• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

重新思考评估药物安全性的统计方法。

Rethinking statistical approaches to evaluating drug safety.

作者信息

Liu Jen-pei

机构信息

Statistical Education Center, Division of Biometry, Graduate Institute of Agronomy, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.

出版信息

Yonsei Med J. 2007 Dec 31;48(6):895-900. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2007.48.6.895.

DOI:10.3349/ymj.2007.48.6.895
PMID:18159580
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2628183/
Abstract

PURPOSE

The current methods used to evaluate the efficacy of drug products are inadequate. We propose a non-inferiority approach to prove the safety of drugs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Traditional hypotheses for the evaluation of the safety of drugs are based on proof of hazard, which have proven to be inadequate. Therefore, based on the concept of proof of safety, the non-inferiority hypothesis is employed to prove that the risk of new drugs does not exceed a pre-specified allowable safety margin, hence proving that a drug has no excessive risk. The results from papers published on Vioxx and Avandia are used to illustrate the difference between the traditional approach for proof of hazard and the non-inferiority approach for proof of safety.

RESULTS

The p-values from traditional hypotheses were greater than 0.05, and failed to demonstrate that Vioxx and Avandia are of cardiovascular hazard. However, these results cannot prove that both Vioxx and Avandia are of no cardiovascular risk. On the other hand, the non-inferiority approach can prove that they are of excessive cardiovascular risk.

CONCLUSION

The non-inferiority approach is appropriate to prove the safety of drugs.

摘要

目的

当前用于评估药品疗效的方法并不充分。我们提出一种非劣效性方法来证明药物的安全性。

材料与方法

用于评估药物安全性的传统假设基于危害证明,事实证明这种方法并不充分。因此,基于安全性证明的概念,采用非劣效性假设来证明新药的风险不超过预先设定的可接受安全边际,从而证明一种药物没有过高风险。使用发表在关于万络(罗非昔布)和文迪雅(马来酸罗格列酮)的论文中的结果来说明危害证明的传统方法与安全性证明的非劣效性方法之间的差异。

结果

传统假设的p值大于0.05,未能证明万络和文迪雅存在心血管危害。然而,这些结果并不能证明万络和文迪雅都没有心血管风险。另一方面,非劣效性方法可以证明它们存在过高的心血管风险。

结论

非劣效性方法适用于证明药物的安全性。

相似文献

1
Rethinking statistical approaches to evaluating drug safety.重新思考评估药物安全性的统计方法。
Yonsei Med J. 2007 Dec 31;48(6):895-900. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2007.48.6.895.
2
Methodological standards in non-inferiority AIDS trials: moving from adherence to compliance.非劣效性艾滋病试验中的方法学标准:从坚持到依从性的转变
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006 Sep 20;6:46. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-46.
3
A note on the conservativeness of the confidence interval approach for the selection of non-inferiority margin in the two-arm active-control trial.关于双臂活性对照试验中用于选择非劣效性界值的置信区间方法的保守性说明。
Stat Med. 2008 Aug 30;27(19):3732-42. doi: 10.1002/sim.3256.
4
Non-inferiority trials: the 'at least as good as' criterion with dichotomous data.非劣效性试验:二分数据的“至少同样好”标准
Stat Med. 2006 Apr 15;25(7):1115-30. doi: 10.1002/sim.2476.
5
Modified Haybittle-Peto group sequential designs for testing superiority and non-inferiority hypotheses in clinical trials.用于在临床试验中检验优效性和非劣效性假设的改良Haybittle-Peto成组序贯设计。
Stat Med. 2006 Apr 15;25(7):1149-67. doi: 10.1002/sim.2357.
6
Efficacy of experimental treatments compared with standard treatments in non-inferiority trials: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.实验性治疗与标准治疗在非劣效性试验中的疗效比较:随机对照试验的荟萃分析。
Int J Epidemiol. 2010 Dec;39(6):1567-81. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyq136. Epub 2010 Sep 13.
7
On non-inferiority margin and statistical tests in active control trials.关于活性对照试验中的非劣效性界值和统计检验。
Stat Med. 2006 Apr 15;25(7):1101-13. doi: 10.1002/sim.2208.
8
Testing superiority and non-inferiority hypotheses in active controlled clinical trials.在活性对照临床试验中检验优效性和非劣效性假设。
Biom J. 2005 Feb;47(1):62-74; discussion 99-107. doi: 10.1002/bimj.200410089.
9
Re-formulating non-inferiority trials as superiority trials: The case of binary outcomes.将非劣效性试验重新设计为优效性试验:二元结局的情况。
Biom J. 2009 Feb;51(1):185-92. doi: 10.1002/bimj.200810499.
10
Design and analysis of non-inferiority mortality trials in oncology.肿瘤学中非劣效性死亡率试验的设计与分析
Stat Med. 2003 Jan 30;22(2):239-64. doi: 10.1002/sim.1400.

