TIMELAPSE study-efficacy of low-dose amitriptyline versus cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic insomnia in patients with medical comorbidity: study protocol of a randomized controlled multicenter non-inferiority trial

Background

Insomnia is common in people with long-term medical conditions and is related to increased mortality and morbidity. Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is first choice treatment and effective for people with insomnia and comorbid long-term medical conditions. However, CBT-I has some limitations as it might not always be available or appeal to patients with medical conditions. Furthermore, a small proportion of patients do not respond to CBT-I. Preliminary evidence and clinical experience suggest that low-dose amitriptyline (AM) might be an effective alternative to treat insomnia in patients with medical comorbidity. In this randomized controlled trial, we will determine whether AM is non-inferior to the first choice treatment for insomnia, CBT-I.

Methods/design

This study will test if treatment with low-dose amitriptyline for insomnia in patients with medical comorbidity is non-inferior to CBT-I in a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. Participants will be 190 adults with a long-term medical condition and insomnia. Participants will be randomly allocated to one of two intervention arms: 12 weeks AM (starting with 10 mg per day, and if ineffective at 3 weeks, doubling this dose) or 12 weeks of CBT-I consisting of 6 weekly sessions and a follow-up session 6 weeks later. The primary outcome is subjective insomnia severity, measured with the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). The primary endpoint is at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes include sleep quality (e.g., sleep efficiency), questionnaires on daytime functioning (physical functioning and impairment of functioning), and symptoms (e.g., fatigue, pain, anxiety) at 12 weeks and 12 months post treatment and relapse of insomnia until 12 months after treatment.

Discussion

Irrespective of the outcome, this study will be a much-needed contribution to evidence based clinical guidelines on the treatment of insomnia in patients with medical comorbidity.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Register NTR NL7971. Registered on 18 August 2019

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05868-4.

The evaluation of noninferiority for renal composite outcomes between sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitors in Japan

BACKGROUND

In Japan, six types of sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitors (SGLT2Is) are currently in use. Here, we evaluated differences in renal composite outcomes between SGLT2Is with or without evidence of cardio vascular outcome trials (CVOTs).

METHODS

We retrospectively surveyed 536 Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with chronic kidney disease who received SGLT2Is for more than 1 year. Patients were classified as having received empagliflozin, canagliflozin, or dapagliflozin (n = 270, Evidence (+) group) or as having received ipragliflozin, tofogliflozin, or luseogliflozin (n = 266, Evidence (-) group). The propensity score matching method was performed.

RESULT

On matched cohort model including 205 cases in each group, there were no significant differences in the incidence of renal composite outcomes (n = 28 [14%] in the Evidence (+) group, n = 21 [10%] in the Evidence (-) group for the matched model; p = 0.29) between groups. Cox hazard analyses in the matched cohort model showed that the risk ratio for renal composite outcomes in the Evidence (-) group was 0.73 (95% confidence interval: 0.40-1.32), which was greater than the noninferiority margin of 1.22.

CONCLUSION

Three SGLT2Is with no CVOT's evidence did not show noninferiority compared with other SGLT2Is with evidences.

177Lu-PSMA-617 versus docetaxel in chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomized, controlled, phase 2 non-inferiority trial

Purpose

Lutetium-177 prostate-specific membrane antigen-617 (¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617) in end-stage metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) has reported favourable outcomes. In this study, we aimed to prospectively compare the efficacy and safety of ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 and docetaxel in chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC patients.

Methods

This was a randomized, parallel-group, open-label, phase 2, and non-inferiority trial. Chemotherapy-naïve patients with mCRPC and high PSMA-expressing lesions on ⁶⁸ Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT were randomly assigned in 1:1 ratio to ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 (6.0–7.4 GBq/cycle, every 8 weeks, up to 4 cycles) or docetaxel (75 mg/m²/cycle, every 3 weeks, up to 10 cycles). The primary end-point was best prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA-RR), defined according to Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group-3 as proportion of patients achieving ≥ 50% decline in PSA from baseline. Non-inferiority margin of − 15% was pre-specified for PSA-RR.

Results

Between December 2019 and March 2021, 40 of the 45 patients assessed for eligibility underwent randomization. Fifteen of 20 patients in ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 arm and 20/20 patients in docetaxel arm received treatment per protocol. Of these, best PSA-RR in the ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 arm was 60% (9/15) versus 40% (8/20) in the docetaxel arm. The difference in the PSA-RRs between the two arms was 20% (95% confidence interval, CI: − 12–47, P = 0.25), meeting the pre-specified criterion for non-inferiority in per-protocol analysis. Further, progression-free survival rates at 6 months were 30% and 20% in the ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 and docetaxel arms respectively (difference 10%, 95% CI: − 18–38, P = 0.50). Overall, treatment-emergent grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred less frequently with ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 than with docetaxel (6/20, 30% versus 10/20, 50%, respectively, P = 0.20). Quality-of-life outcomes improved significantly in ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 arm compared to docetaxel arm (P < 0.01).

