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.

Daily home fortification with iron as ferrous fumarate versus NaFeEDTA: a randomised, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial in Kenyan children

BACKGROUND

We aimed to show the non-inferiority of home fortification with a daily dose of 3 mg iron in the form of iron as ferric sodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate (NaFeEDTA) compared with 12.5 mg iron as encapsulated ferrous fumarate in Kenyan children aged 12-36 months. In addition, we updated a recent meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of home fortification with iron-containing powders, with a view to examining diversity in trial results.

METHODS

We gave chemoprevention by dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine, albendazole and praziquantel to 338 afebrile children with haemoglobin concentration ≥70 g/L. We randomly allocated them to daily home fortification for 30 days with either placebo, 3 mg iron as NaFeEDTA or 12.5 mg iron as encapsulated ferrous fumarate. We assessed haemoglobin concentration (primary outcome), plasma iron markers, plasma inflammation markers and Plasmodium infection in samples collected at baseline and after 30 days of intervention. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in pre-school children to assess the effect of home fortification with iron-containing powders on anaemia and haemoglobin concentration at end of intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 315 children completed the 30-day intervention period. At baseline, 66.9% of children had inflammation (plasma C-reactive protein concentration >5 mg/L or plasma α 1-acid glycoprotein concentration >1.0 g/L); in those without inflammation, 42.5% were iron deficient. There was no evidence, either in per protocol analysis or intention-to-treat analysis, that home fortification with either of the iron interventions improved haemoglobin concentration, plasma ferritin concentration, plasma transferrin receptor concentration or erythrocyte zinc protoporphyrin-haem ratio. We also found no evidence of effect modification by iron status, anaemia status and inflammation status at baseline. In the meta-analysis, the effect on haemoglobin concentration was highly heterogeneous between trials (I 2: 84.1%; p value for test of heterogeneity: <0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this population, home fortification with either 3 mg iron as NaFeEDTA or 12.5 mg iron as encapsulated ferrous fumarate was insufficiently efficacious to assess non-inferiority of 3 mg iron as NaFeEDTA compared to 12.5 mg iron as encapsulated ferrous fumarate. Our finding of heterogeneity between trial results should stimulate subgroup analysis or meta-regression to identify population-specific factors that determine efficacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02073149 ) on 25 February 2014.

The use of randomisation-based efficacy estimators in non-inferiority trials

BACKGROUND

In a non-inferiority (NI) trial, analysis based on the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle is anti-conservative, so current guidelines recommend analysing on a per-protocol (PP) population in addition. However, PP analysis relies on the often implausible assumption of no confounders. Randomisation-based efficacy estimators (RBEEs) allow for treatment non-adherence while maintaining a comparison of randomised groups. Fischer et al. have developed an approach for estimating RBEEs in randomised trials with two active treatments, a common feature of NI trials. The aim of this paper was to demonstrate the use of RBEEs in NI trials using this approach, and to appraise the feasibility of these estimators as the primary analysis in NI trials.

METHODS

Two NI trials were used. One comparing two different dosing regimens for the maintenance of remission in people with ulcerative colitis (CODA), and the other comparing an orally administered treatment to an intravenously administered treatment in preventing skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer (ZICE). Variables that predicted adherence in each of the trial arms, and were also independent of outcome, were sought in each of the studies. Structural mean models (SMMs) were fitted that conditioned on these variables, and the point estimates and confidence intervals compared to that found in the corresponding ITT and PP analyses.

RESULTS

In the CODA study, no variables were found that differentially predicted treatment adherence while remaining independent of outcome. The SMM, using standard methodology, moved the point estimate closer to 0 (no difference between arms) compared to the ITT and PP analyses, but the confidence interval was still within the NI margin, indicating that the conclusions drawn would remain the same. In the ZICE study, cognitive functioning as measured by the corresponding domain of the QLQ-C30, and use of chemotherapy at baseline were both differentially associated with adherence while remaining independent of outcome. However, while the SMM again moved the point estimate closer to 0, the confidence interval was wide, overlapping with any NI margin that could be justified.

