Analysis of two binomial proportions in noninferiority confirmatory trials

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Pharmaceutical Statistics Pub Date : 2023-12-11 DOI:10.1002/pst.2351
Hassan Lakkis, Andrew Lakkis
{"title":"Analysis of two binomial proportions in noninferiority confirmatory trials","authors":"Hassan Lakkis, Andrew Lakkis","doi":"10.1002/pst.2351","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we propose considering an approximate exact score (AES) test for noninferiority comparisons and we derive its test-based confidence interval for the difference between two independent binomial proportions. This test was published in the literature, but not its associated confidence interval. The <i>p</i>-value for this test is obtained by using exact binomial probabilities with the nuisance parameter being replaced by its restricted maximum likelihood estimate. Calculated type I errors revealed that the AES method has important advantages for noninferiority comparisons over popular asymptotic methods for adequately powered confirmatory clinical trials, at 80% or 90% statistical power. For unbalanced sample sizes of the compared groups, type I errors for the asymptotic score method were shown to be higher than the nominal level in a systematic pattern over a range of true proportions, but the AES method did not suffer from such a problem. On average, the true type I error of the AES method was closer to the nominal level than all considered methods in the empirical comparisons. In rare cases, type I errors of the AES test exceeded the nominal level, but only by a small amount. Presented examples showed that the AES method can be more attractive in practice than practical exact methods. In addition, <i>p</i>-value and confidence interval of the AES method can be obtained in &lt;30 s of computer time for most confirmatory trials. Theoretical arguments, combined with empirical evidence and fast computation time should make the AES method attractive in statistical practice.","PeriodicalId":19934,"journal":{"name":"Pharmaceutical Statistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmaceutical Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.2351","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article, we propose considering an approximate exact score (AES) test for noninferiority comparisons and we derive its test-based confidence interval for the difference between two independent binomial proportions. This test was published in the literature, but not its associated confidence interval. The p-value for this test is obtained by using exact binomial probabilities with the nuisance parameter being replaced by its restricted maximum likelihood estimate. Calculated type I errors revealed that the AES method has important advantages for noninferiority comparisons over popular asymptotic methods for adequately powered confirmatory clinical trials, at 80% or 90% statistical power. For unbalanced sample sizes of the compared groups, type I errors for the asymptotic score method were shown to be higher than the nominal level in a systematic pattern over a range of true proportions, but the AES method did not suffer from such a problem. On average, the true type I error of the AES method was closer to the nominal level than all considered methods in the empirical comparisons. In rare cases, type I errors of the AES test exceeded the nominal level, but only by a small amount. Presented examples showed that the AES method can be more attractive in practice than practical exact methods. In addition, p-value and confidence interval of the AES method can be obtained in <30 s of computer time for most confirmatory trials. Theoretical arguments, combined with empirical evidence and fast computation time should make the AES method attractive in statistical practice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非劣效性确认试验中的两个二项式比例分析
在本文中,我们建议在非劣效性比较中使用近似精确分数(AES)检验,并推导出其基于检验的置信区间,用于比较两个独立二项式比例之间的差异。该检验方法已在文献中发表,但没有相关的置信区间。该检验的 p 值是通过使用精确二项概率得到的,其中的干扰参数由其受限最大似然估计值代替。I 型误差的计算结果显示,对于有足够力量的确证性临床试验,在 80% 或 90% 统计力量的情况下,AES 方法与流行的渐近方法相比,在非劣效性比较方面具有重要优势。在比较组样本量不平衡的情况下,渐近分数法的 I 型误差在真实比例范围内以系统模式高于标称水平,但 AES 法不存在这种问题。平均而言,在经验比较中,AES 方法的真实 I 型误差比所有考虑过的方法都更接近标称水平。在极少数情况下,AES 检验的 I 类误差超过了标称水平,但超出的幅度很小。举例说明表明,在实践中,AES 方法比实用的精确方法更具吸引力。此外,对于大多数确证试验,AES 方法的 p 值和置信区间可在 30 秒内通过计算机获得。理论论据、经验证据和快速计算时间的结合应使 AES 方法在统计实践中更具吸引力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Pharmaceutical Statistics
Pharmaceutical Statistics 医学-统计学与概率论
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
90
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pharmaceutical Statistics is an industry-led initiative, tackling real problems in statistical applications. The Journal publishes papers that share experiences in the practical application of statistics within the pharmaceutical industry. It covers all aspects of pharmaceutical statistical applications from discovery, through pre-clinical development, clinical development, post-marketing surveillance, consumer health, production, epidemiology, and health economics. The Journal is both international and multidisciplinary. It includes high quality practical papers, case studies and review papers.
期刊最新文献
On Some Modeling Issues in Estimating Vaccine Efficacy Propensity Score Analysis With Baseline and Follow-Up Measurements of the Outcome Variable. Generalizing Treatment Effect to a Target Population Without Individual Patient Data in a Real-World Setting. Comparative Analyses of Bioequivalence Assessment Methods for In Vitro Permeation Test Data. Simultaneous Inference Using Multiple Marginal Models.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1