Designing noninferiority tuberculosis treatment trials: Identifying practical advantages for drug regimens with acceptable effectiveness.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Olliaro PL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6625704 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Designing noninferiority tuberculosis treatment trials: Identifying practical advantages for drug regimens with acceptable effectiveness.
Olliaro Piero L PL Vaillant Michel M
PLoS medicine 20190712 7
In this Collection Review for the Novel Treatments for Tuberculosis Collection, Piero Olliaro and Michael Vaillant discuss the considerations when choosing a non-inferiority margin that is meaningful from statistical, ethical, clinical, and health standpoint. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Diagnostic development must occur in parallel with drug development to ensure the longevity of new treatment compounds. Despite an increasing number of novel and repurposed anti-tuberculosis compounds and regimens, there remains a large number of drugs for which no rapid and accurate molecular diagnostic option exists. The lack of rapid drug susceptibility testing for linezolid, bedaquiline, clofazimine, the nitroimidazoles (i.e pretomanid and delamanid) and pyrazinamide at any level of the healthcare system compromises the effectiveness of current tuberculosis and drug-resistant tuberculosis treatment regimens. In the context of current WHO tuberculosis treatment guidelines as well as promising new regimens, we identify the key diagnostic gaps for initial and follow-on tests to diagnose emerging drug resistance and aid in regimen selection. Additionally, we comment on potential gene targets for inclusion in rapid molecular drug susceptibility assays and sequencing assays for novel and repurposed drug compounds currently prioritized in current regimens, and evaluate the feasibility of mutation detection given the design of existing technologies. Based on current knowledge, we also propose design priorities for next generation molecular assays to support triage of tuberculosis patients to appropriate and effective treatment regimens. We encourage assay developers to prioritize development of these key molecular assays and support the continued evolution, uptake, and utility of sequencing to build knowledge of tuberculosis resistance mechanisms and further inform rapid treatment decisions in order to curb resistance to critical drugs in current regimens and achieve End TB targets.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05117788..
| S-EPMC9980415 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionTuberculosis (TB) is the leading infectious killer globally and new TB vaccines will be crucial to ending the epidemic. Since the introduction in 1921 of the only currently licensed TB vaccine, BCG, very few novel vaccine candidates or strategies have advanced into clinical efficacy trials. Areas covered: Recently, however, two TB vaccine efficacy trials with novel designs have reported positive results and are now driving new momentum in the field. They are the first Prevention of Infection trial, evaluating the H4:IC31 candidate or BCG revaccination in high-risk adolescents and a Prevention of Disease trial evaluating the M72/AS01E candidate in M.tuberculosis-infected, healthy adults. These trials are briefly reviewed, and lessons learned are proposed to help inform the design of future efficacy trials. The references cited were chosen by the author based on PubMed searches to provide context for the opinions expressed in this Perspective article. Expert opinion: The opportunities created by these two trials for gaining critically important knowledge are game-changing for TB vaccine development. Their results clearly establish feasibility in the relatively near term of developing novel, effective vaccines that could be crucial to ending the TB epidemic.
| S-EPMC6492041 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7047458 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To develop criteria to identify thresholds for the minimally acceptable performance of physicians interpreting diagnostic mammography studies.In an institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study, an Angoff approach was used to set criteria for identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance for both workup after abnormal screening examinations and workup of a breast lump. Normative data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) was used to help the expert radiologist identify the impact of cut points. Simulations, also using data from the BCSC, were used to estimate the expected clinical impact from the recommended performance thresholds.Final cut points for workup of abnormal screening examinations were as follows: sensitivity, less than 80%; specificity, less than 80% or greater than 95%; abnormal interpretation rate, less than 8% or greater than 25%; positive predictive value (PPV) of biopsy recommendation (PPV2), less than 15% or greater than 40%; PPV of biopsy performed (PPV3), less than 20% or greater than 45%; and cancer diagnosis rate, less than 20 per 1000 interpretations. Final cut points for workup of a breast lump were as follows: sensitivity, less than 85%; specificity, less than 83% or greater than 95%; abnormal interpretation rate, less than 10% or greater than 25%; PPV2, less than 25% or greater than 50%; PPV3, less than 30% or greater than 55%; and cancer diagnosis rate, less than 40 per 1000 interpretations. If underperforming physicians moved into the acceptable range after remedial training, the expected result would be (a) diagnosis of an additional 86 cancers per 100,000 women undergoing workup after screening examinations, with a reduction in the number of false-positive examinations by 1067 per 100,000 women undergoing this workup, and (b) diagnosis of an additional 335 cancers per 100,000 women undergoing workup of a breast lump, with a reduction in the number of false-positive examinations by 634 per 100,000 women undergoing this workup.Interpreting physicians who fall outside one or more of the identified cut points should be reviewed in the context of an overall assessment of all their performance measures and their specific practice setting to determine if remedial training is indicated.