CONCLUSION

Deriving RBEEs in NI trials with two active treatments can provide a randomisation-respecting estimate of treatment efficacy that accounts for treatment adherence, is straightforward to implement, but requires thorough planning during the design stage of the study to ensure that strong baseline predictors of treatment are captured. Extension of the approach to handle nonlinear outcome variables is also required.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The CODA study: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00708656 . Registered on 8 April 2008. The ZICE study trial: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00326820 . Registered on 16 May 2006.

Universal versus conditional three-day follow up visit for children with uncomplicated fever at the community level: design of a cluster-randomized, community-based, non-inferiority trial in Tanganyika, Democratic Republic of Congo

Background

The current recommendation within integrated Community Case Management guidelines that all children presenting with uncomplicated fever and no danger signs be followed up after three days may not be necessary. Such fevers often resolve rapidly (usually within 48–96 h), and previous studies suggest that expectant home care for uncomplicated fever can be safely recommended. We aim to determine the non-inferiority of a conditional versus a universal follow-up visit for these children.

Methods

We are conducting a cluster-randomized, community-based, non-inferiority trial enrolling ~4300 children (ages 2–59 months) presenting to community health workers (CHWs) with uncomplicated fever in Tanganyika Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Clusters (n = 28) of CHWs are randomized to advise caretakers of such children to either 1) return for a follow-up visit on Day 3 following the initial consultation (Day 1), regardless of illness resolution (as per current guidelines) or 2) return for a follow-up visit on Day 3 only if the child’s signs have not resolved. Enrolled children are followed up at Day 7 for a repeat assessment and recording of the primary outcome of the study, “failure”, which is defined as having fever, diarrhea, pneumonia or decline of health status (e.g. hospitalization, presenting danger signs, or death).

Discussion

The results of this trial will be interpreted in conjunction with a similarly designed trial currently ongoing in Ethiopia. If a follow-up visit conditional on continued illness is shown to be non-inferior to current guidelines stipulating universal follow-up, appropriate updating of such guidelines could reduce time and human resource pressures on both providers and caregivers throughout communities of sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

Trial registration

This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02595827) on November 2nd, 2015

Assessment of the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol delivered as a combination dry powder via a capsule-based inhaler versus a multi-dose inhaler in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

This study tested the clinical non-inferiority of the fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination 50/250 μg (FSC) Rotacaps^®/Rotahaler^® system, a single unit dose inhaler, with the multi-dose FSC Diskus^® inhaler in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

This multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, two-way cross-over study compared 12 weeks' treatment of FSC administered twice daily using Rotacaps/Rotahaler or Diskus. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in trough morning forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) at Day 85, and the pre-defined non-inferiority criteria was: the lower limit of the confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (Rotacaps/Rotahaler-Diskus) in least squares (LS) mean change from baseline, being greater than -45 mL. Secondary endpoints included change in breathlessness (as measured by transition dyspnoea index (TDI)) and COPD-specific health status measures.

RESULTS

The LS mean increase from baseline in trough FEV₁ at Day 85 was 116 mL in the Rotacaps/Rotahaler group and 91 mL in the Diskus group (difference in model-adjusted LS mean change: 25 mL (95% CI 2 mL, 47 mL)), the lower limit of the CI for the treatment difference being greater than the protocol-defined criterion for non-inferiority i.e. -45 mL. Data for breathlessness, COPD-specific health status and safety parameters were similar following FSC treatment via either inhaler.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the clinical non-inferiority of FSC 50/250 μg when administered using Rotacaps/Rotahaler compared with Diskus in patients with COPD. The risk:benefit profile for the two inhalers was comparable.

Efficacy and safety of Derris scandens (Roxb.) Benth. for musculoskeletal pain treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

Derris scandens (Roxb.) Benth. has been used as active ingredient in Thai traditional medicine recipes for pain treatment. Dry stem powder and ethanolic extract also recommended in Thailand National List of Essential Medicines (NLEMs) for musculoskeletal pain treatment as herbal medicine. However, no summarization of clinical effect and safety has been evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

Our study aimed to determine the clinical effects and safety of D. scandens for musculoskeletal pain treatment compared with standard regimen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

METHODS

International and Thai databases were searched from inception through August 2015. Comparative randomized controlled trials investigating oral D. scandens for musculoskeletal pain were included. Outcomes of interest included level of pain and adverse event. Mean changes of the outcomes from baseline were compared between D. scandens and NSAIDs by calculating mean difference.

