intensive care medicine Clinical decision Ethics business.industry Post-authorization article drug risk assessment standard Safety profile phase 4 clinical trial (topic) female Pharmaceutical Preparations Sample size determination Additional benefit Clinical relevance Female Safety business Risk assessment Research Article |
| Zdroj: | BMC Medical Research Methodology BMC Medical Research Methodology [E], 13. BioMed Central |
| ISSN: | 1471-2288 |
| Popis: | BACKGROUND: Non-inferiority (NI) trials in drug research are used to demonstrate that a new treatment is not less effective than an active comparator. Since phase IV trials typically aim at informing a clinical decision, the value of a phase IV non-inferiority trial hinges also on its clinical relevance. In such trials, clinical relevance would refer to the added benefit claims of a specific drug, apart from efficacy, relative to its comparator drug in the trial. METHODS: In this study, we reviewed 41 phase IV trials and extracted information on whether the authors mentioned any additional benefit beyond the NI (efficacy) claim of the drug and whether the additional benefit was proven in the trial. We checked whether the additional claim was based on descriptions only or on formal statistical analyses. RESULTS: Our results showed that 22 out of the 41 NI trials mentioned additional benefit of the test drug and most of these claims were related to the safety profile. Of all the post-authorization NI trials that claimed additional benefit, 10 out of 22 NI trials used formal statistical analyses to show additional benefit, and only one included a sample size calculation for the additional benefit prior to the trial. CONCLUSION: We conclude that there is room for improvement in terms of designing phase IV NI trials with added benefit claims and in proving these additional claims. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink