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

Rethinking Statistical Approaches to Evaluating Drug Safety

• Liu JP

• KMID: 1786203
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2007.48.6.895

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(R) and Avandia(R) 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(R) and Avandia(R) are of cardiovascular hazard. However, these results cannot prove that both Vioxx(R) and Avandia(R) 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.

Keyword

Effectiveness; safety; no excessive risk; noninferiority approach

MeSH Terms

Biometry/*methods
Confidence Intervals
Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic
Data Interpretation, Statistical
Drug Evaluation/*methods/standards
Drug Toxicity/prevention & control
Humans
Models, Statistical
Research Design/standards

Reference

1. Graham DJ, Campen D, Hui R, Spence M, Cheetham C, Levy G, et al. Risk of acute myocardial infarction and sudden death in patients treated with cyclo-oxygenase 2 selective and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: nested case-control study. Lancet. 2005. 365:475–481.

2. Topol EJ. Failing the public health-rofecoxib, Merck, and FDA. N Engl J Med. 2004. 351:1707–1709.

3. Bresalier RS, Sandler RS, Quan H, Bolognese JA, Oxenius B, Horgan K, et al. Cardiovascular events associated with rofecoxib in a colorectal adenoma chemoprevention trial. N Engl J Med. 2005. 352:1092–1102.

4. Nissen SE, Wolski K. Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med. 2007. 356:2457–2471.

5. Harris G. FDA issues strictest warning on diabetes drugs. New York Times. 2007. 06. 06. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/health/07drug.htm.

6. Hauschke D, Hothorn LA. Chow SC, Liu JP, editors. Safety assessment of toxicological studies: proof of safety versus proof of hazard. Design and analysis of animal studies in pharmaceutical development. 1995. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.;197–225.

7. Colton T. Statistics in medicine. 1974. Boston (MA): Little, Brown and Company.

8. Chow SC, Liu JP. Design and analysis of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. 2000. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Marcel Dekker, Inc..

9. Chow SC, Liu JP. Design and analysis of Clinical Trials. 2004. 2nd ed. New York (NY): John Wiley and sons.

10. Farrington CP, Manning G. Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparing binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference or non-unity relative risk. Stat Med. 1990. 9:1447–1454.

11. Liu JP, Hsueh HM, Hsieh E, Chen JJ. Tests for equivalence or non-inferiority for paired binary data. Stat Med. 2003. 21:231–245.

12. Hsueh HM, Liu JP, Chen JJ. Unconditional exact tests for equivalence or non-inferiority for paired binary endpoints. Biometrics. 2001. 57:478–483.

13. Chan ISF. Proving non-inferiority or equivalence of two treatments with dichotomous endpoints using exact methods. Stat Methods Med Res. 2003. 12:37–58.

14. Liu JP, Fan HY, Ma MC. Tests for equivalence based on odds ratio for matched-pair design. J Biopharm Stat. 2005. 15:889–901.

15. Tang NS, Tang ML, Wang SF. Sample size determination for matched-pair equivalence trials using rate ratio. Biostatistics. 2007. 8:625–631.

16. Home PD, Pocock SJ, Beck-Nielsen H, Gomis R, Hanefeld M, Jones NP, et al. Rosiglitazone evaluated for cardiovascular outcomes-an interim analysis. N Engl J Med. 2007. 357:28–38.