RESULTS

From 42 articles identified, 4 studies involving a total of 414 patients were included for efficacy analysis. The effects of oral D. scandens on reducing pain score were no different from those of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs at any time points (3, 7, 14 days and overall). The overall pain reduction in the D. scandens group was not inferior to treatment with NSAIDs (weighted mean difference 0.06; 95% CI: -0.20, 0.31) without evident of heterogeneity (I²=0.00%, p=0.768). When compared, the adverse events (AEs) of D. scandens showed no different relative risk with NSAIDs. The major adverse events were gastrointestinal symptoms.

CONCLUSION

D. scandens may be considered as an alternative for musculoskeletal pain reduction.

A non-inferiority trial of Prolonged Exposure for posttraumatic stress disorder: In person versus home-based telehealth

This is the first randomized controlled trial to evaluate non-inferiority of Prolonged Exposure (PE) delivered via home-based telehealth (HBT) compared to standard in-person (IP) PE. One-hundred thirty two Veterans recruited from a Southeastern Veterans Affairs Medical Center and affiliated University who met criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were randomized to receive PE via HBT or PE via IP. Results indicated that PE-HBT was non-inferior to PE-IP in terms of reducing PTSD scores at post-treatment, 3 and 6 month follow-up. However, non-inferiority hypotheses for depression were only supported at 6 month follow-up. HBT has great potential to reduce patient burden associated with receiving treatment in terms of travel time, travel cost, lost work, and stigma without sacrificing efficacy. These findings indicate that telehealth treatment delivered directly into patients' homes may dramatically increase the reach of this evidence-based therapy for PTSD without diminishing effectiveness.

Safety and immunogenicity of a new 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine versus a licensed 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine: a study protocol of a randomised non-inferiority trial in China

INTRODUCTION

The invasive pneumococcal diseases (IPDs) caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae pose an enormous threat to children under 5 years of age. However, routine use of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines could aid in reducing the incidence of IPDs. The purpose of this clinical trial is to assess the non-inferiority of the investigational 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) to the currently licensed 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

1040 infants will receive a three-dose series of either PCV13 or PCV7 at ages 3, 4 and 5 months, respectively, and a booster dose at 12-15 months. Primary end points are the percentage of participants reaching a serotype-specific IgG concentration of ≥0.35 µg/mL and the IgG antibody geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) measured 30 days after the primary immunisation. Secondary end points include the percentage of vaccine recipients reaching a serotype-specific IgG concentration threshold of 1.0 µg/mL, the percentage of participants reaching the pneumococcal opsonophagocytic assay (OPA) titre threshold of 1:8, and the geometric mean titres (GMTs) of OPA measured 30 days after primary and booster doses. The number of standard IgG responders and IgG GMCs measured 30 days after the booster immunisation will also be determined. To evaluate differences between two groups, the sequential testing of the non-inferiority of PCV13 for the seven common serotypes and its effectiveness in treating the six additional serotypes will be performed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approvals have been granted by the Ethics Committees at the three provinces involved in this study: Shanxi, Henan and Hebei. The trial will be reported in accordance with the CONSORT guidance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02736240.

Current perspectives on cardiovascular outcome trials in diabetes

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is one of the most common diabetes-associated complications, as well as a leading cause for death in type 2 diabetes patients (T2D). Despite the well-known correlation between the two, up until the 2008 FDA industry guidance for licensing of new anti-hyperglycemic drugs, which required an investigation of cardiovascular outcomes (CVO) of glucose-lowering agents, only a few studies had looked into the relationship between glucose lowering drugs and cardiovascular (CV) risk. Thereafter, CVOT design has focused on non-inferiority short-term studies on high-risk patient populations aiming at capturing CV safety issues. Despite the wealth of information and useful data provided by CVOTs, this approach still suffers from certain limitations. The present review will condense the main results of the most recently completed CVOTs, reflect on the lessons learned, discuss on the issues presented by current CVOT design and offer some suggestions for improvement.

