A multi-centre, UK-based, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of 4 follow-up assessment methods in stroke survivors

BACKGROUND

Recovery following a stroke is a long and ongoing process. Post-stroke follow-up after leaving the hospital is recommended. Methods for follow-up patients include face-to-face, via the telephone, post or online (internet). However, there is a debate which method is preferred by patients. This study aimed to determine whether telephone interview, online questionnaire and postal questionnaire were as acceptable as face-to-face follow-up.

METHODS

In a blinded, UK-wide, multi-centre, Zelen's designed, 4-arm (postal, online, telephone, compared to face-to-face), pragmatic non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of the mode of administration, stroke survivors were randomised to postal, online, telephone and face-to-face assessment, in an equal ratio (1:1:1:1). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that responded to the three allocation groups, compared to the face-to-face group. Subgroup analyses for age, aphasia and type and severity of stroke were carried out. A non-inferiority margin of 0.025 was used, and Holm-Bonferroni multiplicity adjustment was made.

RESULTS

Of the 2074 eligible patients randomised, 55% were male (1142/2074), with an average age of 73.0 years old (SD = 13.2). Of those randomised, 22% (116/525), 9% (47/515) and 20% (101/513) responded in postal, online and telephone, respectively, compared to 17% (89/521) in the face-to-face group. The reduction in the online response rate compared to face-to-face was found to be both inferior and not non-inferior and estimated as an 8% reduction (95% CI 3.9 to 12.0%; p < 0.001). The association with lower online completion was present regardless of age, stroke type (haemorrhage or infarct) and stroke severity. In haemorrhagic stroke, the reduction in response online, compared to face-to-face, was 21% (95% CI 10 to 32%; p value = 0.002). A secondary analysis found non-aphasic stroke survivors preferred postal completion adjusted odds ratio of 1.43 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.95; p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

The study found that fewer stroke survivors completed follow-up assessment using an online method, compared to face-to-face. This finding was present in all age groups. Caution should be employed when considering online follow-up methods in stroke survivors, particularly in those who have experienced a cerebrovascular haemorrhage.

TRIALS REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03177161 . Registered on 6 June 2017.

Preventing Childhood Anxiety Disorders: Is an Applied Game as Effective as a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy-Based Program?

A large proportion of children experience subclinical levels of anxiety and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) aimed at preventing anxiety disorders is moderately effective. However, most at-risk children do not seek help or drop out of programs prematurely because of stigma, lack of motivation, and accessibility barriers. Applied games have received increased attention as viable alternatives and have shown promising results, but direct comparisons between applied games and the gold-standard CBT are lacking. Our aim was to investigate whether the applied game MindLight is as effective as CBT (i.e., Coping Cat) within an indicated prevention context. We conducted a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with a sample of 174 children (7- to 12-year olds) with elevated levels of anxiety, comparing MindLight to CBT. Anxiety was assessed with self- and parent-reports at pre- and post-program, and at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Intention-to-treat and completers-only confidence interval approach and latent growth curve modeling showed an overall significant quadratic decrease in child- and parent-reported anxiety symptoms over time and, as predicted, the magnitude of improvement was the same for MindLight and CBT. The within-group effect sizes were small to medium at post-test (− 0.32 to − 0.63), and medium to large (− 0.60 to − 1.07) at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Furthermore, MindLight and CBT were rated equally anxiety inducing, difficult, and appealing; CBT was rated as more relevant to daily life than MindLight. The current study adds to the growing research on applied games for mental health and shows that these games hold potential as alternative delivery models for evidence-based therapeutic techniques.

Equal to or better than: The application of statistical non-inferiority to fatigue risk management

In December 2014, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) completed a major revision of the rules and regulations governing flight and duty time in commercial aviation (Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 117). Scientists were included in the revision process and provided insights into sleep, sleep loss, the circadian rhythm, and their effects on performance that were incorporated into the new rule. If a planned flight was non-compliant with the regulation, for example if it exceeded flight and duty time limits, it could only be flown under an FAA-approved Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) as meeting an Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC). One method that a flight could qualify as an AMOC is if it could be demonstrated empirically that it was as safe as or safer than a similar flight, designated the Safety Standard Operation (SSO), that was compliant with the regulation. In the present paper, we demonstrate the FRMS process using a comparison between a non-compliant AMOC flight from the US west coast to Australia and a compliant SSO flight from the US west coast to Taiwan. The AMOC was non-compliant because it exceeded the flight time limits in the prescriptive rule. Once a data collection exemption was granted by the FAA, both the outbound and inbound AMOC and SSO routes were studied on four Safety Performance Indicators (SPIs). The SPIs studied were inflight sleep, cognitive performance, self-reported fatigue, and self-reported sleepiness. These measures were made at top of descent (TOD), a critical phase of flight. The study was designed as a paired comparison. Forty volunteer pilots studied flew both the AMOC and the SSO flights for a total of 80 studied flights. Using statistical non-inferiority applied to the AMOC and SSO SPIs, we demonstrated, as required by the new rule, that the US-Australia AMOC flight was "as safe as, or safer than" the US-Taiwan SSO flight. In the context of FRMS, statistical non-inferiority is a concept and technique of great utility, straightforward in application, producing clear visual representations of the findings, and providing a direct answer to the question posed by the regulation - is the AMOC flight "as safe as, or safer than" the SSO.