Conclusion

¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA-617 was demonstrated to be safe and non-inferior to docetaxel in the treatment of mCRPC and could, thus, be potentially employed earlier in the disease course rather than being solely reserved for advanced end-stage disease.

Clinical trial registration

Clinical Trials Registry-India, CTRI/2019/12/022282.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00259-021-05618-3.

Partial oral antibiotic treatment for bacterial brain abscess: an open-label randomized non-inferiority trial (ORAL)

Background

The advised standard treatment for bacterial brain abscess following surgery is 6 to 8 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotic treatment, but an early switch to oral antibiotic treatment has been suggested to be equally effective.

Methods

This investigator-initiated, international, multi-center, parallel group, open-label, randomized (1:1 allocation) controlled trial will examine if oral treatment after 2 weeks of IV antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to standard 6–8 weeks of IV antibiotics for bacterial brain abscess in adults (≥ 18 years of age). The study will be conducted at hospitals across Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Australia, and Sweden. Exclusion criteria are severe immunocompromise or impaired gastro-intestinal absorption, pregnancy, device-related brain abscesses, and brain abscess caused by nocardia, tuberculosis, or Pseudomonas spp. The primary objective is a composite endpoint at 6 months after randomization consisting of all-cause mortality, intraventricular rupture of brain abscess, unplanned re-aspiration or excision of brain abscess, relapse, or recurrence. The primary endpoint will be adjudicated by an independent blinded endpoint committee. Secondary outcomes include extended Glasgow Outcome Scale scores and all-cause mortality at end of treatment as well as 3, 6, and 12 months since randomization, completion of assigned treatment, IV catheter associated complications, durations of admission and antibiotic treatment, severe adverse events, quality of life scores, and cognitive evaluations. The planned sample size is 450 patients for a one-sided alpha of 0.025 and a power of 90% to exclude a difference in favor of standard treatment of more than 10%. Date of initiation of first study center was November 3, 2020, with active recruitment for 3 years and follow-up for 1 year of all patients.

Discussion

The results of this study may guide future recommendations for treatment of bacterial brain abscess. If early transition to oral antibiotics proves non-inferior to standard IV treatment, this will provide considerable health and costs benefits.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04140903, first registered 28.10.2019. EudraCT number: 2019-002845-39, first registered 03.07.2019

Dose reduction of the new generation biologics (IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors) in psoriasis: study protocol for an international, pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority study-the BeNeBio study

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory skin disease for which biologics are effective treatments. Dose reduction (DR) of the first generation biologics seems a promising way for more efficient use of expensive biologics. A substantial part of patients on tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alfa inhibitors and ustekinumab could successfully lower their dose, after following a tightly controlled DR strategy. The objective of this study is to assess whether controlled DR of interleukin (IL)-17 and IL-23 inhibitors in psoriasis patients with low disease activity is non-inferior (NI) to usual care (UC).

METHODS

This is an international, prospective, multicenter, pragmatic, randomized, non-inferiority trial. A total of 244 patients with stable low disease activity (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) ≤ 5) for at least 6 months and using secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, risankizumab, or tildrakizumab in the standard dose, together with stable low disease activity, defined as a PASI ≤ 5 and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) ≤ 5 at the moment of inclusion, will be randomized 2:1 to DR or UC. In the DR group, dosing intervals will be prolonged stepwise to achieve 66% and 50% of the original dose. Disease activity is monitored every 3 months by PASI and DLQI. In case of disease flare (i.e., PASI and/or DLQI increase), treatment is adjusted to the previous effective dose. The primary outcome is the incidence proportion of persistent flares (PASI > 5 for ≥ 3 months), which will be compared between arms. Secondary outcomes include proportion of patients with successful DR, (course of) PASI and DLQI, serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life, costs, and pharmacokinetic profile. Outcomes of DR will be compared to UC.

DISCUSSION

With this study, we aim to assess whether DR of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibiting biologics can be achieved for psoriasis patients with low disease activity, without losing disease control. Reducing the dose may lead to more efficient use of biologics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04340076 . Registered on April 9 2020.

Evaluating newly approved drugs for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (endTB): study protocol for an adaptive, multi-country randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Treatment of multidrug- and rifampin-resistant tuberculosis (MDR/RR-TB) is expensive, labour-intensive, and associated with substantial adverse events and poor outcomes. While most MDR/RR-TB patients do not receive treatment, many who do are treated for 18 months or more. A shorter all-oral regimen is currently recommended for only a sub-set of MDR/RR-TB. Its use is only conditionally recommended because of very low-quality evidence underpinning the recommendation. Novel combinations of newer and repurposed drugs bring hope in the fight against MDR/RR-TB, but their use has not been optimized in all-oral, shorter regimens. This has greatly limited their impact on the burden of disease. There is, therefore, dire need for high-quality evidence on the performance of new, shortened, injectable-sparing regimens for MDR-TB which can be adapted to individual patients and different settings.