Reducing sample size by combining superiority and non-inferiority for two primary endpoints in the Social Fitness study

OBJECTIVES

In randomized controlled trials, two endpoints may be necessary to capture the multidimensional concept of the intervention and the objectives of the study adequately. We show how to calculate sample size when defining success of a trial by combinations of superiority and/or non-inferiority aims for the endpoints.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

The randomized controlled trial design of the Social Fitness study uses two primary endpoints, which can be combined into five different scenarios for defining success of the trial. We show how to calculate power and sample size for each scenario and compare these for different settings of power of each endpoint and correlation between them.

RESULTS

Compared to a single primary endpoint, using two primary endpoints often gives more power when success is defined as: improvement in one of the two endpoints and no deterioration in the other. This also gives better power than when success is defined as: improvement in one prespecified endpoint and no deterioration in the remaining endpoint.

CONCLUSION

When two primary endpoints are equally important, but a positive effect in both simultaneously is not per se required, the objective of having one superior and the other (at least) non-inferior could make sense and reduce sample size.

Testing of non-inferiority and superiority for three-arm clinical studies with multiple experimental treatments

The purpose of a non-inferiority trial is to assert the efficacy of an experimental treatment compared with a reference treatment by showing that the experimental treatment retains a substantial proportion of the efficacy of the reference treatment. Statistical methods have been developed to test multiple experimental treatments in three-arm non-inferiority trials. In this paper, we report the development of procedures that simultaneously test the non-inferiority and the superiority of experimental treatments after the assay sensitivity has been established. The advantage of the proposed test procedures is the additional ability to identify superior treatments while retaining an non-inferiority testing power comparable to that of existing testing procedures. Single-step and stepwise procedures are derived and then compared with each other to determine their relative testing power and testing error in a simulation study. Finally, the suggested procedures are illustrated with two clinical examples.

Assessment of the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol delivered as a combination dry powder via a capsule-based inhaler and a multi-dose inhaler in patients with asthma

BACKGROUND

In developing countries, there is a need for access to affordable inhaled respiratory medicines. This study tested the clinical non-inferiority of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination (FSC) 50/250 μg Rotacaps^®/Rotahaler^® compared with FSC 50/250 μg Diskus^®.

METHODS

A multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy study evaluated 12 weeks, twice daily treatment of FSC 50/250 μg administered using Rotacaps/Rotahaler or Diskus inhaler in a crossover design in patients with asthma (pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) 40%-85% of predicted, FEV₁ reversibility ≥12%, prior stable dose with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or ICS/long acting beta-agonist). The primary efficacy endpoint, change from baseline in trough morning FEV₁ at Day 85, was analysed using a model for repeated measures analysis. The pre-defined criterion for non-inferiority was the lower limit of the CI (0.025, one-sided significance level) for the treatment difference (Rotacaps/Rotahaler-Diskus) in least squares (LS) mean change from baseline, being greater than -125 mL. Secondary endpoints included serial FEV₁ measurements, morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), rescue medication use, day- and night-time asthma symptoms, Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores, and serial cortisol measured over 12 h (area under the curve (AUC_0-12)).

RESULTS

Treatment with FSC 50/250 μg via Rotacaps/Rotahaler or Diskus resulted in a similar LS mean increase from baseline in trough FEV₁ at Day 85 (231 mL and 203 mL respectively). The difference in the model-adjusted LS mean change was 28 mL (95% CI -24 mL, 80 mL), fulfilling the criterion for non-inferiority. Data for all secondary endpoints were similar for the two treatments, supporting the primary endpoint findings. Both treatments were well tolerated and demonstrated similar safety profiles.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the clinical non-inferiority of FSC 50/250 μg when administered using Rotacaps/Rotahaler compared with administration using Diskus in patients with asthma, and suggests there is no difference in the risk:benefit profile between the two FSC inhalers.