| S-EPMC3632803 | biostudies-other
Project description:Isoniazid given daily for 9 months is the standard treatment for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI), but its effectiveness is limited by poor completion rates. Shorter course regimens and regimens using directly observed therapy result in improved adherence but have higher upfront costs.To evaluate the costs and cost-effectiveness of regimens for the treatment of LTBI.We used a computerized Markov model to estimate total societal costs and benefits associated with four regimens for the treatment of LTBI: self-administered isoniazid daily for 9 months, directly observed isoniazid twice-weekly for 9 months, directly observed isoniazid plus rifapentine once weekly for 3 months, and self-administered rifampin daily for 4 months. In the base-case analysis, subjects were assumed to have newly positive tuberculin skin tests after recent exposure to infectious tuberculosis.We determined the costs of treatment, quality-adjusted life-years gained, and cases of active tuberculosis prevented. In the base-case analysis, rifampin dominated (less costly with increased benefits) all other regimens except isoniazid plus rifapentine, which was more effective at a cost $48,997 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Isoniazid plus rifapentine dominated all regimens at a relative risk of disease 5.2 times the baseline estimate, or with completion rates less than 34% for isoniazid or 37% for rifampin. Rifampin could be 17% less efficacious than self-administered isoniazid and still be cost-saving compared with this regimen.In our model, rifampin is cost-saving compared with the standard therapy of self-administered isoniazid. Isoniazid plus rifapentine is cost-saving for extremely high-risk patients and is cost-effective for lower-risk patients.
| S-EPMC2689913 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Randomized controlled clinical trials are widely considered the gold standard for evaluating the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions in health care. Adaptive trials incorporate changes as the study proceeds, such as modifying allocation probabilities or eliminating treatment arms that are likely to be ineffective. These designs have been widely used in drug discovery studies but can also be useful in health services and implementation research and have been minimally used. As motivating examples, we use an ongoing adaptive trial and two completed parallel group studies and highlight potential advantages, disadvantages, and important considerations when using adaptive trial designs in health services and implementation research. In addition, we investigate the impact on power and the study duration if the two completed parallel-group trials had instead been conducted using adaptive principles. Compared with traditional trial designs, adaptive designs can often allow one to evaluate more interventions, adjust participant allocation probabilities (e.g., to achieve covariate balance), and identify participants who are likely to agree to enroll. These features could reduce resources needed to conduct a trial. However, adaptive trials have potential disadvantages and practical aspects that need to be considered, most notably outcomes that can be rapidly measured and extracted (e.g., long-term outcomes that take significant time to measure from data sources can be challenging), minimal missing data, and time trends. In conclusion, adaptive designs are a promising approach to help identify how best to implement evidence-based interventions into real-world practice in health services and implementation research.
| S-EPMC9650931 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn recent years the "noninferiority" trial has emerged as the new standard design for HIV drug development among antiretroviral patients often with a primary endpoint based on the difference in success rates between the two treatment groups. Different statistical methods have been introduced to provide confidence intervals for that difference. The main objective is to investigate whether the choice of the statistical method changes the conclusion of the trials.MethodsWe presented 11 trials published in 2010 using a difference in proportions as the primary endpoint. In these trials, 5 different statistical methods have been used to estimate such confidence intervals. The five methods are described and applied to data from the 11 trials. The noninferiority of the new treatment is not demonstrated if the prespecified noninferiority margin it includes in the confidence interval of the treatment difference.ResultsResults indicated that confidence intervals can be quite different according to the method used. In many situations, however, conclusions of the trials are not altered because point estimates of the treatment difference were too far from the prespecified noninferiority margins. Nevertheless, in few trials the use of different statistical methods led to different conclusions. In particular the use of "exact" methods can be very confusing.ConclusionStatistical methods used to estimate confidence intervals in noninferiority trials have a strong impact on the conclusion of such trials.
| S-EPMC3168436 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRegimens for the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) have been changed from injectable-containing regimens to all-oral regimens. The economic effectiveness of new all-oral regimens compared with conventional injectable-containing regimens was scarcely evaluated. This study was conducted to compare the cost-effectiveness between all-oral longer-course regimens (the oral regimen group) and conventional injectable-containing regimens (the control group) to treat newly diagnosed MDR-TB patients.MethodsA health economic analysis over lifetime horizon (20 years) from the perspective of the healthcare system in Korea was conducted. We developed a combined simulation model of a decision tree model (initial two years) and two Markov models (remaining 18 years, six-month cycle length) to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the two groups. The transition probabilities and cost in each cycle were assumed based on the published data and the analysis of health big data that combined country-level claims data and TB registry in 2013-2018.ResultsThe oral regimen group was assumed to spend 20,778 USD more and lived 1.093 years or 1.056 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) longer than the control group. The ICER of the base case was calculated to be 19,007 USD/life year gained and 19,674 USD/QALY. The results of sensitivity analyses showed that base case results were very robust and stable, and the oral regimen was cost-effective with a 100% probability for a willingness to pay more than 21,250 USD/QALY.ConclusionThis study confirmed that the new all-oral longer regimens for the treatment of MDR-TB were cost-effective in replacing conventional injectable-containing regimens.
| S-EPMC10226853 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8416048 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC11312784 | biostudies-literature