The non-inferiority of piperonyl-butoxide Yorkool® G3 insecticide-treated nets compared to Olyset®Plus measured by Anopheles arabiensis mortality in experimental huts in Tanzania

BACKGROUND

Non-inferiority trials are recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) to demonstrate that health products show comparable efficacy to that of existing standard of care. As part of the WHO Global Malaria Programme (GMP) process of assessment of malaria vector control products, a second-in-class insecticide-treated net (ITN) must be shown to be non-inferior to a first-in-class product based on mosquito mortality. The public health impact of the first-in-class pyrethroid-piperonyl butoxide (PBO) ITN, Olyset® Plus, has been demonstrated in epidemiological trials in areas with insecticide-resistant mosquitoes, but there is a need to determine the efficacy of other pyrethroid-PBO nets to ensure timely market availability of nets in order to increase access to ITNs. The non-inferiority of a deltamethrin-PBO ITN Yorkool® G3 was evaluated entomologically against Olyset® Plus in experimental huts in Tanzania, following WHO guidelines for non-inferiority trials.

METHODS

The trial of the two pyrethroid-PBO ITNs was conducted in experimental huts in Lupiro, Tanzania, using a randomized 7 × 7 Latin square block design. The study ran for 49 nights in 14 huts assessing the mosquito mortality and blood-feeding of wild, free-flying, pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles arabiensis. Using the non-inferiority approach, the comparative efficacy (primary endpoint was mosquito mortality at 24 h and secondary endpoint was blood-feeding) of unwashed and 20 times field-washed pyrethroid-PBO Yorkool® G3 ITNs, were compared with the first-in-class product Olyset® Plus and against a pyrethroid-only ITN, PermaNet® 2.0 ITNs, as a standard comparator.

RESULTS

The experimental hut trial demonstrated non-inferiority and superiority of Yorkool® G3 to Olyset® Plus based on mosquito mortality [51% vs. 39%, OR 1.68 (95% CI 1.50-1.88)], given that lower 95% CI exceeded 0.74 (delta of 39%) and the margin of no difference (1). Blood-feeding inhibition was high for all treated ITNs (> 90%) and Yorkool® G3 was non-inferior to Olyset® Plus [4% vs. 2%, OR 1.81 (95% CI 1.46-2.39)], given that upper 95% CI was less than 4.85 (delta of 4%). The pyrethroid-PBO ITNs were superior to the pyrethroid-only net, PermaNet® 2.0, as determined by both the proportion of mortality and blood-feeding of mosquitoes (p-value < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Yorkool® G3 ITNs demonstrated non-inferiority to the first-in-class Olyset® Plus and superiority over the standard pyrethroid-only ITN, PermaNet® 2.0 as measured by mortality and blood-feeding inhibition of wild pyrethroid-resistant An. arabiensis mosquitoes. Yorkool® G3 ITNs are potential tools for the control of metabolic insecticide-resistant malaria vectors, and their market availability will contribute to the cost-effective selection of ITNs by malaria control programmes to improve population access to ITNs.

Mometasone furoate in the treatment of mild, moderate, or severe persistent allergic rhinitis: a non-inferiority study (PUMA)

Introduction

Allergic rhinitis is considered the most prevalent respiratory disease in Brazil and worldwide, with great impact on quality of life, affecting social life, sleep, and also performance at school and at work.

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of two formulations containing mometasone furoate in the treatment of mild, moderate, or severe persistent allergic rhinitis after four weeks of treatment.

Methods

Phase III, randomized, non-inferiority, national, open study comparing mometasone furoate in two presentations (control drug and investigational drug). The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with reduction of at least 0.55 in nasal index score (NIS) after four weeks of treatment. Secondary outcomes included total nasal index score score after four and 12 weeks of treatment; individual scores for symptoms of nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nasal pruritus; as well as score for pruritus, lacrimation, and ocular redness after four and 12 weeks of treatment. The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov with the reference number NCT01372865.

Results

The efficacy primary analysis demonstrated non-inferiority of the investigational drug in relation to the control drug, since the upper limit of the confidence interval (CI) of 95% for the difference between the success rates after four weeks of treatment (12.6%) was below the non-inferiority margin provided during the determination of the sample size (13.7%). Adverse events were infrequent and with mild intensity in most cases.

Conclusion

The efficacy and safety of investigational drug in the treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis were similar to the reference product, demonstrating its non-inferiority.