METHODS

endTB is a phase III, pragmatic, multi-country, adaptive, randomized, controlled, parallel, open-label clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of shorter treatment regimens containing new drugs for patients with fluoroquinolone-susceptible, rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. Study participants are randomized to either the control arm, based on the current standard of care for MDR/RR-TB, or to one of five 39-week multi-drug regimens containing newly approved and repurposed drugs. Study participation in all arms lasts at least 73 and up to 104 weeks post-randomization. Randomization is response-adapted using interim Bayesian analysis of efficacy endpoints. The primary objective is to assess whether the efficacy of experimental regimens at 73 weeks is non-inferior to that of the control. A sample size of 750 patients across 6 arms affords at least 80% power to detect the non-inferiority of at least 1 (and up to 3) experimental regimens, with a one-sided alpha of 0.025 and a non-inferiority margin of 12%, against the control in both modified intention-to-treat and per protocol populations.

DISCUSSION

The lack of a safe and effective regimen that can be used in all patients is a major obstacle to delivering appropriate treatment to all patients with active MDR/RR-TB. Identifying multiple shorter, safe, and effective regimens has the potential to greatly reduce the burden of this deadly disease worldwide.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02754765. Registered on 28 April 2016; the record was last updated for study protocol version 3.3, on 27 August 2019.

Surgical clinical trials with non-inferiority design: a cross-sectional bibliometric analysis

Background

Wide-spread concerns have been raised about possible bias in published surgical non-inferiority trials. Therefore, we performed a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to identify the existence of bias, and provided recommendations for future non-inferiority trials.

Methods

Databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched (last update on 27 April 2020) to include published phase II and phase III non-inferiority surgical trials. We collected general information and parameters associated with trial design. The association between extracted factors and establishment of non-inferiority was then analyzed.

Results

A total of 347 trials were included in this study. Only 13 (3.7%) trials reported the pre-specified non-inferiority margin in registration, and 99 (28.5%) trials justified margin selection in ultimate trial publications. A significant association was found between industry funding and increased odds of achieving non-inferiority [odds ratio (OR): 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06 to 1.30, P=0.001]. Moreover, trials which had been presented in conferences were less likely to claim non-inferiority (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.99, P=0.035).

Conclusions

Our study was the first quantitative analysis revealing the presence of biases in findings of existing surgical non-inferiority trials, which could possibly mislead surgeons’ clinical decision making. We suggest improving reporting of detailed study design especially funding sources as well as margin justification for future trials. We also encourage conference presentation of ongoing trials prior to the ultimate publication.

Non-inferiority in cancer clinical trials was associated with more lenient margins and higher hypothesized outcome event rates

OBJECTIVE

To identify potential bias in non-inferiority design of published cancer trials, and to provide suggestions for future practice.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL databases (until April 17, 2020) to obtain non-inferiority phase III cancer trials and protocols. Distribution of essential characteristics and study design parameters was compared between trials with and without concluding non-inferiority using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 291 eligible trials were included. We observed that increased odds of concluding non-inferiority was significantly associated with more lenient non-inferiority margins (OR = 1•94, 95% CI 1•02-3•69) and higher hypothesized event rate (OR = 1•24, 95% CI 1•06-1•47). Trials that established non-inferiority adopted margins that were more dispersedly distributed (dispersion OR = 2•90, 95% CI 1•88-4.48).

CONCLUSION

Although limited by the exploratory nature, our study demonstrated existence of possible distorted non-inferiority design which could incur excess non-inferiority in cancer clinical trials. Pre-registration and transparent reporting of detailed non-inferiority design is imperative for future research.

Interpretation of clinical studies in electrophysiology: statistical considerations for the clinician

Atrial fibrillation (AF) outcome studies play an essential role in the development of clinical evidence to improve the management of AF patients. Understanding the statistical considerations involved in study design and interpretation is crucial if electrophysiologists are to change practice. In this review, with the guidance of a medical statistician and a clinical trialist we provide an overview of important statistical issues for the clinician, with a focus on clinical studies in AF ablation. Various types of study designs including randomized controlled trials, superiority, and non-inferiority studies are described, along with their implications and limitations. Appropriate sample size calculation is fundamental to ensure statistical power and efficient resource use. Multiplicity in study endpoints is useful to encapsulate the varied effects of an intervention/treatment, although statistical adjustments are required to account for this. Finally, we discuss the limitations with the current primary endpoint used in AF ablation studies, namely, freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia of >30 seconds, and propose AF burden as a more relevant primary endpoint, based on findings from recent clinical studies. However, technical challenges need to be overcome before AF burden can be routinely adopted, especially the need for non-invasive, long-term monitoring. The emergence of newer technologies, particularly wearable technology, offers significant promise in filling this gap.

Comparing two doses of intramuscular ketorolac for treatment of acute musculoskeletal pain in a military emergency department

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The goal of the study was to assess a low-dose versus a high-dose of intramuscular (IM) ketorolac for non-inferiority in adults with acute MSK pain in an emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This was a single-blinded, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial of adults presenting to an ED with a chief complaint of acute MSK pain. Patients were randomized to either a 15 mg or a 60 mg IM ketorolac dose. The primary outcome was the mean difference of change in pain from baseline to 60-min between the two groups as reported on a 100-mm (mm) visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes included the mean difference of change in VAS scores at 30-min and the incidence of reported adverse effects associated with the administration of ketorolac.

