Dataset Information

Testing for non-inferior mortality: a systematic review of non-inferiority margin sizes and trial characteristics.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To describe the size and variability of non-inferiority margins used in non-inferiority trials of medications with primary outcomes involving mortality, and to examine the association between trial characteristics and non-inferiority margin size.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

Medline, Medline In Process, Medline Epub Ahead of Print and Embase Classic+Embase databases from January 1989 to December 2019.

Eligibility criteria

Prospective non-inferiority randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological therapies, with primary analyses for non-inferiority and primary outcomes involving mortality alone or as part of a composite outcome. Trials had to prespecify non-inferiority margins as absolute risk differences or relative to risks of outcome and provide a baseline risk of primary outcome in the control intervention.

Results

3992 records were screened, 195 articles were selected for full text review and 111 articles were included for analyses. 82% of trials were conducted in thrombosis, infectious diseases or oncology. Mortality was the sole primary outcome in 23 (21%) trials, and part of a composite primary outcome in 88 (79%) trials. The overall median non-inferiority margin was an absolute risk difference of 9% (IQR 4.2%-10%). When non-inferiority margins were expressed relative to the baseline risk of primary outcome in control groups, the median relative non-inferiority margin was 1.5 (IQR 1.3-1.7). In multivariable regression analyses examining the association between trial characteristics (medical specialty, inclusion of paediatric patients, mortality as a sole or part of a composite primary outcome, presence of industry funding) and non-inferiority margin size, only medical specialty was significantly associated with non-inferiority margin size.

Conclusion

Absolute and relative non-inferiority margins used in published trials comparing medications are large, allowing conclusions of non-inferiority in the context of large differences in mortality. Accepting the potential for large increases in outcomes involving mortality while declaring non-inferiority is a challenging methodological issue in the conduct of non-inferiority trials.

SUBMITTER: Pong S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8061825 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block is an important non-narcotic adjunct for post-operative pain control in abdominal surgery. Surgeons can use laparoscopic guidance for TAP block placement (LTAP), however, direct comparisons to conventional ultrasound-guided TAP (UTAPs) have been lacking. The aim of this study is to determine if surgeon placed LTAPs were non-inferior to anesthesia placed UTAPs for post-operative pain control in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.MethodsThis was a prospective, randomized, patient and observer blinded parallel-arm non-inferiority trial conducted at a single tertiary academic center between 2016 and 2018 on adult patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Narcotic consumption and pain scores were compared for LTAP vs. UTAP for 48 h post-operatively.Results60 patients completed the trial (31 UTAP, 29 LTAP) of which 25 patients were female (15 UTAP, 10 LTAP) and the mean ages (SD) were 60.0 (13.6) and 61.5 (14.3) in the UTAP and LTAP groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in post-operative narcotic consumption between UTAP and LTAP at the time of PACU discharge (median [IQR] milligrams of morphine, 1.8 [0-4.5] UTAP vs. 0 [0-8.7] LTAP P = .32), 6 h post-operatively (5.4 [1.8-17.1] UTAP vs. 3.6 [0-12.6] LTAP P = .28), at 12 h post-operatively (9.0 [3.6-29.4] UTAP vs. 7.2 [0.9-22.5] LTAP P = .51), at 24 h post-operatively (9.0 [3.6-29.4] UTAP vs. 7.2 [0.9-22.5] LTAP P = .63), and 48 h post-operatively (39.9 [7.5-70.2] UTAP vs. 22.2 [7.5-63.8] LTAP P = .41). Patient-reported pain scores as well as pre-, intra-, and post-operative course were similar between groups. Non-inferiority criteria were met at all post-op time points up to and including 24 h but not at 48 h.ConclusionsSurgeon-delivered LTAPs are safe, effective, and non-inferior to anesthesia-administered UTAPs in the immediate post-operative period.Trial registryThe trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT03577912.

Project description:BackgroundWhen conducing Phase-III trial, regulatory agencies and investigators might want to get reliable information about rare but serious safety outcomes during the trial. Bayesian non-inferiority approaches have been developed, but commonly utilize historical placebo-controlled data to define the margin, depend on a single final analysis, and no recommendation is provided to define the prespecified decision threshold. In this study, we propose a non-inferiority Bayesian approach for sequential monitoring of rare dichotomous safety events incorporating experts' opinions on margins.MethodsA Bayesian decision criterion was constructed to monitor four safety events during a non-inferiority trial conducted on pregnant women at risk for premature delivery. Based on experts' elicitation, margins were built using mixtures of beta distributions that preserve experts' variability. Non-informative and informative prior distributions and several decision thresholds were evaluated through an extensive sensitivity analysis. The parameters were selected in order to maintain two rates of misclassifications under prespecified rates, that is, trials that wrongly concluded an unacceptable excess in the experimental arm, or otherwise.ResultsThe opinions of 44 experts were elicited about each event non-inferiority margins and its relative severity. In the illustrative trial, the maximal misclassification rates were adapted to events' severity. Using those maximal rates, several priors gave good results and one of them was retained for all events. Each event was associated with a specific decision threshold choice, allowing for the consideration of some differences in their prevalence, margins and severity. Our decision rule has been applied to a simulated dataset.ConclusionsIn settings where evidence is lacking and where some rare but serious safety events have to be monitored during non-inferiority trials, we propose a methodology that avoids an arbitrary margin choice and helps in the decision making at each interim analysis. This decision rule is parametrized to consider the rarity and the relative severity of the events and requires a strong collaboration between physicians and the trial statisticians for the benefit of all. This Bayesian approach could be applied as a complement to the frequentist analysis, so both Data Safety Monitoring Boards and investigators can benefit from such an approach.