Efficacy of a new once daily hydromorphone formulation in comparison with twice daily administration in chronic pain: a randomized, double-blind, cross-over study

Objective Efficacy and safety of a novel multiple-unit hydromorphone once daily (HOD) was compared to an established hydromorphone twice daily (HTD) regimen in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic pain. Design and methods The results from a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, cross-over trial in patients (n = 37) with chronic malignant or non-malignant pain are reported. The primary efficacy parameter was current pain on 0-100 mm VAS assessed four times daily and prior to intake of rescue medication (immediate-release hydromorphone) throughout the last 5 days with each treatment (after an 8 day build-up period to avoid carry-over effects). Total daily dose of hydromorphone (TDD: 8-32 mg/day) was kept stable during the double-blind treatment phase. Results The difference observed in mean current pain (-0.92 mm VAS) over the 5 day assessment period between HOD and HTD (28.44 mm vs. 29.36 mm VAS) was found to lack clinical relevance, as the 95% CI (-4.10 to 2.28 mm VAS) did not exceed the prespecified limit for non-inferiority of 9 mm VAS. Results from the full analysis set were consistent with per protocol data confirming robustness, as did the data for 12 h recalled pain assessed at 08:00 h and 20:00 h, showing no significant differences between once and twice daily medication. Both treatments produced effective and stable pain control with only minor day-to-day and intra-day fluctuations. Switching between treatments was suitable, considering both efficacy and safety, as no relevant or significant differences in adverse events were seen (25.0% HOD, 24.3% HTD). Most frequently typical side-effects of opioid therapy were observed, such as nausea, vomiting and headache. Conclusion Although this study was of short duration and included a limited number of patients, the results confirm that the new HOD is as effective and safe as the established HTD.

A randomized, 12-month controlled trial to evaluate non-inferiority of early compared to conventional loading of modSLA implants in single tooth gaps

Background

The aim of the study was to evaluate whether early loading of implants with a chemically modified sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SLA) (SLActive®) surface was non-inferior to conventional loading in terms of change in crestal bone level.

Methods

This was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study. Patients requiring single-tooth rehabilitation in the posterior maxilla or mandible received implants and were randomized to receive a provisional restoration in occlusal load after 25 ± 3 days (early loading) or after 13 ± 1 weeks (conventional loading). The primary endpoint was change in crestal bone level between implant placement (baseline) and 6 months. Secondary endpoints included change in crestal bone level between baseline and 12 months, implant survival and success rates, and patient satisfaction.

Results

Of the 84 patients enrolled, 78 received implants and were randomized onto the early loading (41 patients) and conventional loading (37 patients) groups. The mean change in crestal bone level between baseline and 6 months was 0.56 ± 0.58 and 0.51 ± 0.62 mm for early and conventional loading, respectively; at 12 months, the mean change was 0.76 ± 0.60 and 0.73 ± 0.77 mm, respectively. Implant survival and success at 12 months were 100 % for both groups. Patient satisfaction was similar between the groups, except that more patients in the early loading group were satisfied or highly satisfied with the time taken for fitting.

Conclusion

The study demonstrated that early implant loading was non-inferior to conventional implant loading in terms of crestal bone level change in a Japanese patient population in short follow-up period and single tooth gaps in molar regions.

Rationale and design of a randomized trial to test the safety and non-inferiority of canagliflozin in patients with diabetes with chronic heart failure: the CANDLE trial

Background

Because type 2 diabetes mellitus is associated strongly with an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases, the number of patients with diabetes with chronic heart failure is increasing steadily. However, clinical evidence of therapeutic strategies in such patients is still lacking. A recent randomized, placebo-controlled trial in patients with type 2 diabetes with high cardiovascular risk demonstrated that the SGLT2 inhibitor, empagliflozin, reduced the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure. Because SGLT2 inhibitors cause a reduction in body weight and blood pressure in addition to improving glycemic control, they have the potential to exert beneficial effects on the clinical pathophysiology of heart failure. The aim of the ongoing CANDLE trial is to test the safety and non-inferiority of canagliflozin, another SGLT2 inhibitor, compared with glimepiride, a sulfonylurea agent, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic heart failure.