RESULTS

One hundred ten patients were randomized with 55 in each group. The mean difference in pain between groups at 60-min (0.2 mm [95% CI -8.5-8.7]; p = .98) and 30 min (-1.7 mm [95% CI -8.5-5.1; p = .63) was less than the predetermined non-inferiority margin of 13 mm. There were no major adverse effects reported. Minor adverse effects were more frequent in the 60 mg group (n = 9; 16.4% vs. n = 1; 1.8%; p = .016) with burning at the injection site being the most commonly reported.

CONCLUSIONS

A 15 mg dose of IM ketorolac was found to be non-inferior to a 60 mg dose for acute MSK pain in adults presenting to the ED. Discontinuing the practice of ordering 60 mg doses of IM ketorolac in place of a lower dose for acute MSK pain should be considered.

Improving the reporting of non-inferiority trials by incorporating non-efficacy benefits: not all on-inferiority trials are created equal

Non-inferiority trials are used to test if a novel intervention is not worse than a standard treatment by more than a prespecified amount, the non-inferiority margin (ΔNI). The ΔNI indicates the amount of efficacy loss in the primary outcome that is acceptable in exchange for non-efficacy benefits in other outcomes. However, non-inferiority designs are sometimes used when non-efficacy benefits are absent. Without non-efficacy benefits, loss in efficacy cannot be easily justified. Further, non-efficacy benefits are scarcely defined or considered by trialists when determining the magnitude of and providing justification for the non-inferiority margin. This is problematic as the importance of a treatment's non-efficacy benefits are critical to understanding the results of a non-inferiority study. Here we propose the routine reporting in non-inferiority trial protocols and publications of non-efficacy benefits of the novel intervention along with the reporting of non-inferiority margins and their justification. The justification should include the specific trade-off between the accepted loss in efficacy (ΔNI) and the non-efficacy benefits of the novel treatment and should describe whether patients and other relevant stakeholders were involved in the definition of the ΔNI.

A phase I/II study to evaluate safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of Hillchol®, an inactivated single Hikojima strain based oral cholera vaccine, in a sequentially age descending population in Bangladesh

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the use of oral cholera vaccines (OCVs) as part of an integrated control program, both in highly endemic settings and during cholera epidemics. The available and internationally recommended WHO-prequalified OCVs (Dukoral, Shanchol, Euvichol) contain multiple heat and formalin-killed V. cholerae strains of Inaba and Ogawa serotypes. MSD Wellcome Trust Hilleman Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. in technical collaboration with University of Gothenburg, Sweden has developed a new single strain OCV, Hillchol. This vaccine consists of formaldehyde-inactivated whole cell El Tor V. cholerae O1 bacteria engineered into the Hikojima serotype for stable expression of both the Ogawa (AB) and Inaba (AC) LPS antigens on the bacterial surface. We evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of this novel and potentially much less expensive OCV in comparison with Shanchol.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, non-inferiority, age-descending clinical trial of OCV (Hillchol vs. Shanchol) in the Mirpur area of Dhaka city from July 2016 to May 2017. This study was carried out in three different age cohorts (1-<5, 5-17 and ≥18 years old). Two doses of vaccine were given at 14 days intervals to 560 healthy participants.

FINDINGS

No serious adverse events were reported. There were no significant differences in the rates of adverse events between the test vaccine (Hillchol) and the comparator (Shanchol) group. Serum vibriocidal antibody responses in all age groups combined were comparable for all the O1 Ogawa (59% vs. 67%; 90% CI of difference: -14.55, -0.84) and Inaba (70% vs. 71%; 90% CI of difference: -7.24, 5.77) serotypes, showing that the Hillchol vaccine was non-inferior to Shanchol. This new vaccine was also non-inferior to Shanchol in the different age strata.

CONCLUSION

The safety and immunogenicity profile of the new OCV Hillchol is comparable to Shanchol in persons residing in a cholera-endemic setting. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02823899.

Recommendations for designing and analysing multi-arm non-inferiority trials: a review of methodology and current practice

Background and purpose

Multi-arm non-inferiority (MANI) trials, here defined as non-inferiority trials with multiple experimental treatment arms, can be useful in situations where several viable treatments exist for a disease area or for testing different dose schedules. To maintain the statistical integrity of such trials, issues regarding both design and analysis must be considered, from both the multi-arm and the non-inferiority perspectives. Little guidance currently exists on exactly how these aspects should be addressed and it is the aim of this paper to provide recommendations to aid the design of future MANI trials.

Methods

A comprehensive literature review covering four databases was conducted to identify publications associated with MANI trials. Literature was split into methodological and trial publications in order to investigate the required design and analysis considerations for MANI trials and whether they were being addressed in practice.

