等效试验和非劣效性试验的估计:EMA对药物开发商的科学建议的横断面研究。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Trials Pub Date : 2025-09-24 DOI:10.1186/s13063-025-09068-2
Jonathan Bergman, Lorenzo Guizzaro, Juan Jose Abellan, Florian Lasch
{"title":"等效试验和非劣效性试验的估计:EMA对药物开发商的科学建议的横断面研究。","authors":"Jonathan Bergman, Lorenzo Guizzaro, Juan Jose Abellan, Florian Lasch","doi":"10.1186/s13063-025-09068-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Estimands framework, introduced in the Addendum to ICH E9, provides a structured method to define treatment effects in clinical trials. The main novelty of the framework is the discussion of intercurrent events as part of the treatment effect definition. It is widely believed that the application of the framework to non-inferiority and equivalence trials deserves specific consideration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To examine the current practices of using the estimand framework in non-inferiority and equivalence trials, we reviewed the scientific advice provided by the European Medicines Agency to drug developers in 2022. This review aimed to determine how often the estimands framework is used by drug developers and/or recommended by EMA and to describe what intercurrent events and handling strategies are being proposed by drug developers and recommended by EMA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The use of the framework varied substantially by clinical development phases. While it was used for phase 3 trials in 47% (25/53) by developers, it was used in 5% (1/19) of the phase 1 trials. For 39% (11/28) of the trials where developers did not use the estimands framework in phase 3, there was no regulatory recommendation to adopt the framework in the response. The most discussed intercurrent event in our sample was 'treatment discontinuation' (n = 47), for which developers most often proposed either a treatment policy strategy (17/47, 36%) or a hypothetical strategy (11/47, 23%). In contrast, EMA most often recommended the use of two co-primary estimands with two different strategies (22/47, 47%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Generally, the proposed and recommended strategies depend on the clinical setting and the respective intercurrent event. Developers almost always proposed a single primary estimand, whereas EMA often recommended two co-primary estimands differing in the strategies used to handle some or all the intercurrent events. Further interaction between academia, industry and regulators is necessary to progress the implementation process of the estimands framework for non-inferiority and equivalence trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":23333,"journal":{"name":"Trials","volume":"26 1","pages":"348"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12462198/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Estimands in equivalence trials and non-inferiority trials: a cross-sectional study of EMA scientific advice to drug developers.\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Bergman, Lorenzo Guizzaro, Juan Jose Abellan, Florian Lasch\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13063-025-09068-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Estimands framework, introduced in the Addendum to ICH E9, provides a structured method to define treatment effects in clinical trials. The main novelty of the framework is the discussion of intercurrent events as part of the treatment effect definition. It is widely believed that the application of the framework to non-inferiority and equivalence trials deserves specific consideration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To examine the current practices of using the estimand framework in non-inferiority and equivalence trials, we reviewed the scientific advice provided by the European Medicines Agency to drug developers in 2022. This review aimed to determine how often the estimands framework is used by drug developers and/or recommended by EMA and to describe what intercurrent events and handling strategies are being proposed by drug developers and recommended by EMA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The use of the framework varied substantially by clinical development phases. While it was used for phase 3 trials in 47% (25/53) by developers, it was used in 5% (1/19) of the phase 1 trials. For 39% (11/28) of the trials where developers did not use the estimands framework in phase 3, there was no regulatory recommendation to adopt the framework in the response. The most discussed intercurrent event in our sample was 'treatment discontinuation' (n = 47), for which developers most often proposed either a treatment policy strategy (17/47, 36%) or a hypothetical strategy (11/47, 23%). In contrast, EMA most often recommended the use of two co-primary estimands with two different strategies (22/47, 47%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Generally, the proposed and recommended strategies depend on the clinical setting and the respective intercurrent event. Developers almost always proposed a single primary estimand, whereas EMA often recommended two co-primary estimands differing in the strategies used to handle some or all the intercurrent events. Further interaction between academia, industry and regulators is necessary to progress the implementation process of the estimands framework for non-inferiority and equivalence trials.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trials\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"348\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12462198/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-025-09068-2\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-025-09068-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在ICH E9附录中介绍的Estimands框架提供了一种在临床试验中定义治疗效果的结构化方法。该框架的主要新颖之处在于将并发事件作为治疗效果定义的一部分进行讨论。人们普遍认为,该框架在非劣效性和等效性试验中的应用值得特别考虑。方法:为了检验目前在非劣效性和等效性试验中使用估计框架的做法,我们回顾了欧洲药品管理局(European Medicines Agency)在2022年向药物开发商提供的科学建议。本综述旨在确定药物开发人员和/或EMA推荐使用评估框架的频率,并描述药物开发人员提出和EMA推荐的并发事件和处理策略。结果:该框架的使用因临床发展阶段而有很大差异。虽然有47%(25/53)的开发人员将其用于3期试验,但只有5%(1/19)的1期试验使用了它。在39%(11/28)的试验中,开发人员在第3阶段没有使用评估框架,因此在响应中没有采用该框架的监管建议。在我们的样本中,讨论最多的并发事件是“治疗中断”(n = 47),对此,开发者最常提出的要么是治疗政策策略(17/47,36%),要么是假设策略(11/47,23%)。相比之下,EMA通常建议使用两种不同策略的两种共同主要评估(22/47,47%)。结论:一般来说,建议和推荐的策略取决于临床环境和各自的并发事件。开发人员几乎总是提出一个单一的主要评估,而EMA经常推荐两个共同的主要评估,这些评估在处理一些或所有交互事件的策略上有所不同。学术界、产业界和监管机构之间的进一步互动对于推进非劣效性和等效性试验估计框架的实施过程是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Estimands in equivalence trials and non-inferiority trials: a cross-sectional study of EMA scientific advice to drug developers.

