Li Xiaochun, Li Huilin, Jin Man, D Goldberg Judith
Division of Biostatistics, Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, U.S.A.
Late Development Statistics, Merck Research Laboratories, Rahway, New Jersey, U.S.A.
Stat Med. 2016 Sep 10;35(20):3471-81. doi: 10.1002/sim.6970. Epub 2016 Apr 19.
We consider the non-inferiority (or equivalence) test of the odds ratio (OR) in a crossover study with binary outcomes to evaluate the treatment effects of two drugs. To solve this problem, Lui and Chang (2011) proposed both an asymptotic method and a conditional method based on a random effects logit model. Kenward and Jones (1987) proposed a likelihood ratio test (LRTM ) based on a log linear model. These existing methods are all subject to model misspecification. In this paper, we propose a likelihood ratio test (LRT) and a score test that are independent of model specification. Monte Carlo simulation studies show that, in scenarios considered in this paper, both the LRT and the score test have higher power than the asymptotic and conditional methods for the non-inferiority test; the LRT, score, and asymptotic methods have similar power, and they all have higher power than the conditional method for the equivalence test. When data can be well described by a log linear model, the LRTM has the highest power among all the five methods (LRTM , LRT, score, asymptotic, and conditional) for both non-inferiority and equivalence tests. However, in scenarios for which a log linear model does not describe the data well, the LRTM has the lowest power for the non-inferiority test and has inflated type I error rates for the equivalence test. We provide an example from a clinical trial that illustrates our methods. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
我们考虑在具有二元结局的交叉研究中对优势比(OR)进行非劣效性(或等效性)检验,以评估两种药物的治疗效果。为解决此问题,Lui和Chang(2011)基于随机效应logit模型提出了一种渐近方法和一种条件方法。Kenward和Jones(1987)基于对数线性模型提出了似然比检验(LRTM)。这些现有方法都存在模型设定错误的问题。在本文中,我们提出了一种与模型设定无关的似然比检验(LRT)和得分检验。蒙特卡罗模拟研究表明,在本文所考虑的情形下,对于非劣效性检验,LRT和得分检验的功效均高于渐近方法和条件方法;对于等效性检验,LRT、得分检验和渐近方法的功效相似,且它们的功效均高于条件方法。当数据能用对数线性模型很好地描述时,对于非劣效性检验和等效性检验,LRTM在所有五种方法(LRTM、LRT、得分检验、渐近方法和条件方法)中功效最高。然而,在对数线性模型不能很好描述数据的情形下,对于非劣效性检验,LRTM的功效最低,对于等效性检验,其第一类错误率会膨胀。我们提供了一个来自临床试验的例子来说明我们的方法。版权所有© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.