Abstract
Background/Aims:
The emergence, post approval, of serious medical events, which may be associated with the use of a particular drug or class of drugs, is an important public health and regulatory issue. The best method to address this issue is through a large, rigorously designed safety study. Therefore, it is important to elucidate the statistical issues involved in these large safety studies.
Methods:
Two such studies are PRECISION and EAGLES. PRECISION is the primary focus of this article. PRECISION is a non-inferiority design with a clinically relevant non-inferiority margin. Statistical issues in the design, conduct and analysis of PRECISION are discussed.
Results:
Quantitative and clinical aspects of the selection of the composite primary endpoint, the determination and role of the non-inferiority margin in a large safety study and the intent-to-treat and modified intent-to-treat analyses in a non-inferiority safety study are shown. Protocol changes that were necessary during the conduct of PRECISION are discussed from a statistical perspective. Issues regarding the complex analysis and interpretation of the results of PRECISION are outlined. EAGLES is presented as a large, rigorously designed safety study when a non-inferiority margin was not able to be determined by a strong clinical/scientific method. In general, when a non-inferiority margin is not able to be determined, the width of the 95% confidence interval is a way to size the study and to assess the cost–benefit of relative trial size.
Conclusion:
A non-inferiority margin, when able to be determined by a strong scientific method, should be included in a large safety study. Although these studies could not be called “pragmatic,” they are examples of best real-world designs to address safety and regulatory concerns.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.