Dataset Information

What differences are detected by superiority trials or ruled out by noninferiority trials? A cross-sectional study on a random sample of two-hundred two-arms parallel group randomized clinical trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The smallest difference to be detected in superiority trials or the largest difference to be ruled out in noninferiority trials is a key determinant of sample size, but little guidance exists to help researchers in their choice. The objectives were to examine the distribution of differences that researchers aim to detect in clinical trials and to verify that those differences are smaller in noninferiority compared to superiority trials.

Methods

Cross-sectional study based on a random sample of two hundred two-arm, parallel group superiority (100) and noninferiority (100) randomized clinical trials published between 2004 and 2009 in 27 leading medical journals. The main outcome measure was the smallest difference in favor of the new treatment to be detected (superiority trials) or largest unfavorable difference to be ruled out (noninferiority trials) used for sample size computation, expressed as standardized difference in proportions, or standardized difference in means. Student t test and analysis of variance were used.

Results

The differences to be detected or ruled out varied considerably from one study to the next; e.g., for superiority trials, the standardized difference in means ranged from 0.007 to 0.87, and the standardized difference in proportions from 0.04 to 1.56. On average, superiority trials were designed to detect larger differences than noninferiority trials (standardized difference in proportions: mean 0.37 versus 0.27, P = 0.001; standardized difference in means: 0.56 versus 0.40, P = 0.006). Standardized differences were lower for mortality than for other outcomes, and lower in cardiovascular trials than in other research areas.

Conclusions

Superiority trials are designed to detect larger differences than noninferiority trials are designed to rule out. The variability between studies is considerable and is partly explained by the type of outcome and the medical context. A more explicit and rational approach to choosing the difference to be detected or to be ruled out in clinical trials may be desirable.

SUBMITTER: Gayet-Ageron A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2973934 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPseudohypoparathyroidism (PHP) is a rare disease whose phenotypic features are rather difficult to identify in some cases. Thus, although these patients may present with the Albright's hereditary osteodystrophy (AHO) phenotype, which is characterized by small stature, obesity with a rounded face, subcutaneous ossifications, mental retardation and brachydactyly, its manifestations are somewhat variable. Indeed, some of them present with a complete phenotype, whereas others show only subtle manifestations. In addition, the features of the AHO phenotype are not specific to it and a similar phenotype is also commonly observed in other syndromes. Brachydactyly type E (BDE) is the most specific and objective feature of the AHO phenotype, and several genes have been associated with syndromic BDE in the past few years. Moreover, these syndromes have a skeletal and endocrinological phenotype that overlaps with AHO/PHP. In light of the above, we have developed an algorithm to aid in genetic testing of patients with clinical features of AHO but with no causative molecular defect at the GNAS locus. Starting with the feature of brachydactyly, this algorithm allows the differential diagnosis to be broadened and, with the addition of other clinical features, can guide genetic testing.MethodsWe reviewed our series of patients (n = 23) with a clinical diagnosis of AHO and with brachydactyly type E or similar pattern, who were negative for GNAS anomalies, and classify them according to the diagnosis algorithm to finally propose and analyse the most probable gene(s) in each case.ResultsA review of the clinical data for our series of patients, and subsequent analysis of the candidate gene(s), allowed detection of the underlying molecular defect in 12 out of 23 patients: five patients harboured a mutation in PRKAR1A, one in PDE4D, four in TRPS1 and two in PTHLH.ConclusionsThis study confirmed that the screening of other genes implicated in syndromes with BDE and AHO or a similar phenotype is very helpful for establishing a correct genetic diagnosis for those patients who have been misdiagnosed with "AHO-like phenotype" with an unknown genetic cause, and also for better describing the characteristic and differential features of these less common syndromes.

Project description:BackgroundNoninferiority trials are increasingly being performed. However, little is known about their methodological quality. We sought to characterize noninferiority cardiovascular trials published in the highest-impact journals, features that may bias results toward noninferiority, features related to reporting of noninferiority trials, and the time trends.MethodsWe identified cardiovascular noninferiority trials published in JAMA, Lancet, or New England Journal of Medicine from 1990 to 2016. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. Data elements included the noninferiority margin and the success of studies in achieving noninferiority. The proportion of trials showing major or minor features that may have affected the noninferiority inference was determined. Major factors included the lack of presenting the results in both intention-to-treat and per-protocol/as-treated cohorts, α>0.05, the new intervention not being compared with the best alternative, not justifying the noninferiority margin, and exclusion or loss of ≥10% of the cohort. Minor factors included suboptimal blinding, allocation concealment, and others.ResultsFrom 2544 screened studies, we identified 111 noninferiority cardiovascular trials. Noninferiority margins varied widely: risk differences of 0.4% to 25%, hazard ratios of 1.05 to 2.85, odds ratios of 1.1 to 2.0, and relative risks of 1.1 to 1.8. Eighty-six trials claimed noninferiority, of which 20 showed superiority, whereas 23 (21.1%) did not show noninferiority, of which 8 also demonstrated inferiority. Only 7 (6.3%) trials were considered low risk for all the major and minor biasing factors. Among common major factors for bias, 41 (37%) did not confirm the findings in both intention-to-treat and per-protocol/as-treated cohorts and 4 (3.6%) reported discrepant results between intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. Forty-three (38.7%) did not justify the noninferiority margin. Overall, 27 (24.3%) underenrolled or had >10% exclusions. Sixty trials (54.0%) were open label. Allocation concealment was not maintained or unclear in 11 (9.9%). Publication of noninferiority trials increased over time (P<0.001). Fifty-two (46.8%) were published after 2010 and had a lower risk of methodological or reporting limitations for major (P=0.03) and minor factors (P=0.002).ConclusionsNoninferiority trials in highest-impact journals commonly conclude noninferiority of the tested intervention, but vary markedly in the selected noninferiority margin, and frequently have limitations that may impact the inference related to noninferiority.

Project description:BackgroundNoninferiority trials are increasingly common in cardiovascular medicine, but their reporting and interpretation are challenging, particularly when an absolute risk difference is used as noninferiority margin.ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate the effect of using absolute rather than relative noninferiority margins in cardiovascular trials.MethodsWe reviewed noninferiority trials presented at major cardiovascular conferences from 2015 to 2022 and published within the same period. Based on the actual versus anticipated event rates in the control group, we recalculated the absolute noninferiority margin and re-assessed the trial results. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of trials with a different interpretation after recalculation. Additionally, we analyzed the conclusion statements of these trials to determine if cautionary notes for the interpretation of study results were included.ResultsWe analyzed a total of 768 trials, of which 88 had a noninferiority design and 66 used an absolute noninferiority margin. Of 48 comparisons from 45 trials qualifying for the analysis, 11 (22.9%) had divergent results after recalculation of the absolute noninferiority margin based on the observed rather than anticipated event rate. Ten trials originally claiming noninferiority, did not meet it after the margin recalculation. All of them did not include statements suggesting cautionary interpretation of the study results in the conclusion section. Compared with the other trials, these displayed a larger median difference between anticipated and recalculated noninferiority margins (44.7% [IQR: 38.6%-56.7%] vs 15.3% [IQR: -1.5% to 28.9%]; P < 0.001).ConclusionsRecalculating noninferiority margins based on actual event rates, rather than anticipated ones, led to different outcomes in approximately 1 out of 4 cardiovascular trials, with most divergent trials lacking cautionary interpretation. These findings emphasize the importance of using or supplementing the relative noninferiority margin, particularly in studies with significant deviations between observed and expected event rates. This underscores the critical need for enhanced methodological and reporting standards in noninferiority trials, especially those employing absolute margins.