Affiliation:
1. Department of Biostatistics, Yale Center for Analytical Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA
Abstract
Background Issues with specification of margins, adherence, and analytic population can potentially bias results toward the alternative in randomized noninferiority pragmatic trials. To investigate this potential for bias, we conducted a targeted search of the medical literature to examine how noninferiority pragmatic trials address these issues. Methods An Ovid MEDLINE database search was performed identifying publications in New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, or British Medical Journal published between 2015 and 2021 that included the words “pragmatic” or “comparative effectiveness” and “noninferiority” or “non-inferiority.” Our search identified 14 potential trials, 12 meeting our inclusion criteria (11 individually randomized, 1 cluster-randomized). Results Eleven trials had results that met the criteria established for noninferiority. Noninferiority margins were prespecified for all trials; all but two trials provided justification of the margin. Most trials did some monitoring of treatment adherence. All trials conducted intent-to-treat or modified intent-to-treat analyses along with per-protocol analyses and these analyses reached similar conclusions. Only two trials included all randomized participants in the primary analysis, one used multiple imputation for missing data. The percentage excluded from primary analyses ranged from ∼2% to 30%. Reasons for exclusion included randomization in error, nonadherence, not receiving assigned treatment, death, withdrawal, lost to follow-up, and incomplete data. Conclusion Specification of margins, adherence, and analytic population require careful consideration to prevent bias toward the alternative in noninferiority pragmatic trials. Although separate guidance has been developed for noninferiority and pragmatic trials, it is not compatible with conducting a noninferiority pragmatic trial. Hence, these trials should probably not be done in their current format without developing new guidelines.
Subject
Pharmacology,General Medicine
Reference23 articles.
1. A pragmatic–explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers
2. The PRECIS-2 tool has good interrater reliability and modest discriminant validity
3. Reporting of Noninferiority and Equivalence Randomized Trials
4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Non-inferiority clinical trials to establish effectiveness—guidance for industry, November 2016, https://www.Fda.gov/media/78504/download (accessed 31 July 2023).
5. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use, Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Points to consider on switching between superiority and noninferiority, London, 27 July 2000, https://www.ema.europa.Eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/points-consider-switching-between-superiority-non-inferiority_en.pdf (accessed 31 July 2023).