Comparing the new Ifakara Ambient Chamber Test with WHO cone and tunnel tests for bioefficacy and non-inferiority testing of insecticide-treated nets

BACKGROUND

Insecticide-treated net (ITN) durability, measured through physical integrity and bioefficacy, must be accurately assessed in order to plan the timely replacement of worn out nets and guide procurement of longer-lasting, cost-effective nets. World Health Organization (WHO) guidance advises that new intervention class ITNs be assessed 3 years after distribution, in experimental huts. In order to obtain information on whole-net efficacy cost-effectively and with adequate replication, a new bioassay, the Ifakara Ambient Chamber Test (I-ACT), a semi-field whole net assay baited with human host, was compared to established WHO durability testing methods.

METHODS

Two experiments were conducted using pyrethroid-susceptible female adult Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto comparing bioefficacy of Olyset®, PermaNet® 2.0 and NetProtect® evaluated by I-ACT and WHO cone and tunnel tests. In total, 432 nets (144/brand) were evaluated using I-ACT and cone test. Olyset® nets (132/144) that did not meet the WHO cone test threshold criteria (≥ 80% mortality or ≥ 95% knockdown) were evaluated using tunnel tests with threshold criteria of ≥ 80% mortality or ≥ 90% feeding inhibition for WHO tunnel and I-ACT. Pass rate of nets tested by WHO combined standard WHO bioassays (cone/tunnel tests) was compared to pass in I-ACT only by net brand and time after distribution.

RESULTS

Overall, more nets passed WHO threshold criteria when tested with I-ACT than with standard WHO bioassays 92% vs 69%, (OR: 4.1, 95% CI 3.5-4.7, p < 0.0001). The proportion of Olyset® nets that passed differed if WHO 2005 or WHO 2013 LN testing guidelines were followed: 77% vs 71%, respectively. Based on I-ACT results, PermaNet® 2.0 and NetProtect® demonstrated superior mortality and non-inferior feeding inhibition to Olyset® over 3 years of field use in Tanzania.

CONCLUSION

Ifakara Ambient Chamber Test may have use for durability studies and non-inferiority testing of new ITN products. It measures composite bioefficacy and physical integrity with both mortality and feeding inhibition endpoints, using fewer mosquitoes than standard WHO bioassays (cone and tunnel tests). The I-ACT is a high-throughput assay to evaluate ITN products that work through either contact toxicity or feeding inhibition. I-ACT allows mosquitoes to interact with a host sleeping underneath a net as encountered in the field, without risk to human participants.

Full versus half dose of antenatal betamethasone to prevent severe neonatal respiratory distress syndrome associated with preterm birth: study protocol for a randomised, multicenter, double blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial (BETADOSE)

BACKGROUND

Although antenatal betamethasone is recommended worldwide for women at risk of preterm delivery, concerns persist regarding the long-term effects associated with this treatment. Indeed, adverse events, mainly dose-related, have been reported. The current recommended dose of antenatal betamethasone directly derives from sheep experiments performed in the late 60's and has not been challenged in 45 years. Therefore, randomized trials evaluating novel dose regimens are urgently needed.

METHODS

A randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial will be performed in 37 French level 3 maternity units. Women with a singleton pregnancy at risk of preterm delivery before 32 weeks of gestation having already received a first 11.4 mg injection of betamethasone will be randomised to receive either a second injection of 11.4 mg betamethasone (full dose arm) or placebo (half dose arm) administered intramuscularly 24 h after the first injection. The primary binary outcome will be the occurrence of severe respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), defined as the need for exogenous intra-tracheal surfactant in the first 48 h of life. Considering that 20% of the pregnant women receiving the full dose regimen would have a neonate with severe RDS, 1571 patients in each treatment group are required to show that the half dose regimen is not inferior to the full dose, that is the difference in severe RDS rate do not exceed 4% (corresponding to a Relative Risk of 20%), with a 1-sided 2.5% type-1 error and a 80% power. Interim analyses will be done after every 300 neonates who reach the primary outcome on the basis of intention-to-treat, using a group-sequential non-inferiority design.

DISCUSSION

If the 50% reduced antenatal betamethasone dose is shown to be non-inferior to the full dose to prevent severe RDS associated with preterm birth, then it should be used consistently in women at risk of preterm delivery and would be of great importance to their children.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT 02897076 (registration date 09/13/2016).

Safety and immunogenicity of a varicella vaccine without human serum albumin (HSA) versus a HSA-containing formulation administered in the second year of life: a phase III, double-blind, randomized study

BACKGROUND

A new formulation of the live-attenuated varicella vaccine Varilrix (GSK) produced without human serum albumin (HSA) was developed to minimize a theoretical risk of transmission of infectious diseases. A previous study showed that the vaccine was immunologically non-inferior to the HSA-containing vaccine and well-tolerated in toddlers; low-grade fever was numerically higher in children receiving the vaccine without HSA, but the study lacked power to conclude on this difference.

METHODS

In this phase III, double-blind, multi-center study, healthy 12-23-month-olds were randomized (1:1) to receive two doses of the varicella vaccine without (Var-HSA group) or with HSA (Var + HSA group) at days 0 and 42. The primary objective compared safety of the vaccines in terms of incidence of fever > 39.0 °C in the 15-day period post-first vaccination. The objective was considered met if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the between-group difference in the incidence of fever > 39.0 °C was ≤5% (Var-HSA group minus Var + HSA group). Safety, reactogenicity and immune responses were evaluated.