Comparison of 8 weeks standard treatment (rifampicin plus clarithromycin) vs. 4 weeks standard plus amoxicillin/clavulanate treatment [RC8 vs. RCA4] to shorten Buruli ulcer disease therapy (the BLMs4BU trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled multi-centre trial in Benin

BACKGROUND

Buruli ulcer (BU) is a neglected tropical disease caused by Mycobacterium ulcerans that affects skin, soft tissues, and bones, causing long-term morbidity, stigma, and disability. The recommended treatment for BU requires 8 weeks of daily rifampicin and clarithromycin together with wound care, physiotherapy, and sometimes tissue grafting and surgery. Recovery can take up to 1 year, and it may pose an unbearable financial burden to the household. Recent in vitro studies demonstrated that beta-lactams combined with rifampicin and clarithromycin are synergistic against M. ulcerans. Consequently, inclusion of amoxicillin/clavulanate in a triple oral therapy may potentially improve and shorten the healing process. The BLMs4BU trial aims to assess whether co-administration of amoxicillin/clavulanate with rifampicin and clarithromycin could reduce BU treatment from 8 to 4 weeks.

METHODS

We propose a randomized, controlled, open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority phase II, multi-centre trial in Benin with participants stratified according to BU category lesions and randomized to two oral regimens: (i) Standard: rifampicin plus clarithromycin therapy for 8 weeks; and (ii) Investigational: standard plus amoxicillin/clavulanate for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome will be lesion healing without recurrence and without excision surgery 12 months after start of treatment (i.e. cure rate). Seventy clinically diagnosed BU patients will be recruited per arm. Patients will be followed up over 12 months and managed according to standard clinical care procedures. Decision for excision surgery will be delayed to 14 weeks after start of treatment. Two sub-studies will also be performed: a pharmacokinetic and a microbiology study.

DISCUSSION

If successful, this study will create a new paradigm for BU treatment, which could inform World Health Organization policy and practice. A shortened, highly effective, all-oral regimen will improve care of BU patients and will lead to a decrease in hospitalization-related expenses and indirect and social costs and improve treatment adherence. This trial may also provide information on treatment shortening strategies for other mycobacterial infections (tuberculosis, leprosy, or non-tuberculous mycobacteria infections).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05169554 . Registered on 27 December 2021.

Risk difference, relative risk, and odds ratio for non-inferiority clinical trials with risk rate endpoint

Non-inferiority (NI) clinical trials are widely used to evaluate whether the new experimental treatment is not unacceptably worse than the current active-control treatment by more than a pre-specified non-inferiority margin (NI margin). However, choosing either an absolute difference [risk difference (RD)] or a relative difference [relative risk (RR) and odds ratio (OR)] to evaluate efficacy in NI clinical trials is still controversial. In this study, we aim to evaluate the performance of abovementioned three metrics for testing NI clinical trials with risk rate endpoint. Herein, extensive Monte Carlo simulations based on various parameter settings (NI margin as well as risk rates in the experimental group and active-control group) are conducted to compare the Type I error rate, statistical power, and the necessary sample size to achieve a desired power for testing NI using RD, RR, and OR. We show that testing NI using RD not only controls well the Type I error and achieves the highest statistical power but also requires the smallest sample size compared to RR and OR. In practice, however, the choice among three metrics still needs to be based upon clinical interpretations and regulatory perspectives.

Superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) for sentinel lymph node detection in vulvar cancer

OBJECTIVES

Sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection with superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) nanoparticles has been widely studied and standardized for breast and prostate cancer, but there is scarce evidence concerning its use in vulvar cancer. The objective of this study was to compare SLN detection using a SPIO tracer injected at the time of the surgery detected by a magnetometer, with the standard procedure of using a technetium 99 radioisotope (Tc99) detected by a gamma probe, in patients with vulvar cancer.

METHODS

The SPIO vulvar cancer study was a single-center prospective interventional non-inferiority study of SPIO compared to Tc99, conducted between 2016 and 2021 in patients who met the GROINSS-V study inclusion criteria for selective sentinel lymph node dissection in vulvar cancer.

RESULTS

We included 18 patients and a total of 41 SLNs. The level of agreement between tracers was 92.7% (80.6%-97.4%), corresponding to 38 out of 41 SLNs, which confirms the non-inferiority of SPIO compared to Tc99. The SLN detection rate per groin was 96.3 (81.7%-99.3) using Tc99 and 100% (87.5%-100%) using SPIO. Both tracers had a detection rate of 100% for positive lymph nodes.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of SPIO as a tracer for detecting SLNs in patients with vulvar cancer has shown to be non-inferior to that of the standard radiotracer, with the advantages of not requiring nuclear medicine and being able to inject it at the time of surgery after induction of anesthesia.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Study in India for Comparing Efficacy, Safety, and PK of ZRC-3277 (Pertuzumab Biosimilar) With Perjeta® in Patients With HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity of ZRC-3277 (pertuzumab biosimilar) with Perjeta® (pertuzumab) in previously untreated patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This phase III, multicenter, double-blind study across 38 sites in India randomized (1:1) patients with HER2-positive MBC in either the ZRC-3277 or Perjeta® group. Both groups also received trastuzumab and docetaxel. Of 268 enrolled patients, mITT population had 243 patients (119 and 124 in the ZRC-3277 and Perjeta® groups, respectively). The primary objective was to compare the between-group objective response rate (ORR) after 6 cycles of treatment. ORR was determined by evaluating scans of computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging following Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (RECIST 1.1). Two-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the difference in ORR was determined to evaluate the noninferiority of ZRC-3277 to Perjeta®. The secondary outcomes included the assessment of PK, immunogenicity, and safety between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