Results

A number of issues were identified that if not properly addressed, could lead to issues with the FWER, power or bias. These ranged from the structuring of trial hypotheses at the design stage to the consideration of potential heterogeneous treatment variances at the analysis stage. One key issue of interest was adjustment for multiple testing at the analysis stage. There was little consensus concerning whether more powerful p value adjustment methods were preferred to approximate adjusted CIs when presenting and interpreting the results of MANI trials.

We found 65 examples of previous MANI trials, of which 31 adjusted for multiple testing out of the 39 that were adjudged to require it. Trials generally preferred to utilise simple, well-known methods for study design and analysis and while some awareness was shown concerning FWER inflation and choice of power, many trials seemed not to consider the issues and did not provide sufficient definition of their chosen design and analysis approaches.

Conclusions

While MANI trials to date have shown some awareness of the issues raised within this paper, very few have satisfied the criteria of the outlined recommendations. Going forward, trials should consider the recommendations in this paper and ensure they clearly define and reason their choices of trial design and analysis techniques.

Efficacy of hypnotherapy compared to cognitive behavioral therapy for mild to moderate depression - Results of a randomized controlled rater-blind clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Methodologically well-designed RCTs concerning the efficacy of Hypnotherapy in the treatment of Major Depression are lacking. The aim of this study was to determine whether Hypnotherapy (HT) is not inferior to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), the gold-standard psychotherapy, in the percentage reduction of depressive symptoms, assessed in mild to moderate Major Depression (MD).

METHODS

This study reports the main results of a monocentric two-armed randomized-controlled rater-blind clinical trial. A total of 152 patients with MD were randomized to either CBT or HT receiving outpatient individual psychotherapy with 16 to 20 sessions for the duration of six months. The primary outcome was the mean percentage improvement in depressive symptoms assessed with the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) before and after treatment.

RESULTS

The difference in the mean percentage symptom reduction between HT and CBT was 2.8 (95% CI=-9.85 to 15.44) in the Intention-to-treat sample and 4.0 (95% CI=-9.27 to 17.27) in the Per Protocol sample (N=134). Concerning the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -16.4, both results confirm the non-inferiority of HT to CBT. The results for the follow-ups six and twelve months after the end of the treatment support the primary results.

LIMITATIONS

For ethical reasons the trial did not include a control group without treatment; therefore we can only indirectly conclude that both treatment conditions are effective.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to demonstrate that HT was not inferior to CBT in MD, while employing rigorous methodological standards.

Opioid therapy vs. multimodal analgesia in head and neck Cancer (OPTIMAL-HN): study protocol for a randomized clinical trial

Background

Radiation-induced mucositis (RIM) pain confers substantial morbidity for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients undergoing radiotherapy alone (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT), often reducing treatment compliance. However, no standard currently exists for the treatment of RIM, and high dose opioid therapy, with its associated side effects and increased risk for chronic opioid use, remains the cornerstone of HNC pain management. The goal of this randomized clinical trial is to compare multimodal analgesia using analgesic medications with different mechanisms of action, to the institutional standard of opioid analgesia alone, in order to ascertain the optimal analgesic regimen for the management of RIM pain in HNC patients.

Methods

In this open-label, single-institution, non-inferiority, randomized clinical trial, sixty-two patients with mucosal head and neck malignancies treated with curative-intent radiation will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by RT or CRT, between Arm 1: opioid analgesia alone as per the institutional standard, or Arm 2: multimodal analgesia using Pregabalin, Acetaminophen, and Naproxen, in addition to opioids, if required. The primary endpoint is the average 11-Numeric Rating Scale (11-NRS) score for pain during the last week of radiation treatment. Secondary endpoints include: average weekly opioid use, duration of opioid requirement, average daily 11-NRS score for pain, average weekly opioids dispensed, quality of life, hospitalizations for analgesic medication-induced complications, time to feeding tube insertion, weight loss, toxicity, treatment interruptions, and death within 3 months of completing RT treatment. Patients are eligible once analgesia is required for moderate 4/10 pain.

Discussion

This study will assess the efficacy and safety of multimodal analgesia and its impact on opioid requirements, clinical outcomes, and quality of life, as a potential new standard treatment for RIM pain in HNC patients undergoing definitive RT or CRT.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04221165. Date of registration: January 9, 2020. Appendix 2 reports the World Health Organization trial registration dataset.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12904-021-00735-0.

Refining MDR-TB treatment regimens for ultra short therapy (TB-TRUST): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) are unsatisfied to treat, pressing more effective and innovative treatment regimens. New efficient regimens for MDR-TB have obtained high treatment success rates. However, those regimens without drug susceptibility testing (DST) are also likely to contribute to the emergence of resistance. Precision treatments guided by DST might optimize the patients’ treatment outcome individually and minimize resistance amplification.