RESULTS

Six hundred fifteen children in the Var-HSA group and 616 in the Var + HSA group received ≥1 vaccination. Fever > 39.0 °C was reported in 3.9 and 5.2% of participants in the Var-HSA and Var + HSA groups, with a between-group difference of - 1.29 (95% confidence interval: - 3.72-1.08); therefore, the primary objective was achieved. Fever rates post-each dose and the incidence of solicited local and general adverse events (AEs) were comparable between groups. Unsolicited AEs were reported for 43.9 and 36.5% of children in the Var-HSA group and 45.8 and 36.0% of children in the Var + HSA group, during 43 days post-dose 1 and 2, respectively. Serious AEs occurred in 2.1% (group Var-HSA) and 2.4% (group Var + HSA) of children, throughout the study. In a sub-cohort of 364 children, all had anti-varicella-zoster virus antibody concentrations ≥50 mIU/mL post-dose 2; comparable geometric mean concentrations were observed between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The varicella vaccine formulated without HSA did not induce higher rates of fever during the 15 day-post-vaccination period, as compared with the original HSA-containing vaccine. The two vaccines displayed similar safety and immunogenicity profiles in toddlers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02570126 , registered on 5 October 2015 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

ELEctroconvulsive therapy (ECT) vs. Ketamine in patients with Treatment-resistant Depression: The ELEKT-D study protocol

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is the most common mental illness and the leading cause of disability worldwide. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is the most effective treatment for MDD and the gold-standard therapy for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), yet it remains underutilized due to factors such as limited availability, stigma, and concerns about cognitive side effects. Ketamine has emerged as the first rapid-acting antidepressant and shows robust short-term efficacy in clinical trials, but there are concerns about its long-term safety and efficacy. While response rates are similar between ECT and ketamine in clinical trials, these treatments have never been compared head-to-head in a sufficiently large, well-powered randomized study. Here we describe the study protocol for ELEctroconvulsive therapy (ECT) vs. Ketamine in patients with Treatment-resistant Depression (ELEKT-D), a non-inferiority, comparative effectiveness trial. Patients with TRD seeking clinical treatment are randomized (1:1) to receive ECT (thrice weekly) or intravenous ketamine (twice weekly) for 3-5 weeks. The primary outcome is the proportion of responders in each group at the end of study visit, as measured by a patient-reported outcome measure (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self Report). The study is powered such that the non-inferiority margin allows for ketamine to retain 90% of the ECT treatment effect, with a projected sample size of 400 patients (200 per group). Secondary outcomes include remission rates, depression severity, cognitive functioning, quality of life, adverse events, and tolerability. The results of the ELEKT-D study will have important implications for patient choice, clinical practice, and health insurance policies.

Delamanid, linezolid, levofloxacin, and pyrazinamide for the treatment of patients with fluoroquinolone-sensitive multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (Treatment Shortening of MDR-TB Using Existing and New Drugs, MDR-END): study protocol for a phase II/III, multicenter, randomized, open-label clinical trial

Background

Treatment success rates of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) remain unsatisfactory, and long-term use of second-line anti-TB drugs is accompanied by the frequent occurrence of adverse events, low treatment compliance, and high costs. The development of new efficient regimens with shorter treatment durations for MDR-TB will solve these issues and improve treatment outcomes.

Methods

This study is a phase II/III, multicenter, randomized, open-label clinical trial of non-inferiority design comparing a new regimen to the World Health Organization-endorsed conventional regimen for fluoroquinolone-sensitive MDR-TB. The control arm uses a conventional treatment regimen with second-line drugs including injectables for 20–24 months. The investigational arm uses a new shorter regimen including delamanid, linezolid, levofloxacin, and pyrazinamide for 9 or 12 months depending on time to sputum culture conversion. The primary outcome is the treatment success rate at 24 months after treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes include time to sputum culture conversion on liquid and solid media, proportions of sputum culture conversion on liquid media after 2 and 6 months of treatment, treatment success rate according to pyrazinamide resistance, and occurrence of adverse events grade 3 and above as evaluated by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Based on an α = 0.025 level of significance (one-sided test), a power of 80%, and a < 10% difference in treatment success rate between the control and investigational arms (80% vs. 70%) when the anticipated actual success rate in the treatment group is assumed to be 90%, the number of participants needed per arm to show non-inferiority of the investigational regimen was calculated as 48. Additionally, assuming the proportion of fluoroquinolone-susceptible MDR-TB among participants as 50%, and 5% loss to follow-up, the number of participants is calculated as N/( 0.50 × 0.95), resulting in 102 persons per group (204 in total).

Discussion

This trial will reveal the effectiveness and safety of a new shorter regimen comprising four oral drugs, including delamanid, linezolid, levofloxacin, and pyrazinamide, for the treatment of fluoroquinolone-sensitive MDR-TB. Results from this trial will provide evidence for adopting a shorter and more convenient treatment regimen for MDR-TB.

Trial registration

ClincalTrials.gov, NCT02619994. Registered on 2 December 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-3053-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Non-inferiority of dose reduction versus standard dosing of TNF-inhibitors in axial spondyloarthritis

Objective

The objective was to determine if dose reduction is non-inferior to full-dose TNFi to maintain low disease activity (LDA) in patients already in remission with TNFi, in axial spondyloarthritis.

Methods

Randomized, parallel, non-inferiority, open-label multicentre clinical trial. Patients were eligible if they had axial spondyloarthritis and had been in clinical remission for ≥ 6 months with any available TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, golimumab) at the dose recommended by product labelling. Patients were randomized by automated central allocation to continue the same TNFi dose schedule, or to reduce the dose by roughly half according to the protocol. The main outcome was the proportion of subjects with LDA after 1 year. Serious adverse reactions or infections were recorded.