In the mITT population, 104 (87.39%) and 114 (91.94%) participants achieved the ORR in the ZRC-3277 and Perjeta® groups, respectively. For predefined -15% noninferiority margin, obtained 2-sided 95% CIs (-12.19%, 3.11%) for the difference in ORR (-4.55%) between the 2 groups demonstrated the noninferiority of ZRC-3277 to Perjeta®. PK, immunogenicity, and safety were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Efficacy, PK, immunogenicity, and safety profiles of ZRC-3277 was found to be similar to those of Perjeta®.

A phase 3 non-inferiority trial of locally manufactured Meningococcal ACWY vaccine 'Ingovax ACWY' among Bangladeshi adults

Meningococcal disease is caused by Neisseria meningitidis or meningococcus. Every year globally around 1.2 million people are affected and approximately 120,000 deaths occur due to meningitis. The disease can be prevented by a single dose of meningococcal vaccine. We carried out a randomized observer-blinded non-inferiority trial to evaluate and compare the immunogenicity and safety of a local meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine 'Ingovax ACWY' (test) with Quadri MeningoTM (comparator), an approved meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine in India. A total of 88 healthy adults (18-45 years old) were randomized at a 1:1 ratio in two vaccine groups receiving a single dose vaccine subcutaneously. All participants were followed until three months post-vaccination. Blood for clinical parameters (hematology and biochemistry) and serum bactericidal assay (SBA) was collected prior to vaccination and one-month post-vaccination. Solicited adverse events (AEs) were assessed up to 6 days following vaccination and unsolicited AEs were monitored throughout the follow-up period. There was no significant difference in rates of AE between the two groups. The commonest solicited AE was injection site pain. No serious AEs were reported. There was no significant difference (p<0.05) in seroconversion rate as well as pre and post-vaccination SBA geometric mean titers (GMT)between test and comparator vaccine. The post-vaccination GMT ratio (GMR) of the test and comparator vaccine was found to be 0.9, 1, 1.29, and 0.85 for serogroup A, C, W135, and Y respectively. For all the serogroups, lower limit of 95% CI of the GMR was found to be greater than the pre-defined 0.5 non-inferiority margin suggesting that Ingovax ACWY is similar to Quadri MeningoTM vaccine. We observed the immunogenicity and safety of Ingovax ACWY is non-inferior to comparator vaccine. The development of facilities for manufacturing polysaccharide ACWY vaccines locally will further lead to capacity building in the field of vaccines for Bangladesh.

A randomized controlled trial of thrice-weekly versus thrice-daily oral ferrous fumarate treatment in adult patients with iron-deficiency anemia

Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is a common health problem in developing countries. Many studies have shown that low-dose oral iron could have similar efficacy and less gastrointestinal effects in iron deficiency without anemia. This prospective open-labeled randomized controlled study was designed to compare the response of 200 mg ferrous fumarate thrice-weekly (TIW) as not inferior to the thrice-daily (TID) regimen and to assess the incidence of adverse events (AEs) between two regimens in treating adult patients with IDA. The primary endpoint was either an increase in Hb ≥ 3 g/dL, having Hb of 12 g/dL in females or 13 g/dL in males at the 12th week of treatment. Secondary outcomes included adverse events (AEs), red blood cell indices, iron profiles, and patient compliance. Sixty-four patients were randomized: 32 in the TIW arm and the other 32 in the TID arm. The response rates were not different between two arms either with intention to treat analysis (72.0%, 95%CI 56.6-88.5 vs. 71.9%, 95%CI 53.3-86.3, p = 0.777); or per-protocol analysis (88.9%, 95%CI 70.8-97.6 vs. 88.5%, 95%CI 69.8-97.6, p = 1.0), respectively. The trial demonstrated non-inferiority at a margin of 23%. Although the iron profile response of the TID arm was earlier than the TIW arm, almost all patients recovered from anemic symptoms at week 4, and hematologic responses were not different at week 12. There were more gastrointestinal AEs in the TID arm. In conclusion, this study showed that the TIW was non-inferior to the TID iron treatment of IDA patients but less AEs and costs.

