Abstract:Background A two-arm non-inferiority trial without a placebo is usually adopted to demonstrate that an experimental treatment is not worse than a reference treatment by a small pre-specified non-inferiority margin due to ethical concerns. Selection of the non-inferiority margin and establishment of assay sensitivity are two major issues in the design, analysis and interpretation for two-arm non-inferiority trials. Alternatively, a three-arm non-inferiority clinical trial including a placebo is usually conducted to assess the assay sensitivity and internal validity of a trial. Recently, some large-sample approaches have been developed to assess the non-inferiority of a new treatment based on the three-arm trial design. However, these methods behave badly with small sample sizes in the three arms. This manuscript aims to develop some reliable small-sample methods to test three-arm non-inferiority. Methods Saddlepoint approximation, exact and approximate unconditional, and bootstrap-resampling methods are developed to calculate p-values of the Wald-type, score and likelihood ratio tests. Simulation studies are conducted to evaluate their performance in terms of type I error rate and power. Results Our empirical results show that the saddlepoint approximation method generally behaves better than the asymptotic method based on the Wald-type test statistic. For small sample sizes, approximate unconditional and bootstrap-resampling methods based on the score test statistic perform better in the sense that their corresponding type I error rates are generally closer to the prespecified nominal level than those of other test procedures. Conclusions Both approximate unconditional and bootstrap-resampling test procedures based on the score test statistic are generally recommended for three-arm non-inferiority trials with binary outcomes.

Sample Size Estimation and Hypothesis Testing of Assessing Equivalence/noninferiority for Paired Binary Data

Unconditional Exact Tests for Equivalence or Noninferiority for Paired Binary Endpoints

Sample size determination for establishing equivalence/noninferiority via ratio of two proportions in matched-pair design.

Statistical Analysis of Noninferiority Trials with a Rate Ratio in Small-Sample Matched-Pair Designs.

Sample size estimation and statistical inference in noninferiority/equivalence trials

On the non-inferiority of a diagnostic test based on paired observations.

Sample Size Determination for Establishing Equivalence/Noninferiority Via Ratio of Two Proportions in Matched–Pair Design

Sample Size Determination and Re‐estimation for Matched Pair Designs with Multiple Binary Endpoints

Assessing Non-Inferiority for Incomplete Paired-Data under Non-Ignorable Missing Mechanism

Testing the equality of response rate functions for paired binary data with multiple groups

Testing two variances for superiority/non-inferiority and equivalence: Using the exhaustion algorithm for sample size allocation with cost

Testing Non-Inferiority of a New Treatment in Three-Arm Clinical Trials with Binary Endpoints

Bayesian sample size determination in a three-arm non-inferiority trial with binary endpoints

Tests for equivalence based on odds ratio for matched-pair design

On sample size calculation based on odds ratio in clinical trials.

Estimating sample sizes for continuous, binary, and ordinal outcomes in paired comparisons: practical hints

Statistical analysis of non-inferiority via non-zero risk difference in stratified matched-pair studies

Correct Statistical Test to Find the Equivalence Between Two Clinical Treatment Effects

Optimal sample size allocation for two‐arm superiority and non‐inferiority trials with binary endpoints

Sample Size Calculation for “Gold-Standard” Noninferiority Trials With Fixed Margins and Negative Binomial Endpoints

Equivalence tests for binary efficacy-toxicity responses