Results

The trial stopped due to end of the funding period, after 126 patients were randomized; 113 patients (84.1% male, mean age (SD) 45.6 (13.0) years) were included in the main per-protocol subset. Non-inferiority was concluded for LDA at 1 year (47/55 (83.8%) patients in the full-dose and 48/58 (81.3%) patients in the reduced-dose arm, adjusted difference (95% CI) − 2.5% (− 16.6% to 11.7%)). Serious adverse reactions or infections were reported in 7/62 patients (11.3%) assigned to full dose and 2/61 patients (3.3%) assigned to reduced dose (p value = 0.164).

Conclusion

In patients with ankylosing spondylitis in clinical remission for at least 6 months, dose reduction is non-inferior to full TNF inhibitor doses to maintain LDA after 1 year. Serious adverse events may be less frequent with reduced doses.

Trial registration

EU Clinical Trials Registry, EudraCT 2011–005871-18 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01604629.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13075-018-1772-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Unfounded conclusions of equivalence in diagnostic accuracy studies: a pervasive fallacy of inference in pediatric radiology scientific abstracts

BACKGROUND

In studies of diagnostic performance that fail to detect a statistically significant difference between compared techniques, investigators often declare evidence of equivalence or similarity without having actually tested that assertion due to incorrect methodology or insufficient statistical power.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our investigation is to measure the prevalence of unfounded assertions of equivalence or similarity in comparison studies presented at the International Pediatric Radiology (IPR) meeting of 2016 and promote awareness of this fallacy of inference to the pediatric radiology community.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two pediatric radiologists independently reviewed the methodology and reporting quality of the 194 scientific paper abstracts from the 2016 IPR meeting. All comparison studies were identified and those failing to detect a statistically significance difference and making a claim of equivalence or similarity in the results or conclusion were assessed for a description of the study design type, statistical power and sample size estimator calculation.

RESULTS

Of 194 scientific paper abstracts, 112 (58%) were comparison studies. Of these, 36/112 (32%) made unfounded inferences of equivalence or similarity in diagnostic imaging performance. No study had an equivalence or non-inferiority design. No abstract specified the statistical power of the study, and only one abstract acknowledged a small sample size as a limitation in detecting a statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Inadequate reporting and unfounded inferences of equivalence or similarity were common in diagnostic performance comparison studies presented at IPR 2016. Failure to recognize these limitations could have adverse consequences by leading to the adoption of unvalidated imaging techniques.

Hypothesis testing in Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background

Network meta-analysis is an extension of the classical pairwise meta-analysis and allows to compare multiple interventions based on both head-to-head comparisons within trials and indirect comparisons across trials. Bayesian or frequentist models are applied to obtain effect estimates with credible or confidence intervals. Furthermore, p-values or similar measures may be helpful for the comparison of the included arms but related methods are not yet addressed in the literature. In this article, we discuss how hypothesis testing can be done in a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Methods

An index is presented and discussed in a Bayesian modeling framework. Simulation studies were performed to evaluate the characteristics of this index. The approach is illustrated by a real data example.

Results

The simulation studies revealed that the type I error rate is controlled. The approach can be applied in a superiority as well as in a non-inferiority setting.

Conclusions

Test decisions can be based on the proposed index. The index may be a valuable complement to the commonly reported results of network meta-analyses. The method is easy to apply and of no (noticeable) additional computational cost.

Superiority and non-inferiority: two sides of the same coin?

Background

The classification of phase 3 trials as superiority or non-inferiority has become routine, and it is widely accepted that there are important differences between the two types of trial in their design, analysis and interpretation.

Main text

There is a clear rationale for the superiority/non-inferiority framework in the context of regulatory trials. The focus of our article is non-regulatory trials with a public health objective. First, using two examples from infectious disease research, we show that the classification of superiority or non-inferiority trials is not always straightforward. Second, we show that several arguments for different approaches to the design, analysis and interpretation of superiority and non-inferiority trials are unconvincing when examined in detail. We consider, in particular, the calculation of sample size (and the choice of delta or the non-inferiority margin), intention-to-treat versus per-protocol analyses, and one-sided versus two-sided confidence intervals. We argue that the superiority/non-inferiority framework is not just unnecessary but can have a detrimental effect, being a barrier to clear scientific thought and communication. In particular, it places undue emphasis on tests for significance or non-inferiority at the expense of estimation. We emphasise that these concerns apply to phase 3 non-regulatory trials in general, not just to those where the classification of the trial as superiority or non-inferiority is ambiguous.

Conclusions

Guidelines and statistical practice should abandon the sharp division between superiority and non-inferiority phase 3 non-regulatory trials and be more closely aligned to the clinical and public health questions that motivate the trial.

Immunogenicity and safety of 11- and 12-valent pneumococcal non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae protein D-conjugate vaccines (11vPHiD-CV, 12vPHiD-CV) in infants: Results from a phase II, randomised, multicentre study

BACKGROUND

We assessed 2 investigational 11- and 12-valent vaccines, containing capsular polysaccharides of 10 serotypes as in the pneumococcal non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae protein D-conjugate vaccine (PHiD-CV) and CRM₁₉₇-conjugated capsular polysaccharides of serotypes 19A (11-valent) or 19A and 6A (12-valent).

