Empirical Consequences of Current Recommendations for the Design and Interpretation of Noninferiority Trials

Aberegg, Scott K.; Hersh, Andrew M.; Samore, Matthew H.
January 2018
JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine;Jan2018, Vol. 33 Issue 1, p88
Academic Journal
journal article
Background: Noninferiority trials are increasingly common, though they have less standardized designs and their interpretation is less familiar to clinicians than superiority trials.Objective: To empirically evaluate a cohort of noninferiority trials to determine 1) their interpretation as recommended by CONSORT, 2) choice of alpha threshold and its sidedness, and 3) differences between methods of analysis such as intention-to-treat and per-protocol.Design: We searched MEDLINE for parallel-group randomized controlled noninferiority trials published in the five highest-impact general medical journals between 2011 and 2016.Main Measures: Data abstracted included trial design parameters, results, and interpretation of results based on CONSORT recommendations.Key Results: One hundred sixty-three trials and 182 noninferiority comparisons were included in our analysis. Based on CONSORT-recommended interpretation, 79% of experimental therapies met criteria for noninferiority, 13% met criteria for superiority, 20% were declared inconclusive, and 2% met criteria for inferiority. However, for 12% of trials, the experimental therapy was statistically significantly worse than the active control, but CONSORT recommended an interpretation of inconclusive or noninferior. A two-sided alpha equivalent of greater than 0.05 was used in 34% of the trials, and in five of these trials, the use of a standard two-sided alpha of 0.05 led to changes in the interpretation of results that disfavored the experimental therapy. In four of the five comparisons where different methods of analysis (e.g., intention-to-treat and per-protocol) yielded different results, the intention-to-treat analysis was the more conservative. In 11% of trials, a secondary advantage of the new therapy was neither reported nor could it be inferred by reviewers.Conclusions: In this cohort, the design and interpretation of noninferiority trials led to significant and systematic bias in favor of the experimental therapy. Clinicians should exercise caution when interpreting these trials. Future trials may be more reliable if design parameters are standardized.


Related Articles

  • Clinical trials in India: Where do we stand globally? Selvarajan, Sandhiya; George, Melvin; S., Suresh Kumar; Dkhar, Steven Aibor // Perspectives in Clinical Research;Jul-Sep2013, Vol. 4 Issue 3, p160 

    Aims: To evaluate the trend of clinical trials in India over the last 4 years compared to the well-established countries using clinical trial registries since the advent of clinical trial registry of India (CTRI). Materials and Methods: The data of clinical trials registered in India, United...

  • Exploring the black box of change in improving test-ordering routines. Marloes A van Bokhoven; Hèlen Koch; Geert-Jan Dinant; Patrick JE Bindels; Richard PTM Grol; Trudy van der Weijden // Family Practice;Jun2008, Vol. 25 Issue 3, p139 

    Background. The effects of quality improvement strategies are sometimes limited in spite of a systematic development approach. What elements play a role in the change process is not yet fully understood. Objective. To explore this ‘black box’ of change, by analysing the barriers and...

  • Results of a phase III clinical trial: CHOP versus CMED in peripheral T-cell lymphoma unspecified. Claudia Castañeda; Natividad Neri; Sergio Cleto; Alejandra Talavera; Martha González; Judith Huerta-Guzmán; M. Nambo // Medical Oncology;Sep2008, Vol. 25 Issue 3, p360 

    Abstract  We performed a controlled clinical trial to define the use of a brief therapy: CMED (cyclophosphamide, etoposide, methotrexate, and dexamethasone) compared with standard CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) in the treatment of peripheral T-cell...

  • Obstacles to researching the researchers: A case study of the ethical challenges of undertaking methodological research investigating the reporting of randomised controlled trials. McKenzie, Joanne E.; Herbison, G. Peter; Roth, Paul; Paul, Charlotte // Trials;2010, Vol. 11, p28 

    Background: Recent cohort studies of randomised controlled trials have provided evidence of within-study selective reporting bias; where statistically significant outcomes are more likely to be more completely reported compared to non-significant outcomes. Bias resulting from selective reporting...

  • Conflicts of Interest at Medical Journals: The Influence of Industry-Supported Randomised Trials on Journal Impact Factors and Revenue - Cohort Study. Lundh, Andreas; Barbateskovic, Marija; Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn; Gøtzsche, Peter C. // PLoS Clinical Trials;Oct2010, Vol. 7 Issue 10, Special section p1 

    Background: Transparency in reporting of conflict of interest is an increasingly important aspect of publication in medical journals. Publication of large industry-supported trials may generate many citations and journal income through reprint sales and thereby be a source of conflicts of...

  • A Hercule Poirot of clinical research. Sakamoto, Junichi // Gastric Cancer;Jan2016, Vol. 19 Issue 1, p21 

    The author comments on the lack of oversight of randomized clinical trials which has occasionally led to investigator misconduct. Topics covered include the failure to standardize rules for the conduct of post-marketing trials, a case of data fabrication in Japan disclosed by a whistleblower in...

  • Developing a survey of barriers and facilitators to recruitment in randomized controlled trials. Kaur, Geetinder; Smyth, Rosalind L.; Williamson, Paula // Trials;2012, Vol. 13 Issue 1, p1 

    Background: Recruitment to randomized controlled trials is known to be challenging. It is important to understand and identify predictors of good or poor accrual to a clinical trial so that appropriate strategies can be put in place to overcome these problems and facilitate successful trial...

  • Comparator bias: why comparisons must address genuine uncertainties. Mann, Howard; Djulbegovic, Benjamin // JRSM Cardiovascular Disease;Jan2013, Vol. 106 Issue 1, p30 

    The article discusses the problem of comparator bias in controlled clinical trials. It is noted that comparator bias is introduced when treatments known to be beneficial are withheld from patients participating in controlled trials. The article also discusses the inappropriate use of inactive...

  • Public awareness and perception of clinical trials: Quantitative study in Pune. Joshi, Veena D.; Oka, Gauri A.; Kulkarni, Aditi A.; Bivalkar, Varada V. // Perspectives in Clinical Research;Jul-Sep2013, Vol. 4 Issue 3, p169 

    Context: Studies have reported that clinical research has experienced tremendous growth during past few decades with many multinational pharmaceutical companies recruiting millions of Indians in clinical trials (CTs). However, there is hardly any literature that talks about the participants,...

  • Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. Xin Sun; Briel, Matthias; Walter, Stephen D.; Guyatt, Gordon H. // BMJ: British Medical Journal (Overseas & Retired Doctors Edition;4/17/2010, Vol. 340 Issue 7751, p850 

    The article discusses the changes in the criteria for judging the credibility of subgroup analyses in randomized controlled trials (RCT). These analyses are frequently linked to manifestations of difference of treatment outcomes between subgroups. The authors emphasize the importance of...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics