How Biased Are Indirect Comparisons, Particularly When Comparisons Are Made Over Time in Controlled Trials?

Abstract

Indirect comparisons are undertaken when a comparison is made between two regimens, usually where the regimens have never been given concurrently in any controlled trial investigating the same general patient population. We highlight the issues of making indirect comparisons when there has been a period of time between the studies, particularly when indirect comparison is being made to placebo. We discuss the impact of any bias in indirectly estimating any effect over placebo in context with noninferiority trials.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    Hasselblad V, Kong DF. Staiistical methods fur comparison to placebo in active-control trials. Drug Inf J. 2001;25:435–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Lim E, Ali Z, Ali A, et al. Indirect comparison meta-analysis of aspirin therapy after coronary surgery. Br Med J. 2003;327:1309–1313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Song F, Altman DG, Glenny AM, Deeks JJ. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions; empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. Br Med J. 2003: 326:472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Wang SJ, Hung HMJ, Tsong Y. Non-inferiority analysis in active controlled trials. Encyclopaedia of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2003:674–677.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    D’Agostino RB, Massaro J, Sullivan LM. Non-inferiority trials: design concepts and issues—the encounters of academic consultants in statistics. Stat Med. 2003;22:169–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Wang SJ, Hung HMJ, Tsong Y. Utility and pitfalls of some statistical methods in active controlled trials. Control Clin Trials. 2002;23:15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Snapinn SM. Alternatives for discounting in the analysis of non-inferiority trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2004;14:263–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Bech P. Meta analysis of placebo controlled trials with mirtazipine using core items of the Hamilton depression scale as evidence of pure anti-depressive effect in the short term treatment of major depression. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2001;4:337–345.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Furukawa T, McGuire H, Barbui C. Low dosage tricyclic antidepressants for depression. Cochrane Database. 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Wilson K, Motram P. Svanranthan P, Nightingale A. Antidepressants versus placebo for the depressed elderly. Cochrane Database. 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Hazell P, O’Connel D, Heathcote D, Henry D. Tricyclic drugs Tor depression in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database. 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Walsh BT, Sneidman SN, Sysko R, Gould M. Placebo response in studies of major depression, variable, substantial and growing. JAMA. 2002;14: 1840–1847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    McClung C, Quessy S, Julious S, Segretti A, Blum D. Placebo response rates in geographical location in COX-2 inhibitor trials of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA). Paper presented at American College of Rheumatology Conference. San Antonio, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    CHMP. Points to consider on switching between superiority and non-inferiority. Doc CPMP/EWP/482/99. 2000. Available at: http://www.tgagov.au/docs/pdf/euguide/ewp/048299en.pdf. Accessed April 14, 2008.

  15. 15.

    ICH E10. Choice of control group in clinical trials. 2000. Available at: http://www.ich.org/LOB/media/MEDIA486.pdf. Accessed April 14, 2008.

  16. 16.

    Jones B, Jarvis P, Lewis JA, Ebbutt AF. Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods. Br Med J. 1996;313:36–39.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Hung HMJ, Wang SJ, Lawrence J, O’Neil RT. Some fundamental issues with non-inferiority testing in active controlled trials. Stat Med. 2003;22:213–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Wiens BL. Choosing an equivalence limit for non-inferiority and/or equivalence studies. Control Clin Trials. 2002;23:2–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    CHMP. Guideline on the choice of non-inferiority margin. Doc CPMP/EWP/2158/99. 2005. Available at: http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/215899en.pdf. Accessed April 14. 2008.

  20. 20.

    Julious SA. Tutorial in biostatistics: sample sizes for clinical trials with normal data. Stat Med. 2004;23:1921–1986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Wang SJ, Hung HMJ, TACT method for non-inferiority testing in active controlled trials. Stat Med. 2003;22:227–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Datta S, Halloran ME, Longini IM. Augmented HIV vaccine trial design for estimating reduction in infectiousness and protective efficacy. Stat Med. 1998;17:185–200.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven A. Julious.

Additional information

The views expressed in this article are the professional views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the US food and Drug Administration.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Julious, S.A., Wang, SJ. How Biased Are Indirect Comparisons, Particularly When Comparisons Are Made Over Time in Controlled Trials?. Ther Innov Regul Sci 42, 625–633 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150804200610

Download citation

Key Words

  • Clinical trials
  • Indirect comparisons
  • Noninferiority
  • Placebo creep