METHODS

In this phase II, partially-blind, multicentre study (NCT01204658), healthy infants were randomised (1:1:1:1) to receive 11vPHiD-CV, 12vPHiD-CV, PHiD-CV, or 13-valent CRM₁₉₇-conjugate pneumococcal vaccine (PCV13), at 2, 3, and 4 (primary series), and 12-15 months of age (booster dose), co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV/Hib. Confirmatory objectives assessed non-inferiority of investigational vaccines to comparators (PHiD-CV for common serotypes; PCV13 for 19A and 6A), in terms of percentage of infants with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥0.2 μg/mL and antibody geometric mean concentrations, post-primary vaccination. Reactogenicity and safety were assessed.

RESULTS

951 children received ≥1 primary dose, 919 a booster dose. Pre-defined immunological non-inferiority criteria were met simultaneously for 9/11 11vPHiD-CV serotypes (all except 23F and 19A) and 10/12 12vPHiD-CV serotypes (all except 19A and 6A); thus, non-inferiority objectives were reached. For each PHiD-CV serotype, percentages of children with antibody concentrations ≥0.2 µg/mL were ≥96.7% post-primary (except 6B [≥75.2%] and 23F [≥81.1%]), and ≥98.1% post-booster vaccination. For each PHiD-CV serotype except serotype 1, ≥81.0% and ≥93.9% of children had opsonophagocytic activity titres ≥8, post-primary and booster vaccination. AEs incidence was similar across all groups. SAEs were reported for 117 children (29 in the 11vPHiD-CV group, 26 in the 12vPHiD-CV group, 38 in the PHiD-CV group and 24 in the PCV13 group); 4 SAEs were considered vaccination-related. No fatal events were recorded.

CONCLUSION

Addition of 19A and 6A CRM₁₉₇-conjugates did not alter immunogenicity of the PHiD-CV conjugates; for both investigational vaccines post-booster immune responses to 10 common serotypes appeared similar to those elicited by PHiD-CV. Safety and reactogenicity profiles of the investigational vaccines were comparable to PHiD-CV. Clinical trial registry: NCT01204658.

Acceptability of the method of administration of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) with stroke survivors, a randomised controlled trial protocol

BACKGROUND

UK-wide national clinical guidelines promote routine 6-month post-stroke follow-up assessment. However, as part of this 6-month assessment little information is gathered from the patient's perspective. The means of collecting this patient-centred information might be served best by a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) at the 6-month assessment time point. Currently, four different methods of 6-month follow-up assessment occur; the most common being face-to-face interview followed by telephone interview, postal questionnaire and online questionnaire. Therefore, this study will investigate if the acceptability of telephone, online or postal administration of a PROM at the 6-month post-stoke time point is not inferior to face-to-face administration.

METHODS/DESIGN

A UK multicentre, blinded (analyst and researcher), pragmatic, non-inferiority study, with 80% power using a 2.5% non-inferiority margin was designed to compare the acceptability of three modes of administration (telephone interview, postal questionnaire and online questionnaire) compared with face-to-face interview administration of a PROM. We plan to approach and randomise a minimum of 808 potentially eligible participants, 202 participants per group.

DISCUSSION

The aim of this ongoing research is to understand if there is a difference between face-to-face administration and the other three methods of administering a PROM as a patient-centred supplement to the 6-month review for stroke survivors. In utilising a pragmatic design, it is believed that this study will offer UK wide generalisable results, of the acceptability of the methods under investigation, to inform clinicians and commissioners of stroke services.

TRIALS REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03177161 . Registered on 6 June 2017.

Music therapy versus treatment as usual for refugees diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses of studies on psychological treatment of refugees describe highly varying outcomes, and research on multi-facetted and personalized treatment of refugees with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is needed. Music therapy has been found to affect arousal regulation and emotional processing, and a pilot study on the music therapy method Trauma-focused Music and Imagery (TMI) with traumatized refugees resulted in significant changes of trauma symptoms, well-being and sleep quality. The aim of the trial is to test the efficacy of TMI compared to verbal psychotherapy.

METHODS

A randomized controlled study with a non-inferiority design is carried out in three locations of a regional outpatient psychiatric clinic for refugees. Seventy Arabic-, English- or Danish-speaking adult refugees (aged 18-67 years) diagnosed with PTSD are randomized to 16 sessions of either music therapy or verbal therapy (standard treatment). All participants are offered medical treatment, psychoeducation by nurses, physiotherapy or body therapy and social counseling as needed. Outcome measures are performed at baseline, post therapy and at 6 months' follow-up. A blind assessor measures outcomes post treatment and at follow-up. Questionnaires measuring trauma symptoms (HTQ), quality of life (WHO-5), dissociative symptoms (SDQ-20, DSS-20) and adult attachment (RAAS) are applied, as well as physiological measures (salivary oxytocin, beta-endorphin and substance P) and participant evaluation of each session.

DISCUSSION

The effect of music therapy can be explained by theories on affect regulation and social engagement, and the impact of music on brain regions affected by PTSD. The study will shed light on the role of therapy for the attainment of a safe attachment style, which recently has been shown to be impaired in traumatized refugees. The inclusion of music and imagery in the treatment of traumatized refugees hopefully will inform the choice of treatment method and expand the possibilities for improving refugee health and integration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID number NCT03574228, registered retrospectively on 28 June 2016.

