ReviewTrials2025
Estimands in equivalence trials and non-inferiority trials: a cross-sectional study of EMA scientific advice to drug developers.
Review in Trials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 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.
methodsTo 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.
resultsThe 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%).
conclusionsGenerally, 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.