Methods

TB-TRUST is a phase III, multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled clinical trial of non-inferiority comparing the treatment success rate between the World Health Organization (WHO) shorter regimen and the refined ultra-short regimen for fluoroquinolones and second-line injectable drugs susceptible rifampicin-resistant TB. The control arm uses the WHO injectable-containing shorter regimen for 36–44 weeks depending on time of sputum smear conversion. The investigational arm uses a refined ultra-short regimen guided by molecular DST to pyrazinamide via whole-genome sequencing (WGS) to optimize the treatment of pyrazinamide-susceptible patients with levofloxacin, linezolid, cycloserine and pyrazinamide for 24–32 weeks and pyrazinamide-resistant with levofloxacin, linezolid, cycloserine and clofazimine for 36–44 weeks. The primary outcome is the treatment success rate without relapse at 84 weeks after treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes include the time of sputum culture conversion and occurrence of adverse events. Assuming α = 0.025 level of significance (one-sided test), a power of 80%, a < 10% difference in treatment success rate between control arm and investigational (80% vs. 82%), and a 5% lost follow-up rate, the number of participants per arm to show non-inferiority was calculated as 177(354 in total).

Discussion

Rapid molecular testing distinguishes patients who are eligible for shorter regimen with fluoroquinolone and the WGS-guided results shorten the treatment to 6 months for pyrazinamide susceptible patients. It’s foreseeable that not only novel developed medicines, but also traditional powerful medicines with the susceptibility confirmed by DST are the key factors to ensure the effect of anti-MDR-TB drugs. As a DST-guided precision treatment, TB-TRUST are expected to optimize therapy outcome in more patients who cannot afford the expensive new medicines and minimize and even avoid resistance amplification with the rational use of anti-TB drugs.

Trail registration

ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT03867136. Registered on March 7, 2019.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-021-05870-w.

Inclusion of non-inferiority analysis in superiority-based clinical trials with single-arm, two-stage Simon's design

INTRODUCTION

Non-inferiority (NI) analysis is not usually considered in the early phases of clinical development. In some negative phase II trials, a post-hoc NI analysis justified additional phase III trials that were successful. However, the risk of false positive achievements was not controlled in these early phase analyses. We propose to preplan NI analyses in superiority-based Simon's two-stage designs to control type I and II error rates.

METHODS

Simulations have been proposed to assess the control of type I and II errors rates with this method. A total of 12,768 two-stage Simon's design trials were constructed based on different assumptions of rejection response probability, desired response probability, type I and II errors, and NI margins. P-value and type II error were calculated with stochastic ordering using Uniformly Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimator. Type I and II errors were simulated using the Monte Carlo method. The agreement between calculated and simulated values was analyzed with Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

We observed the same level of agreement between calculated and simulated type I and II errors from both two-stage Simon's superiority designs and designs in which NI analysis was allowed. Different examples has been proposed to explain the utility of this method.

CONCLUSION

Inclusion of NI analysis in superiority-based single-arm clinical trials may be useful for weighing additional factors such as safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamic, and biomarker data while assessing early efficacy. Implementation of this strategy can be achieved through simple adaptations to existing designs for one-arm phase II clinical trials.

Investigation of the efficacy of the short regimen for rifampicin-resistant TB from the STREAM trial

BACKGROUND

The STREAM trial demonstrated that a 9-11-month "short" regimen had non-inferior efficacy and comparable safety to a 20+ month "long" regimen for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. Imbalance in the components of the composite primary outcome merited further investigation.

METHODS

Firstly, the STREAM primary outcomes were mapped to alternatives in current use, including WHO programmatic outcome definitions and other recently proposed modifications for programmatic or research purposes. Secondly, the outcomes were re-classified according to the likelihood that it was a Failure or Relapse (FoR) event on a 5-point Likert scale: Definite, Probable, Possible, Unlikely, and Highly Unlikely. Sensitivity analyses were employed to explore the impact of informative censoring. The protocol-defined modified intention-to-treat (MITT) analysis population was used for all analyses.

RESULTS

Cure on the short regimen ranged from 75.1 to 84.2% across five alternative outcomes. However, between-regimens results did not exceed 1.3% in favor of the long regimen (95% CI upper bound 10.1%), similar to the primary efficacy results from the trial. Considering only Definite or Probable FoR events, there was weak evidence of a higher risk of FoR in the short regimen, HR 2.19 (95%CI 0.90, 5.35), p = 0.076; considering only Definite FoR events, the evidence was stronger, HR 3.53 (95%CI 1.05, 11.87), p = 0.030. Cumulative number of grade 3-4 AEs was the strongest predictor of censoring. Considering a larger effect of informative censoring attenuated treatment differences, although 95% CI were very wide.

CONCLUSION

Five alternative outcome definitions gave similar overall results. The risk of failure or relapse (FoR) may be higher in the short regimen than in the long regimen, highlighting the importance of how loss to follow-up and other censoring is accounted for in analyses. The outcome of time to FoR should be considered as a primary outcome for future drug-sensitive and drug-resistant TB treatment trials, provided sensitivity analyses exploring the impact of departures from independent censoring are also included.