Combined Protocol for Acute Malnutrition Study (ComPAS) in rural South Sudan and urban Kenya: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Acute malnutrition is a continuum condition, but severe and moderate forms are treated separately, with different protocols and therapeutic products, managed by separate United Nations agencies. The Combined Protocol for Acute Malnutrition Study (ComPAS) aims to simplify and unify the treatment of uncomplicated severe and moderate acute malnutrition (SAM and MAM) for children 6–59 months into one protocol in order to improve the global coverage, quality, continuity of care and cost-effectiveness of acute malnutrition treatment in resource-constrained settings.

Methods/design

This study is a multi-site, cluster randomized non-inferiority trial with 12 clusters in Kenya and 12 clusters in South Sudan. Participants are 3600 children aged 6–59 months with uncomplicated acute malnutrition. This study will evaluate the impact of a simplified and combined protocol for the treatment of SAM and MAM compared to the standard protocol, which is the national treatment protocol in each country. We will assess recovery rate as a primary outcome and coverage, defaulting, death, length of stay, average weekly weight gain and average weekly mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) gain as secondary outcomes. Recovery rate is defined across both treatment arms as MUAC ≥125 mm and no oedema for two consecutive visits. Per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses will be conducted.

Discussion

If the combined protocol is shown to be non-inferior to the standard protocol, updating guidelines to use the combined protocol would eliminate the need for separate products, resources and procedures for MAM treatment. This would likely be more cost-effective, increase availability of services, enable earlier case finding and treatment before deterioration of MAM into SAM, promote better continuity of care and improve community perceptions of the programme.

Trial registration

ISRCTN, ISRCTN30393230. Registered on 16 March 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2643-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Efficacy and safety of chemotherapy in older versus non-older patients with advanced gastric cancer: A real-world data, non-inferiority analysis

OBJECTIVE

Advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is a common neoplasm in older adults. Nevertheless, there are few specific management data in the literature. The aim of this study was to assess non-inferiority of survival and efficacy-related outcomes of chemotherapy used in older vs non-older patients with AGC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We recruited 1485 patients from the AGAMENON registry of AGC treated with polychemotherapy between 2008-2017. A statistical analysis was conducted to prove non-inferiority for overall survival (OS) associated with the use of chemotherapy schedules in individuals ≥70 vs.<70years. The fixed-margin method was used (hazard ratio [HR]<1.176) that corresponds to conserving at least 85% efficacy.

RESULTS

33% (n=489) of the cases analyzed were ≥70 years. Two-agent chemotherapies and combinations with oxaliplatin (48% vs. 29%) were used more often in the older patients, as were modified schedules and/or lower doses. Toxicity grade 3-4 was comparable in both groups, although when looking at any grade, there were more episodes of enteritis, renal toxicity, and fatigue in older patients. In addition, toxicity was a frequent cause for discontinuing treatment in older patients. The response rate was similar in both groups. After adjusting for confounding factors, the non-inferiority of OS associated with schedules administered to the older vs. younger subjects was confirmed: HR 1.02 (90% CI, 0.91-1.14), P (non inferiority)=0.018, as well as progression-free survival: HR 0.97 (90% CI, 0.87-1.08), P(non-inferiority)=0.001.

CONCLUSION

In this AGC registry, the use of chemotherapy with schedules adapted to patients ≥70 years provided efficacy that was not inferior to that seen in younger cases, with comparable adverse effects.

Immunogenicity and safety of an inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine co-administered with a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine versus separate administration, in adults ≥50years of age: Results from a phase III, randomized, non-inferiority trial

INTRODUCTION

We compared co-administration versus separate administration of an inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (IIV4) with a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) in adults at high risk of complications of influenza and pneumococcal infection.

METHODS

This phase III, placebo-controlled, observer-blind trial (NCT02218697) was conducted in France and Belgium during the 2014-2015 influenza season. Adults≥50years of age meeting their country's vaccination recommendations were randomized 1:1 to co-administration or separate administration. Immunogenicity was assessed by hemagglutination inhibition (HI) titers for IIV4 and 22F-inhibition ELISA for PPV23. Co-primary objectives were to demonstrate non-inferiority of co-administration versus separate administration in terms of geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio for each influenza strain in the IIV4 and geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio for six pneumococcal serotypes (1, 3, 4, 7F, 14, 19A) in the PPV23 in the per-protocol cohort (N=334).

RESULTS

The study met its co-primary objectives, with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT and GMC ratios (separate administration over co-administration) being ≤2.0 for all four antigens of the IIV4 and the six pre-selected serotypes of the PPV23, respectively. Immunogenicity of the IIV4 and PPV23 was similar regardless of administration schedule. In a post hoc analysis pooling participants ≥60years of age from the co-administration and separate administration groups, IIV4 immunogenicity was similar in higher risk adults with comorbidities (diabetes; respiratory, heart, kidney, liver, or neurological diseases; morbid obesity) versus those without. Both vaccines had an acceptable safety and reactogenicity profile; pain was the most common symptom, occurring more often with co-administration than separate administration.

CONCLUSION

The IIV4 and PPV23 can be co-administered without reducing antibody responses reflecting protection against influenza or pneumococcal disease. Co-administration of PPV23 at the annual influenza vaccination visit may improve uptake. Comorbidities had no impact on IIV4 immunogenicity, supporting its value in older adults with chronic medical conditions. Clinical Trial Registry Number: NCT02218697.