引用本文的文献

1
Statistical methods for the analysis of adverse event data in randomised controlled trials: a scoping review and taxonomy.随机对照试验中不良事件数据分析的统计方法:范围综述和分类法。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Nov 30;20(1):288. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01167-9.
2
Pooled analysis of rofecoxib placebo-controlled clinical trial data: lessons for postmarket pharmaceutical safety surveillance.罗非昔布安慰剂对照临床试验数据的汇总分析:上市后药品安全性监测的经验教训
Arch Intern Med. 2009 Nov 23;169(21):1976-85. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.394.

本文引用的文献

1
Rosiglitazone evaluated for cardiovascular outcomes--an interim analysis.罗格列酮心血管结局评估——一项中期分析。
N Engl J Med. 2007 Jul 5;357(1):28-38. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa073394. Epub 2007 Jun 5.
2
Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes.罗格列酮对心肌梗死风险及心血管原因所致死亡的影响。
N Engl J Med. 2007 Jun 14;356(24):2457-71. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa072761. Epub 2007 May 21.
3
Sample size determination for matched-pair equivalence trials using rate ratio.使用率比进行配对等效性试验的样本量确定
Biostatistics. 2007 Jul;8(3):625-31. doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxl034. Epub 2006 Oct 27.
4
Tests for equivalence based on odds ratio for matched-pair design.基于匹配对设计的优势比的等效性检验。
J Biopharm Stat. 2005;15(6):889-901. doi: 10.1080/10543400500265561.
5
Cardiovascular events associated with rofecoxib in a colorectal adenoma chemoprevention trial.一项结直肠腺瘤化学预防试验中与罗非昔布相关的心血管事件。
N Engl J Med. 2005 Mar 17;352(11):1092-102. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa050493. Epub 2005 Feb 15.
6
Risk of acute myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death in patients treated with cyclo-oxygenase 2 selective and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: nested case-control study.使用环氧化酶2选择性和非选择性非甾体抗炎药治疗的患者发生急性心肌梗死和心源性猝死的风险:巢式病例对照研究
Lancet. 2005;365(9458):475-81. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17864-7.
7
Failing the public health--rofecoxib, Merck, and the FDA.公共卫生的失败——罗非昔布、默克公司与美国食品药品监督管理局
N Engl J Med. 2004 Oct 21;351(17):1707-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp048286. Epub 2004 Oct 6.
8
Proving non-inferiority or equivalence of two treatments with dichotomous endpoints using exact methods.使用精确方法证明两种具有二分终点的治疗方法的非劣效性或等效性。
Stat Methods Med Res. 2003 Jan;12(1):37-58. doi: 10.1191/0962280203sm314ra.
9
Tests for equivalence or non-inferiority for paired binary data.配对二元数据的等效性或非劣效性检验。
Stat Med. 2002 Jan 30;21(2):231-45. doi: 10.1002/sim.1012.
10
Unconditional exact tests for equivalence or noninferiority for paired binary endpoints.配对二元终点的等效性或非劣效性的无条件精确检验。
Biometrics. 2001 Jun;57(2):478-83. doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2001.00478.x.