Concomitant administration of a liquid formulation of human rotavirus vaccine (porcine circovirus-free) with routine childhood vaccines in infants in the United States: Results from a phase 3, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

In response to the detection of porcine circovirus type 1 (PCV-1) in the human rotavirus vaccine (HRV), a PCV-free HRV (no detection of PCV-1 and PCV-2 according to the detection limit of tests used) was developed. Liquid (Liq) PCV-free HRV previously showed immunogenicity and safety profiles comparable to lyophilized (Lyo) HRV.

METHODS

This was a phase 3a, randomized, single-blind study (NCT03207750) conducted in the United States. Healthy infants aged 6-12 weeks received 2 doses (0, 2 months) of either Liq PCV-free HRV or Lyo HRV with routine vaccines (0, 2, 4 months): diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis, hepatitis B and inactivated poliovirus combination vaccine (DTaP-HBV-IPV), monovalent tetanus toxoid-conjugated vaccine against Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib-TT), and 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Co-primary objectives were: (i) to assess non-inferiority of immune responses to routine vaccine antigens 1 month post-dose 3 following co-administration with Liq PCV-free HRV compared to Lyo HRV; (ii) to rule out a 10% decrease in seroresponse to pertussis antigens after dose 3. Other objectives were to evaluate immunogenicity and safety of HRV vaccines.

RESULTS

Of 1272 vaccinated infants, 990 (489 in Liq PCV-free HRV and 501 in Lyo HRV group) were included in the per-protocol set. All statistical criteria were met, thus co-primary objectives were demonstrated. Seroprotection/seropositivity rates in both groups were high: 100% for diphtheria/tetanus, ≥99.3% for HBV, ≥99.8% for polio, ≥99.8% for each pertussis antigen, ≥90.8% for all pneumococcal serotypes except serotype 3 (≥69.1%), and ≥ 97.4% for Hib. Most infants seroconverted for anti-RV antibodies (76.3% of Liq PCV-free HRV and 78.9% of Lyo HRV recipients). Geometric mean concentrations/titers were comparable between groups. Incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

Routine pediatric vaccines co-administered with Liq PCV-free HRV showed non-inferior immune responses and similar safety profiles to those following co-administration with Lyo HRV.

Immune response at 12-23 months following a single dose of Vero cell culture-derived Japanese encephalitis (JE) vaccine in adults previously vaccinated with mouse brain-derived JE vaccine

BACKGROUND

Japanese encephalitis (JE) virus is an important cause of neurological disease in Asia. JE vaccine is recommended for travelers with higher JE risk itineraries. Inactivated Vero cell culture-derived JE vaccine (JE-VC) is the only JE vaccine currently available in the United States. An inactivated mouse brain-derived JE vaccine (JE-MB) previously was available but production was discontinued. One JE-VC dose administered to adults previously vaccinated with ≥3 doses of JE-MB provides good short-term protection for at least one month, but data on longer-term protection are limited. We evaluated non-inferiority of the JE virus neutralizing antibody response at 12-23 months in JE-MB-vaccinated adults administered one JE-VC dose compared with JE vaccine-naïve adults administered a JE-VC two-dose primary series.

METHODS

We obtained archived sera from U.S. military personnel and performed a 50% plaque reduction neutralization test for anti-JE virus neutralizing antibodies. We compared the geometric mean titer (GMT) and seroprotection rate at 12-23 months after one JE-VC dose in previously JE-MB-vaccinated personnel and after the second JE-VC dose in previously JE vaccine-naïve personnel. Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio in previously vaccinated to vaccine-naïve personnel was >1/1.5.

RESULTS

The GMT in previously JE-MB-vaccinated persons was 75 (95% CI 63-90) and in previously JE vaccine-naïve persons was 12 (95% CI 11-14), and seroprotection rates were 94% (235/250) and 54% (135/250), respectively. The ratio of GMTs was 6.3 (95% CI: 5.0-7.7), satisfying the criterion for non-inferiority.

CONCLUSIONS

One JE-VC dose in previously JE-MB-vaccinated military personnel provides good protection for at least 1-2 years. The benefits of administration of a single JE-VC dose in previously JE-MB-vaccinated adults include a shorter time to completion of re-vaccination before travel, a decrease in the risk of adverse events, and reduced costs.

Methodological aspects of superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials

Depending on the scientific hypothesis to be addressed, randomized-controlled trials (RCT) are accordingly designed. RCTs that aim to determine whether a novel, experimental therapeutic intervention (either a drug or a treatment) is superior to a placebo or control intervention, are called superiority trials. Less common are the non-inferiority RCTs, designed to assess whether a new intervention is not unacceptably worse than an already existing reference intervention. An equivalence RCT is designed to investigate whether a novel treatment is equivalently effective to another, already existing, control intervention. In equivalence and non-inferiority RCTs, the efficacy of the reference intervention (active comparator) is already established, and therefore, an untreated control group would not be ethical. In this review, using a series of examples derived from equivalence and non-inferiority/superiority RCTs, we describe the main differences and methodological aspects among these three different types of RCTs.