Ultra-low dose of rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

A standard low-dosing schedule of rituximab (RTX; 2 × 500 mg or 1 × 1000 mg) is as effective for active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as the registered dose (2 × 1000 mg). Moreover, several small uncontrolled studies suggest that even lower-dosed treatment with RTX also leads to good treatment response in patients with RA. Retreatment with such an ‘ultra-low’ dose RTX in patients who responded well to RTX induction treatment is of special interest, as long-term use of lower RTX doses may lead to shorter infusion duration, lower risk of adverse events and lower costs. However, the effect of ultra-low dose of RTX has not been investigated using a controlled trial of proper design and dimensions.

Methods/Design

REDO is an investigator driven six-month pragmatic, double-blind, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial on the effects of ultra-low-dose RTX (1 × 500 or 1 × 200 mg) compared to standard low dose (1 × 1000 mg) in RA patients who are being retreated with RTX. A total of 140 RA patients, having reached low disease activity (DAS28CRP < 2.9) after the previous RTX infusion and DAS28CRP < 3.5 at moment of retreatment, are randomised in a ratio of 1:2:2 to 1 × 1000 mg, 1 × 500 mg or 1 × 200 mg. The primary objective is testing non-inferiority of the ultra-low-dose vs. standard low-dose RTX, by comparing mean change in DAS28CRP from baseline to six months to the non-inferiority margin of 0.6. Secondary outcomes over the same period are: function; quality of life; safety; costs; and pharmacokinetics and dynamics as process measures.

Discussion

This study protocol shares characteristics of both early dose finding trials as well as late pragmatic clinical studies. Several choices in the design of this trial are described and possible consequences for RA treatment and expected biosimilar introduction are discussed.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Register, NTR6117. Registered on 15 November 2016 (CMO NL57520.091.16, 8 November 2016)

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2134-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A novel hand-assisted laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for right colon cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Although conventional laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is widely used today, there remain many technical challenges especially for right colon cancer in obese patients. Herein, we develop a novel hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with complete mesocolic excision (CME), D3 lymphadenectomy, and a total “no-touch” isolation technique (HALS-CME) in right hemicolectomy to overcome these issues. According to previous clinic practice, this novel procedure is not only feasible and safe but has several technical merits. However, the feasibility, short-term minimally invasive virtues, long-term oncological superiority, and potential total “no-touch” isolation technique benefits of HALS-CME should be confirmed by a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Methods/design

This is a single-center, open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial. Eligible participants will be randomly assigned to the HALS-CME group or to the laparoscopic surgery with CME, D3 lymphadenectomy, and total “no-touch” isolation technique (LAP-CME) group, or to conventional laparoscopic surgery with CME and D3 lymphadenectomy (cLAP) group at a 1:1:1 ratio using a centralized randomization list. Primary endpoints include safety, efficacy, and being oncologically clear, and 3-year disease-free, progression-free, and overall survival. Second endpoints include operative outcomes (operation time, blood loss, and incision length), pathologic evaluation (grading the plane of surgery, length of proximal and distal resection margins, distance between the tumor and the central arterial high tie, distance between the nearest bowel wall and the same high tie, area of mesentery resected, width of the chain of lymph-adipose tissue, length of the central lymph-adipose chain, number of harvested lymph nodes), and postoperative outcomes (pain intensity, postoperative inflammatory and immune responses, postoperative recovery).

Discussion

This trial will provide valuable clinical evidence for the feasibility, safety, and potential total “no-touch” isolation technique benefits of HALS-CME for right hemicolectomy. The hypothesis is that HALS-CME is feasible for the radical D3 resection of right colon cancer and offers short-term safety and long-term oncological superiority compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02625272. Registered on 8 December 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2084-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[Non-inferiority and equivalence trials: Key methodological issues]

Non-inferiority and equivalence trials aim to promote new treatments that are not expected to be superior to existing ones in a given indication. In order to compensate for a possible loss of efficacy, the new treatment should offer other advantages compared to the reference treatment, a better safety of use for example. Their methods somewhat differ from those of superiority trials, often better known to the medical community. This article presents the key points of the methodology of non-inferiority and equivalence trials in order to inform the readers of such trials about the issues and critical points. The general methodology (hypotheses, decision rules, number of subjects required, and strategy of analysis) is presented using examples and graphic illustrations. The issues and critical points are identified and discussed, in particular the choice of the comparator and of the margin of non-inferiority.

Switching to the single-tablet regimen of elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir DF from non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor plus coformulated emtricitabine and tenofovir DF regimens: Week 96 results of STRATEGY-NNRTI

BACKGROUND

HIV-1-infected, virologically suppressed adults wanting to simplify or change their non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based regimens may benefit from switching to the single-tablet regimen of elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (E/C/F/TDF).

OBJECTIVE

We examined differences in the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL (Snapshot analysis), change in CD4 cell count, safety, and patient-reported outcomes in participants switching to E/C/F/TDF from an NNRTI + FTC/TDF (TVD) regimen.

METHODS

STRATEGY-NNRTI was a 96-week, phase 3b, randomized, open-label, study examining the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of switching to E/C/F/TDF in virologically suppressed individuals (HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL) on an NNRTI + TVD regimen. Participants were randomized to switch or remain on their NNRTI-based regimen (no-switch).

RESULTS

At Week 96, 87% (251/290) of switch and 80% (115/143) of no-switch participants maintained HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL (difference 6.1%; 95% CI -1.3 to 14.2%; p = 0.12) according to the FDA-defined snapshot algorithm. Both groups had similar proportions of subjects with virologic failure (2.8% switch, 1.4% no-switch). Discontinuations resulting from adverse events were infrequent (3% [9/291] switch, 2% [3/143] no-switch). Three switch participants (1%) discontinued due to renal adverse events (2 of the 3 before Week 48). Switch participants reported significant improvements in neuropsychiatric symptoms by as early as Week 4, and which were maintained through Week 96.

