The Smooth Away From Expected (SAFE) non-inferiority frontier: theory and implementation with an application to the D3 trial
Abstract Background In a non-inferiority trial, the choice of margin depends on the expected control event risk. If the true risk differs from expected, power and interpretability of results can be affected. A non-inferiority frontier pre-specifies an appropriate non-inferiority margin for each valu...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2023-08-01
|
| Series: | Trials |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07586-5 |
| _version_ | 1797451591651950592 |
|---|---|
| author | Matteo Quartagno Man Chan Anna Turkova Deborah Ford Ian R. White |
| author_facet | Matteo Quartagno Man Chan Anna Turkova Deborah Ford Ian R. White |
| author_sort | Matteo Quartagno |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background In a non-inferiority trial, the choice of margin depends on the expected control event risk. If the true risk differs from expected, power and interpretability of results can be affected. A non-inferiority frontier pre-specifies an appropriate non-inferiority margin for each value of control event risk. D3 is a non-inferiority trial comparing two treatment regimens in children living with HIV, designed assuming a control event risk of 12%, a non-inferiority margin of 10%, 80% power and a significance level (α) of 0.025. We consider approaches to choosing and implementing a frontier for this already funded trial, where changing the sample size substantially would be difficult. Methods In D3, we fix the non-inferiority margin at 10%, 8% and 5% for control event risks of ≥9%, 5% and 1%, respectively. We propose four frontiers which fit these fixed points, including a Smooth Away From Expected (SAFE) frontier. Analysis approaches considered are as follows: using the pre-specified significance level (α=0.025); always using a reduced significance level (to achieve α≤0.025 across control event risks); reducing significance levels only when the control event risk differs significantly from expected (control event risk <9%); and using a likelihood ratio test. We compare power and type 1 error for SAFE with other frontiers. Results Changing the significance level only when the control event risk is <9% achieves approximately nominal (<3%) type I error rate and maintains reasonable power for control event risks between 1 and 15%. The likelihood ratio test method performs similarly, but the results are more complex to present. Other analysis methods lead to either inflated type 1 error or badly reduced power. The SAFE frontier gives more interpretable results with low control event risks than other frontiers (i.e. it uses more reasonable non-inferiority margins). Other frontiers do not achieve power close (i.e. within 1%) to SAFE across the range of likely control event risks while controlling type I error. Conclusions The SAFE non-inferiority frontier will be used in D3, and the non-inferiority margin and significance level will be modified if the control event risk is lower than expected. This ensures results will remain interpretable if design assumptions are incorrect, while achieving similar power. A similar approach could be considered for other non-inferiority trials where the control event risk is uncertain. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T14:55:52Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-24d9b240f70b49c48aa81289fe4135d7 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1745-6215 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T14:55:52Z |
| publishDate | 2023-08-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Trials |
| spelling | doaj.art-24d9b240f70b49c48aa81289fe4135d72023-11-26T14:09:36ZengBMCTrials1745-62152023-08-0124111210.1186/s13063-023-07586-5The Smooth Away From Expected (SAFE) non-inferiority frontier: theory and implementation with an application to the D3 trialMatteo Quartagno0Man Chan1Anna Turkova2Deborah Ford3Ian R. White4MRC Clinical Trials Unit, Institute for Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College LondonMRC Clinical Trials Unit, Institute for Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College LondonMRC Clinical Trials Unit, Institute for Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College LondonMRC Clinical Trials Unit, Institute for Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College LondonMRC Clinical Trials Unit, Institute for Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College LondonAbstract Background In a non-inferiority trial, the choice of margin depends on the expected control event risk. If the true risk differs from expected, power and interpretability of results can be affected. A non-inferiority frontier pre-specifies an appropriate non-inferiority margin for each value of control event risk. D3 is a non-inferiority trial comparing two treatment regimens in children living with HIV, designed assuming a control event risk of 12%, a non-inferiority margin of 10%, 80% power and a significance level (α) of 0.025. We consider approaches to choosing and implementing a frontier for this already funded trial, where changing the sample size substantially would be difficult. Methods In D3, we fix the non-inferiority margin at 10%, 8% and 5% for control event risks of ≥9%, 5% and 1%, respectively. We propose four frontiers which fit these fixed points, including a Smooth Away From Expected (SAFE) frontier. Analysis approaches considered are as follows: using the pre-specified significance level (α=0.025); always using a reduced significance level (to achieve α≤0.025 across control event risks); reducing significance levels only when the control event risk differs significantly from expected (control event risk <9%); and using a likelihood ratio test. We compare power and type 1 error for SAFE with other frontiers. Results Changing the significance level only when the control event risk is <9% achieves approximately nominal (<3%) type I error rate and maintains reasonable power for control event risks between 1 and 15%. The likelihood ratio test method performs similarly, but the results are more complex to present. Other analysis methods lead to either inflated type 1 error or badly reduced power. The SAFE frontier gives more interpretable results with low control event risks than other frontiers (i.e. it uses more reasonable non-inferiority margins). Other frontiers do not achieve power close (i.e. within 1%) to SAFE across the range of likely control event risks while controlling type I error. Conclusions The SAFE non-inferiority frontier will be used in D3, and the non-inferiority margin and significance level will be modified if the control event risk is lower than expected. This ensures results will remain interpretable if design assumptions are incorrect, while achieving similar power. A similar approach could be considered for other non-inferiority trials where the control event risk is uncertain.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07586-5 |
| spellingShingle | Matteo Quartagno Man Chan Anna Turkova Deborah Ford Ian R. White The Smooth Away From Expected (SAFE) non-inferiority frontier: theory and implementation with an application to the D3 trial Trials |
| title | The Smooth Away From Expected (SAFE) non-inferiority frontier: theory and implementation with an application to the D3 trial |
| title_full | The Smooth Away From Expected (SAFE) non-inferiority frontier: theory and implementation with an application to the D3 trial |
| title_fullStr | The Smooth Away From Expected (SAFE) non-inferiority frontier: theory and implementation with an application to the D3 trial |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Smooth Away From Expected (SAFE) non-inferiority frontier: theory and implementation with an application to the D3 trial |
| title_short | The Smooth Away From Expected (SAFE) non-inferiority frontier: theory and implementation with an application to the D3 trial |
| title_sort | smooth away from expected safe non inferiority frontier theory and implementation with an application to the d3 trial |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07586-5 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT matteoquartagno thesmoothawayfromexpectedsafenoninferiorityfrontiertheoryandimplementationwithanapplicationtothed3trial AT manchan thesmoothawayfromexpectedsafenoninferiorityfrontiertheoryandimplementationwithanapplicationtothed3trial AT annaturkova thesmoothawayfromexpectedsafenoninferiorityfrontiertheoryandimplementationwithanapplicationtothed3trial AT deborahford thesmoothawayfromexpectedsafenoninferiorityfrontiertheoryandimplementationwithanapplicationtothed3trial AT ianrwhite thesmoothawayfromexpectedsafenoninferiorityfrontiertheoryandimplementationwithanapplicationtothed3trial AT matteoquartagno smoothawayfromexpectedsafenoninferiorityfrontiertheoryandimplementationwithanapplicationtothed3trial AT manchan smoothawayfromexpectedsafenoninferiorityfrontiertheoryandimplementationwithanapplicationtothed3trial AT annaturkova smoothawayfromexpectedsafenoninferiorityfrontiertheoryandimplementationwithanapplicationtothed3trial AT deborahford smoothawayfromexpectedsafenoninferiorityfrontiertheoryandimplementationwithanapplicationtothed3trial AT ianrwhite smoothawayfromexpectedsafenoninferiorityfrontiertheoryandimplementationwithanapplicationtothed3trial |