Optimizing (O) rifapentine-based (RI) regimen and shortening (EN) the treatment of drug-susceptible tuberculosis (T) (ORIENT) using an adaptive seamless design: study protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Standard treatment for drug-susceptible tuberculosis (DS-TB) includes a multidrug regimen requiring at least 6 months of treatment, and this lengthy treatment easily leads to poor adherence. There is an urgent need to simplify and shorten treatment regimens to reduce interruption and adverse event rates, improve compliance, and reduce costs.

METHODS

ORIENT is a multicenter, randomized controlled, open-label, phase II/III, non-inferiority trial involving DS-TB patients to evaluate the safety and efficacy of short-term regimens compared with the standardized six-month treatment regimen. In stage 1, corresponding to a phase II trial, a total of 400 patients are randomly divided into four arms, stratified by site and the presence of lung cavitation. Investigational arms include 3 short-term regimens with rifapentine 10 mg/kg, 15 mg/kg, and 20 mg/kg, while the control arm uses the standardized six-month treatment regimen. A combination of rifapentine, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and moxifloxacin is administered for 17 or 26 weeks in rifapentine arms, while a 26-week regimen containing rifampicin, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol is applied in the control arm. After the safety and preliminary effectiveness analysis of patients in stage 1, the control arm and the investigational arm meeting the conditions will enter into stage 2, which is equivalent to a phase III trial and will be expanded to recruit DS-TB patients. If all investigational arms do not meet the safety conditions, stage 2 will be canceled. In stage 1, the primary safety endpoint is permanent regimen discontinuation at 8 weeks after the first dose. The primary efficacy endpoint is the proportion of favorable outcomes at 78 weeks after the first dose for both two stages.

DISCUSSION

This trial will contribute to the optimal dose of rifapentine in the Chinese population and suggest the feasibility of the short-course treatment regimen containing high-dose rifapentine and moxifloxacin for DS-TB.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on 28 May 2022 with the identifier NCT05401071.

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.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, duloxetine-controlled, non-inferiority trial of desvenlafaxine succinate extended-release in patients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

Desvenlafaxine and duloxetine are selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. Their efficacy has not been directly compared using statistical hypotheses. This study evaluated the non-inferiority of desvenlafaxine extended-release (XL) to duloxetine in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

In this study, 420 adult patients with moderate-to-severe MDD were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 50 mg (once daily [QD]) of desvenlafaxine XL (n = 212) or 60 mg QD of duloxetine (n = 208). The primary endpoint was evaluated using a non-inferiority comparison based on the change from baseline to 8 weeks in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD₁₇) total score. Secondary endpoints and safety were evaluated.

RESULTS

Least-squares mean change in HAM-D₁₇ total score from baseline to 8 weeks was -15.3 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -17.73, -12.89) in the desvenlafaxine XL group and - 15.9 (95% CI, -18.44, -13.39) in the duloxetine group. The least-squares mean difference was 0.6 (95% CI: -0.48, 1.69), and the upper boundary of 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin (2.2). No significant between-treatment differences were found in most secondary efficacy endpoints. The incidence of the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was lower for desvenlafaxine XL than for duloxetine for nausea (27.2% versus 48.8%) and dizziness (18.0% versus 28.8%).

LIMITATIONS

A short-term non-inferiority study without a placebo arm.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that desvenlafaxine XL 50 mg QD was non-inferior to duloxetine 60 mg QD in efficacy in patients with MDD. Desvenlafaxine had a lower incidence of TEAEs than duloxetine did.

Real-world overall survival after alternative dosing for pembrolizumab in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: A nationwide retrospective cohort study with a non-inferiority primary objective

BACKGROUND

High and increasing expenses on pembrolizumab ask for more cost-effective and sustainable treatment strategies to improve affordability of healthcare. Therefore, a part of the Dutch hospitals implemented an alternative, partially lower, weight-based dosing protocol for pembrolizumab. This provided the unique opportunity to compare the overall survival (OS) of the alternative pembrolizumab dosing protocol to standard dosing using a nationwide registry in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study with a non-inferiority primary objective. Forty hospitals in the Dutch Medication Audit and Dutch Lung Cancer Audit treated 1966 patients with NSCLC with first line pembrolizumab (mono- or combination therapy) between Jan 1st 2021, and Mar 31st, 2023. Alternative weight-based pembrolizumab dosing (100/150/200 mg Q3W or 200/300/400 mg Q6W) was administered to 604 patients, and 1362 patients received standard pembrolizumab dosing (200 mg Q3W or 400 mg Q6W). A Cox proportional hazard model with selected covariates was used to compare the OS between alternative and standard dosing protocols. The non-inferiority margin was set at a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.2 for OS. Non-inferiority is established by showing that the upper limit of the 95 % confidence interval (CI) of the HR of OS is smaller or equal to 1.2.