CONCLUSIONS

E/C/F/TDF is safe and effective and reduces NNRTI-associated neuropsychiatric symptoms for virologically suppressed HIV-positive adults switching from an NNRTI plus FTC/TDF-based regimen.

Meningococcal serogroup C immunogenicity, antibody persistence and memory B-cells induced by the monovalent meningococcal serogroup C versus quadrivalent meningococcal serogroup ACWY conjugate booster vaccine: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Adolescents are considered the key transmitters of meningococci in the population. Meningococcal serogroup C (MenC) antibody levels wane rapidly after MenC conjugate vaccination in young children, leaving adolescents with low antibody levels. In this study, we compared MenC immune responses after booster vaccination in adolescence with either tetanus toxoid conjugated MenC (MenC-TT) or MenACWY (MenACWY-TT) vaccine, and aimed to establish an optimal age for this booster.

METHODS

Healthy 10-, 12-, and 15-year-olds, who received a single dose of MenC-TT vaccine in early childhood, were randomized to receive MenC-TT or MenACWY-TT vaccine. MenC serum bactericidal antibody (rSBA) titers, MenC polysaccharide (PS) specific IgG, IgG1 and IgG2 and MenC-specific IgG and IgA memory B-cells were determined before, one month and one year after the booster. Non-inferiority was tested by comparing geometric mean titers (GMTs) between vaccinees at one year.

RESULTS

Of 501 participants, 464 (92.6%) were included in the 'according to protocol' cohort analysis. At one month, all participants developed high MenC rSBA titers (>24,000 in all groups) and MenC-PS-specific IgG levels. Non-inferiority was not demonstrated one year after the booster with higher MenC GMTs after the monovalent vaccine, but 462/464 (99.6%) participants maintained protective MenC rSBA titers. IgG levels mainly consisted of IgG1, but similar levels of increase were observed for IgG1 and IgG2. Both vaccines induced a clear increase in the number of circulating MenC-PS specific IgG and IgA memory B-cells. Between one month and one year, the highest antibody decay rate was observed in the 10-year-olds.

CONCLUSION

Both MenC-TT and MenACWY-TT vaccines induced robust protective MenC immune responses after the booster vaccination, although non-inferiority could not be demonstrated for the MenACWY-TT vaccine after one year. Our results underline the importance of optimal timing of a meningococcal booster vaccination to protect against MenC disease in the long-term.

Non-inferiority versus superiority drug claims: the (not so) subtle distinction

BACKGROUND

Current regulatory guidance and practice of non-inferiority trials are asymmetric in favor of the test treatment (Test) over the reference treatment (Control). These trials are designed to compare the relative efficacy of Test to Control by reference to a clinically important margin, M.

MAIN TEXT

Non-inferiority trials allow for the conclusion of: (a) non-inferiority of Test to Control if Test is slightly worse than Control but by no more than M; and (b) superiority if Test is slightly better than Control even if it is by less than M. From Control's perspective, (b) should lead to a conclusion of non-inferiority of Control to Test. The logical interpretation ought to be that, while Test is statistically better, it is not clinically superior to Control (since Control should be able to claim non-inferiority to Test). This article makes a distinction between statistical and clinical significance, providing for symmetry in the interpretation of results. Statistical superiority and clinical superiority are achieved, respectively, when the null and the non-inferiority margins are exceeded. We discuss a similar modification to placebo-controlled trials.

CONCLUSION

Rules for interpretation should not favor one treatment over another. Claims of statistical or clinical superiority should depend on whether or not the null margin or the clinically relevant margin is exceeded.

Comparison of home fortification with two iron formulations among Kenyan children: Rationale and design of a placebo-controlled non-inferiority trial

Introduction

Home fortification powders containing iron and other micronutrients have been recommended by World Health Organisation to prevent iron deficiency anaemia in areas of high prevalence. There is evidence, however, that home fortification at this iron dose may cause gastrointestinal adverse events including diarrhoea. Providing a low dose of highly absorbable iron (3 mg iron as NaFeEDTA) may be safer because the decreased amount of iron in the gut lumen can possibly reduce the burden of these adverse effects whilst resulting in similar or higher amounts of absorbed iron.

Objective

To show non-inferiority of home fortification with 3 mg iron as NaFeEDTA compared with 12.5 mg iron as encapsulated ferrous fumarate, with haemoglobin response as the primary outcome.

Design

338 Kenyan children aged 12-36 months will be randomly allocated to daily home fortification with either: a) 3 mg iron as NaFeEDTA (experimental treatment), b) 12.5 mg iron as encapsulated ferrous fumarate (reference), or c) placebo. At baseline, after 30 days of intervention and within 100 days post-intervention, blood samples will be assessed for primary outcome (haemoglobin concentration), iron status markers, Plasmodium parasitaemia and inflammation markers. Urine and stool samples will be assessed for hepcidin concentrations and inflammation, respectively. Adherence will be assessed by self-reporting, sachet counts and by an electronic monitoring device.

Conclusion

If daily home fortification with a low dose of iron (3 mg NaFeEDTA) has similar or superior efficacy to a high dose (12.5 mg ferrous fumarate) then it would be the preferred choice for treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in children.