Technology versus tradition: a non-inferiority trial comparing video to face-to-face consultations with a physiotherapist for people with knee osteoarthritis. Protocol for the PEAK randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a global problem that causes significant pain and physical dysfunction, substantially impacting on quality of life and imposing enormous cost to the healthcare system. Exercise is pivotal to OA management, yet uptake by people with knee OA is inadequate. Limited access to appropriately skilled health professionals, such as physiotherapists, for prescription of an exercise program and support with exercise is a major barrier to optimal care. Internet-enabled video consultations permit widespread reach. However, services offering video consultations with physiotherapists for musculoskeletal conditions are scant in Australia where there is typically no Government or private health insurer funding for such services. The paucity of robust evidence demonstrating video consultations with physiotherapists are clinically effective, safe and cost-effective for knee OA is hampering implementation of, and willingness of healthcare policymakers to pay for, these services.

METHODS

This is an assessor- and participant-blinded, two-arm, pragmatic, comparative effectiveness non-inferiority randomised controlled trial (RCT) conducted in Australia. We are recruiting 394 people from the community with chronic knee pain consistent with a clinical diagnosis of knee OA. Participants are randomly allocated to receive physiotherapy care via i) video-conferencing or; ii) face-to-face consultations. Participants are provided five consultations (30-45 min each) with a physiotherapist over 3 months for prescription of a home-based strengthening exercise program (to be conducted independently at home) and physical activity plan, as well as OA education. Participants in both groups are provided with educational booklets and simple exercise equipment via post. The co-primary outcomes are change in self-reported i) knee pain on walking; and ii) physical function, with a primary end-point of 3 months and a secondary end-point of 9 months. Secondary outcomes include changes in other clinical outcomes (health-related quality of life; therapeutic relationship; global ratings of change; satisfaction with care; self-efficacy; physical activity levels), time and financial costs of attending consultations, healthcare usage and convenience. Non-inferiority will be assessed using the per-protocol dataset.

DISCUSSION

Findings will determine if video consultations with physiotherapists are non-inferior to traditional face-to-face consultations for management of people with knee OA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12619001240134. http://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=377672&isReview=true.

Effects of canagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic heart failure: a randomized trial (CANDLE)

AIMS

Little is known about the impact of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on cardiac biomarkers, such as natriuretic peptides, in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with concomitant chronic heart failure (CHF). We compared the effect of canagliflozin with glimepiride, based on changes in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), in that patient population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with T2D and stable CHF, randomized to receive canagliflozin 100 mg or glimepiride (starting-dose: 0.5 mg), were examined using the primary endpoint of non-inferiority of canagliflozin vs. glimepiride, defined as a margin of 1.1 in the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group ratio of percentage change in NT-proBNP at 24 weeks. Data analysis of 233 patients showed mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at randomization was 57.6 ± 14.6%, with 71% of patients having a preserved LVEF (≥50%). Ratio of NT-proBNP percentage change was 0.48 (95% CI, -0.13 to 1.59, P = 0.226) and therefore did not meet the prespecified non-inferiority margin. However, NT-proBNP levels did show a non-significant trend lower in the canagliflozin group [adjusted group difference; -74.7 pg/mL (95% CI, -159.3 to 10.9), P = 0.087] and also in the subgroup with preserved LVEF [-58.3 (95% CI, -127.6 to 11.0, P = 0.098]).

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not meet the predefined primary endpoint of changes in NT-proBNP levels, with 24 weeks of treatment with canagliflozin vs. glimepiride. Further research is warranted to determine whether patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, regardless of diabetes status, could potentially benefit from treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors.

Independent Housing and Support for non-homeless individuals with severe mental illness: randomised controlled trial vs. observational study - study protocol

BACKGROUND

Social inclusion is essential for an adequate rehabilitation process for people with serious mental illness (SMI). Various supported housing settings aim to promote housing competencies and social inclusion in service users. Nevertheless, there is a strong preference in service users for independent living. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of Independent Housing and Support (IHS) compared to institutionalised residential care settings and other treatment as usual conditions (RCS/TAU) in two cities in Switzerland.

METHODS

This is a prospective multi-centre, four-arm, non-inferiority cohort study investigating the effectiveness and efficiency of IHS and RCS/TAU for people with SMI. Effectiveness will be measured by a standardised measure of social inclusion as primary outcome as well as by measures of functioning and well-being. Efficiency will be analysed on the basis of service usage and costs associated with the different housing settings. Participants will be consecutively recruited and subsequently enrolled between April 2019 and December 2020 and assessed at baseline and after six, twelve and after 24 months. At one study site, 56 participants will be randomly assigned to one of the conditions; the other study site will be conducted as an observational study investigating 112 admitted participants.

DISCUSSION

While the UN Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities aims to promote the opportunity to choose one's place of residence, the limited supply of alternative forms of housing does not guarantee genuine freedom of choice. Increased diversification and flexibility of housing support is essential. If IHS shows non-inferiority in terms of their effectiveness and efficiency, users should be allowed to choose their kind of housing support.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03815604, December 04, 2019.