RESULTS

Distribution of age (66.7 years +/-9.4), sex (45 % female) and treatment combinations were similar for both groups, comorbidity score was higher in the standard group. Median daily dose in the alternative dosing group was 22 % lower compared to the standard dosing group, 7.14 mg/day (interquartile range (IQR):5.48-8.04 mg/day) vs. 9.15 mg/day (IQR:8.33-9.52 mg/day), respectively. Alternative dosing was non-inferior to standard dosing regarding overall survival (adjusted HR 0.83, 95 %CI:0.69-1.003).

CONCLUSION

This large, retrospective real-world analysis supports the hypothesis that the alternative, partially lower pembrolizumab dosing protocol in NSCLC maintains treatment effectiveness while reducing treatment costs.

[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.

The difference between statistical significance and clinical relevance. The case of minimal important change, non-inferiority trials, and smallest worthwhile effect

Clinical relevance and statistical significance are different concepts, linked via the sample size calculation. Threshold values for detecting a minimal important change over time are frequently (mis)interpreted as a threshold for the clinical relevance of a difference between groups. The magnitude of a difference between groups that is considered clinically relevant directly impacts the sample size calculation, and thereby the statistical significance in clinical study outcomes. Especially in non-inferiority trials the threshold for clinical relevance, i.e. the predefined margin for non-inferiority, is a crucial choice. A truly inferior treatment will be accepted as non-inferior when this margin is chosen too large. The magnitude of a clinically relevant difference between groups should be carefully considered, by determining the smallest effect for each specific study that is considered worthwhile. This means taking into account the (dis)advantages of both study interventions in terms of benefits, harms, costs, and potential side effects. This article clarifies common sources of confusion, illustrates the implications for clinical research with an example and provides specific suggestions to improve the design and interpretation of clinical research.

Finding the ideal sedative: a non-inferiority study of remimazolam vs propofol in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) requires an ideal sedative that provides a predictable action duration and meets safety requirements. We compared the efficacies and safeties of remimazolam and propofol in patients who had undergone ERCP.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, single-blind, single-center study, we compared the performances of remimazolam and propofol for inpatient ERCP. Study medications were administered under the supervision of an endoscopist. One hundred and ten patients scheduled to undergo ERCP were randomly assigned to receive remimazolam or propofol. The primary endpoint was a composite of successful completion of the procedure and no requirement for rescue medication. Secondary endpoints included sedation efficacy, recovery time, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Of the 110 patients randomized, 108 underwent sedation, and ERCP (53 received remimazolam and 55 propofol). The primary endpoint was met for remimazolam and propofol in 100% of patients in both arms. Incidences and frequencies of emergent adverse events, including desaturation, requiring treatment were comparable in both arms. However, ERCP was started sooner in the propofol arm (mean, 63.18 ± 16.56 s) than in the remimazolam arm (75.23 ± 32.27 s; P-value = 0.02). Time to full alertness after ERCP was also significantly shorter in the propofol arm (304.18 ± 146.25 vs 448.34 ± 224.09 s; P-value <0.001).

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam is not inferior to propofol in achieving successful ERCP completion without rescue medication. Incidences of adverse events were comparable. Remimazolam is a safe and effective alternative to propofol for ERCP sedation, expanding options for clinicians and improving patient outcomes.

Caffeic acid phenethyl ester derivative exerts remarkable anti-hepatocellular carcinoma effect, non-inferior to sorafenib, in vivo analysis

Caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE) and its derivatives exhibit considerable effects against hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with unquestioned safety. Here we investigated CAPE derivative 1' (CAPE 1') monotherapy to HCC, compared with sorafenib. HCC Bel-7402 cells were treated with CAPE 1', the IC50 was detected using CCK-8 analysis, and acute toxicity testing (5 g/kg) was performed to evaluate safety. In vivo, tumor growth after CAPE 1' treatment was evaluated using an subcutaneous tumor xenograft model. Five groups were examined, with group 1 given vehicle solution, groups 2, 3, and 4 given CAPE 1' (20, 50, and 100 mg/kg/day, respectively), and group 5 given sorafenib (30 mg/kg/day). Tumor volume growth and tumor volume-to-weight ratio were calculated and statistically analyzed. An estimated IC50 was 5.6 µM. Acute toxicity tests revealed no animal death or visible adverse effects with dosage up to 5 g/kg. Compared to negative controls, CAPE 1' treatment led to significantly slower increases of tumor volume and tumor volume-to-weight. CAPE 1' and sorafenib exerted similar inhibitory effects on HCC tumors. CAPE 1' was non-inferior to sorafenib for HCC treatment, both in vitro and in vivo. It has great potential as a promising drug for HCC, based on effectiveness and safety profile.