Background: The Estimands framework, introduced in the Addendum to ICH E9, provides a structured method to define treatment effects in clinical trials. The main novelty of the framework is the discussion of intercurrent events as part of the treatment effect definition. It is widely believed that the application of the framework to non-inferiority and equivalence trials deserves specific consideration.

Methods: To examine the current practices of using the estimand framework in non-inferiority and equivalence trials, we reviewed the scientific advice provided by the European Medicines Agency to drug developers in 2022. This review aimed to determine how often the estimands framework is used by drug developers and/or recommended by EMA and to describe what intercurrent events and handling strategies are being proposed by drug developers and recommended by EMA.

Results: The use of the framework varied substantially by clinical development phases. While it was used for phase 3 trials in 47% (25/53) by developers, it was used in 5% (1/19) of the phase 1 trials. For 39% (11/28) of the trials where developers did not use the estimands framework in phase 3, there was no regulatory recommendation to adopt the framework in the response. The most discussed intercurrent event in our sample was 'treatment discontinuation' (n = 47), for which developers most often proposed either a treatment policy strategy (17/47, 36%) or a hypothetical strategy (11/47, 23%). In contrast, EMA most often recommended the use of two co-primary estimands with two different strategies (22/47, 47%).

Conclusions: Generally, the proposed and recommended strategies depend on the clinical setting and the respective intercurrent event. Developers almost always proposed a single primary estimand, whereas EMA often recommended two co-primary estimands differing in the strategies used to handle some or all the intercurrent events. Further interaction between academia, industry and regulators is necessary to progress the implementation process of the estimands framework for non-inferiority and equivalence trials.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Trials
Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
966
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Trials is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that will encompass all aspects of the performance and findings of randomized controlled trials. Trials will experiment with, and then refine, innovative approaches to improving communication about trials. We are keen to move beyond publishing traditional trial results articles (although these will be included). We believe this represents an exciting opportunity to advance the science and reporting of trials. Prior to 2006, Trials was published as Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine (CCTCVM). All published CCTCVM articles are available via the Trials website and citations to CCTCVM article URLs will continue to be supported.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信