Immunogenicity and safety of Mebella™ vaccine developed by Human Biologicals Institute in a Phase II/III, randomized, multicentric, non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND

The goal of 'Measles and Rubella Strategic Framework 2021-2030' is to make "A world free from measles and rubella". To be a part of this journey, Human Biologicals Institute has developed Mebella™ vaccine, which is a lyophilized Measles and Rubella (Live) vaccine. A randomized, single blind, comparative, multicenter Phase II/III trial was conducted to compare the immunogenicity and safety of Mebella™ vaccine with MR-VAC® vaccine in healthy subjects.

METHODS

A total of 888 subjects were enrolled in four age groups (222 subjects in each group) of 18 years to 49 years; 2 years to below 18 years; 12 months to below 24 months; and 9 months to below 12 months of age. The subjects were randomized in 2:1 ratio to receive single dose of either Mebella™ vaccine of Human Biologicals Institute or MR-VAC® vaccine. Immunogenicity was assessed at 42 days after the vaccination and was compared between the vaccine arms in each group. Safety was also assessed and compared between the vaccine arms during the study period.

RESULTS

A total of 875 subjects completed the study out of 888 enrolled subjects. The seroprotection rates, seroconversion rates, and geometric mean titres for both Measles and Rubella components of Mebella™ vaccine were found to be comparable and non-inferior to the MR-VAC® vaccine after 42 days of vaccination. Injection site pain was the most common local adverse event reported whereas fever was the only systemic adverse event reported in both the vaccine arms. No serious adverse event was reported.

CONCLUSION

It was concluded from the study results that the test vaccine, Mebella™, was immunogenic and well tolerated and was non-inferior to the comparator vaccine, MR-VAC®, when administered to healthy subjects of 9 months to 49 years of age. Clinical Trial Registry of India Identifier: CTRI/2020/07/026930.

Efficacy and safety comparison of infrared laser moxibustion and traditional moxibustion in knee osteoarthritis: study protocol for a Zelen-design randomized controlled non-inferiority clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is the most common chronic degenerative joint disease and places a substantial burden on the public health resources in China. The purpose of this study is to preliminarily evaluate whether infrared laser moxibustion (ILM) is non-inferior to traditional moxibustion (TM) in the treatment of KOA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the designed Zelen-design randomized controlled non-inferiority clinical trial, a total of 74 patients with KOA will be randomly allocated to one of two interventions: ILM treatment or TM treatment. All participants will receive a 6-week treatment and a follow-up 4 weeks after treatment. The primary outcomes will be the mean change in pain scores on the numeric rating scale (NRS) measured at baseline and the end of last treatment at week 6. The secondary outcomes will be the pain scores on the NRS from weeks 1 to 5 after the start of treatment and the changes from baseline to endpoints (weeks 6 and 10) in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), SF-36, knee circumference, and 6-min walking test. In addition, safety assessment will be performed throughout the trial.

CONCLUSION

The results of our study will help determine whether a 6-week treatment with ILM is non-inferior to TM in patients with KOA, therefore providing evidence to verify if ILM can become a safer alternative for TM in clinical applications in the future.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trial Registration Platform (ChiCTR2200065264); Pre-results. Registered on 1 November 2022.

Assessing non-inferiority for binary matched-pairs data with missing values: a powerful and flexible GEE approach based on the risk difference

BACKGROUND

Clinical studies often aim to test the non-inferiority of a treatment compared to an alternative intervention with binary matched-pairs data. These studies are often planned with methods for completely observed pairs only. However, if missingness is more frequent than expected or is anticipated in the planning phase, methods are needed that allow the inclusion of partially observed pairs to improve statistical power.

METHODS

We propose a flexible generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach to estimate confidence intervals for the risk difference, which accommodates partially observed pairs. Using simulated data, we compare this approach to alternative methods for completely observed pairs only and to those that also include pairs with missing observations. Additionally, we reconsider the study sample size calculation by applying these methods to a study with binary matched-pairs setting.

RESULTS

In moderate to large sample sizes, the proposed GEE approach performs similarly to alternative methods for completely observed pairs only. It even results in a higher power and narrower interval widths in scenarios with missing data and where missingness follows a missing (completely) at random (MCAR / MAR) mechanism. The GEE approach is also non-inferior to alternative methods, such as multiple imputation or confidence intervals explicitly developed for missing data settings. Reconsidering the sample size calculation for an observational study, our proposed approach leads to a considerably smaller sample size than the alternative methods.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that the proposed GEE approach is a powerful alternative to existing methods and can be used for testing non-inferiority, even if the initial sample size calculation was based on a different statistical method. Furthermore, it increases the analytical flexibility by allowing the inclusion of additional covariates, in contrast to other methods.

End-on versus parallel radiofrequency lesioning for neurotomy of the cervical medial branch nerves: a study protocol of a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial: the "EndPaRL" study

BACKGROUND

Cervical facet joint disease is a common source of neck pain and its prevalence increases with aging. Conservative multimodal management options (e.g., strengthening of neck muscles, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications, massage, and thermal modalities) often fail to relieve pain. Cervical medial branch nerve (CMBN) radiofrequency neurotomy (RFN) is an effective minimally invasive technique for treating chronic neck pain secondary to facet joint disease. An end-on approach for this procedure has been proposed that may be technically easier and require less time while reducing post-procedural discomfort. The protocol presented here is for a study that aims to compare the efficacy of a new end-on approach using multi-tined cannulae, against the conventional parallel technique that employs straight cannulae for RFN of the CMBN in patients with chronic neck pain due to cervical facet joint disease.

METHODS

A multicentre randomized, non-inferior, active comparator-controlled trial will be conducted with two parallel groups and blinding of participants and outcome assessor. The study will include 72 adults with chronic neck pain secondary to facet joint disease who are candidates for RFA of the CMBN. Participants will be randomized to either the conventional parallel or the end-on approach in a 1:1 ratio. The intensity of pain and pain-related domains (function, quality of life, sleep, adverse effects of the interventions, analgesic intake) will be measured at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the procedure.

DISCUSSION

Neck pain secondary to cervical facet joint disease is prevalent and RFA of the CMBN is a validated treatment for relieving it. The conventional parallel technique can be technically challenging, and it can be associated with adverse effects while the newer end-on approach has the potential of being a simpler technique with less adverse effects. This trial will be the first non-inferiority study to compare the clinical efficacy of the end-on approach against the conventional parallel approach for RFN of CMBN in patients with chronic neck pain due to cervical facet joint disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05818774. Registered on April 20, 2023.

Investigating non-inferiority or equivalence in time-to-event data under non-proportional hazards

The classical approach to analyze time-to-event data, e.g. in clinical trials, is to fit Kaplan-Meier curves yielding the treatment effect as the hazard ratio between treatment groups. Afterwards, a log-rank test is commonly performed to investigate whether there is a difference in survival or, depending on additional covariates, a Cox proportional hazard model is used. However, in numerous trials these approaches fail due to the presence of non-proportional hazards, resulting in difficulties of interpreting the hazard ratio and a loss of power. When considering equivalence or non-inferiority trials, the commonly performed log-rank based tests are similarly affected by a violation of this assumption. Here we propose a parametric framework to assess equivalence or non-inferiority for survival data. We derive pointwise confidence bands for both, the hazard ratio and the difference of the survival curves. Further we propose a test procedure addressing non-inferiority and equivalence by directly comparing the survival functions at certain time points or over an entire range of time. Once the model's suitability is proven the method provides a noticeable power benefit, irrespectively of the shape of the hazard ratio. On the other hand, model selection should be carried out carefully as misspecification may cause type I error inflation in some situations. We investigate the robustness and demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed methods by means of a simulation study. Finally, we demonstrate the validity of the methods by a clinical trial example.

Systematic review of adoption, reporting and impact of health-related quality of life in phase III non-inferiority trials of systemic oncology treatments

BACKGROUND

Quality of life (QoL) assessment and patient-reported outcomes appear to be crucial in the rationale and interpretation of non-inferiority (NI) trials. The aim of this study was to assess the inclusion of QoL among endpoints in phase III NI oncology trials and the relevance of QoL results in the reporting and interpretation of these studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

By PubMed search and hand-search of 11 selected journals, we identified phase III NI trials in adult patients affected by solid tumours, published between 2012 and 2021. Trials were classified according to 4 NI strategies: (1) different drugs; (2) alternative drug administration routes; (3) shorter treatment duration; (4) "deintensification" of treatment schedule. Three main endpoints were: (1) the proportion of publications including QoL among endpoints; (2) the proportion of primary publications reporting QoL results; (3) the proportion of trials with available QoL results actually favoring the experimental treatment out of trials declaring NI.

RESULTS

106 publications were eligible. QoL was included among endpoints in 59 studies (55.7%), and QoL results were available in 40 primary publications (37.7%). In the 73 trials testing the NI of different drugs, QoL was included in 43 trials (58.9%) and QoL results were present in 31 publications (42.5%). Among the 74 trials formally demonstrating NI, only 19 trials (25.7%) had QoL results actually supporting the experimental treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In many NI trials in oncology, assessment and reporting of QoL are deficient. Furthermore, most trials formally claiming NI cannot count on QoL results actually supporting the experimental arm.

Validation of a viable delirium detection test performed by nurses and physicians during routine patient care

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a frequent mental impairment in geriatric patients hospitalized in acute care facilities. It carries a high risk of complications and is often the first symptom of acute illness. It is clearly important to identify the development of delirium at an early stage, and several short and effective diagnostic tests have been developed and validated for this purpose. Despite this, patients on hospital wards are seldom monitored for signs of emergent delirium, suggesting that compliance with guidelines would be improved by introducing a simpler and more user-friendly test.

METHODS

We recently implemented a simple delirium assessment tool, called RMA that can be introduced into the daily routine of ward staff without significantly adding to their workload. The nurses noted their impression of the patient's cognitive state in the electronic medical record, and during the morning round the ward physician administered a short attention test to any patients suspected of new cognitive impairment. In this study, we compared RMA test against the widely used and well validated 4AT.

RESULTS

RMA performed daily by the ward staff was found to be non-inferior to 4AT performed by an experienced rater. Compared to 4AT, R&M had a sensitivity of 93.9% and a specificity of 98.3%. An Altman-Bland plot indicated that both tests can be used interchangeably.

CONCLUSIONS

The RMA test is reliable, easy to administer, likely to boost compliance with guidelines, and is expected to raise awareness of delirium among the nurses and physicians directly involved in the diagnostic process.

Perception and acquaintance of stroke specialists on non-inferiority trials: An international survey

INTRODUCTION

The adoption of non-inferiority trial designs for assessing new interventions in stroke treatment is on the rise. We designed a survey to assess stroke specialists' understanding and familiarity with non-inferiority trials and margins.

METHODS

A brief web-based questionnaire was sent to the members of the World Stroke Organization (WSO). The median acceptable non-inferiority margins in different research settings provided by responders were summarized and reported according to the acquaintance of responders with non-inferiority trials.

RESULTS

A total of 120 WSO members from 42 countries responded to the survey. Thirty-two percent (32 %) of respondents self-identified as being very familiar with non-inferiority trials, while 6 % identified as extremely familiar. When asked about the impact of non-inferiority trials on improving stroke patient care, 42 % rated it as high and 45 % as moderate. 83 % of responders reported that the findings of non-inferiority trials affect their clinical practice. Ease of administration, relative effect of the standard treatment, clinical implications of inappropriately introducing the new treatment, availability, price, ease of storage and shipping were all considered as factors that should influence the size of the non-inferiority margin. The magnitude and variability of acceptable non-inferiority margins were seen to decrease as the acquaintance of responders with non-inferiority trials increased.

CONCLUSION

Although responders acknowledge the importance of non-inferiority trials, most have limited acquaintance with this research design. Educational activities are needed to enhance literacy in non-inferiority trials and the interpretation of non-inferiority margins.

Study to determine the efficacy and onset of Bonipar, a topical analgesic for the management of acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain

BACKGROUND

Opioid abuse and mortality are ravaging American society, highlighting the need to find alternative effective analgesics with fewer side effects. FDA-approved topical analgesics, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), are commonly used to treat musculoskeletal pain but can cause adverse effects. Natural compounds, including essential oils, are potential therapeutic alternatives for managing musculoskeletal pain. If these compounds can provide comparable analgesia to FDA-approved products, it will increase the available options for people with pain, improving quality of life with minimal morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

This study assesses the effectiveness and onset of action of Bonipar, a topical analgesic formulated with camphor, methyl salicylate, and oils of coconut, eucalyptus, nutmeg, and rosemary, in managing musculoskeletal pain compared to 1.5 % diclofenac solution, an FDA-approved topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

METHODS

One hundred sixty-four adult patients with localized musculoskeletal pain were randomly assigned to twice-daily applications of either Bonipar or Diclofenac for one week. The primary outcome measure was a 50 % reduction in pain after one week. Secondary outcomes included the change in pain from baseline and onset of action, defined as the first reduction in pain by 20 %.

RESULTS

All patients completed the initial pain assessment to determine the onset of action. One-week data was available for 74 patients treated with diclofenac and 72 patients treated with Bonipar. Data for 18 patients were incomplete. The proportion of patients achieving a 50 % reduction in pain was statistically similar between the two groups. The success rates of achieving a 50 % pain reduction with Bonipar were found to be non-inferior to those treated with diclofenac. All follow-up time points showed roughly similar results between the groups. Regression models adjusted for age and sex revealed no significant effects on pain changes. Secondary analyses demonstrated no significant differences between the groups.

DISCUSSION

The topical analgesic Bonipar demonstrates a comparable onset of action, with efficacy non-inferior to diclofenac in the management of musculoskeletal pain, while showing fewer adverse effects compared to diclofenac. These findings highlight the potential of Bonipar as a valuable alternative for the treatment of localized pain.