Methods

A total of 250 patients with type 2 diabetes who are drug-naïve or taking any anti-diabetic agents and suffering from chronic heart failure with a New York Heart Association classification I to III will be randomized centrally into either canagliflozin or glimepiride groups (1: 1) using the dynamic allocation method stratified by age (<65, ≥65 year), HbA1c level (<6.5, ≥6.5 %), and left ventricular ejection fraction (<40, ≥40 %). After randomization, all the participants will be given the add-on study drug for 24 weeks in addition to their background therapy. The primary endpoint is the percentage change from baseline in NT-proBNP after 24 weeks of treatment. The key secondary endpoints after 24 weeks of treatment are the change from baseline in glycemic control, blood pressure, body weight, lipid profile, quality of life score related to heart failure, and cardiac and renal function.

Discussion

The CANDLE trial is the first to assess the safety and non-inferiority of canagliflozin in comparison with glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes with chronic heart failure. This trial has the potential to evaluate the clinical safety and efficacy of canagliflozin on heart failure.

Trial registration Unique trial Number, UMIN000017669

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12933-016-0381-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Non-inferiority of retrospective data collection for assessing perioperative morbidity

Background. Postoperative morbidity has immediate and delayed consequences for surgical patients, including excess risk of premature death. Capturing these data objectively and routinely in large electronic databases using tools such as the Postoperative Morbidity Survey (POMS) would offer tremendous clinical and translational potential. However, POMS has thus far only utilised prospective data collection by research staff. We hypothesised that retrospective data collection from routinely collated hospital data from paper and electronic charts, medical and nursing notes was non-inferior to prospective data collection requiring research staff capturing POMS-defined morbidity in real-time.

Methods. Morbidity was recorded by a trained investigator as defined by POMS prospectively on postoperative days 3 and 7. Separately, an independent investigator blinded to prospectively acquired data retrospectively assessed the same patients’ morbidity as defined by POMS criteria, using medical charts, nursing summaries and electronic data. Equivalence was accepted when the confidence limits for both modes of data collection fell completely inside the equivalence bounds, with the maximum equivalence difference (i.e., the largest value of the difference in sensitivities deemed to reach a conclusion of equivalence) set a priori at 0.2. Differences for confidence limits between retrospective and prospective data collection were based on Nam’s RMLE method. The relationship between morbidity on postoperative day 3 as recorded by each data collection method on time to become morbidity free and length of hospital stay was compared using the log-rank test.

Results. POMS data from 85 patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery were analyzed. At postoperative day 3, POMS-defined morbidity was similar regardless of whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively (95% CI [−0.13–0.013]; p < 0.001). Non-inferiority for sensitivity was observed for all other POMS domains and timepoints. Time to become morbidity free Kaplan–Meier plots were indistinguishable between POMS obtained prospectively or retrospectively (hazard ratio: 1.09 (95% CI [0.76–1.57]); p = 0.33, log rank test). Similarly, the mode of data collection did not alter the association between early postoperative morbidity on postoperative day 3 and delayed hospital discharge.

Conclusions. Postoperative morbidity as defined by the Post Operative Morbidity Survey can be assessed retrospectively. These data may therefore be easily captured using electronic patient record systems, thereby expanding the potential for bioinformatics approaches to generate new clinical and translational insights into recovery from surgery.

The effect of preheated versus room-temperature skin disinfection on bacterial colonization during pacemaker device implantation: a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

Background

In clinical practice, patients who are awake often comment that cold surgical skin disinfectant is unpleasant. This is not only a problem of patients’ experience; heat loss during the disinfection process is a problem that can result in hypothermia. Evidence for the efficacy of preheated disinfection is scarce.

We tested whether preheated skin disinfectant was non-inferior to room-temperature skin disinfectant on reducing bacterial colonization during pacemaker implantation.

Methods

This randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial included 220 patients allocated to skin disinfection with preheated (36 °C) or room-temperature (20 °C) chlorhexidine solution in 70 % ethanol. Cultures were obtained by swabbing at 4 time-points; 1) before skin disinfection (skin surface), 2) after skin disinfection (skin surface), 3) after the incision (subcutaneously in the wound), and 4) before suturing (subcutaneously in the wound).

Results

The absolute difference in growth between patients treated with preheated versus room-temperature skin disinfectant was zero (90 % CI −0.101 to 0.101; preheated: 30 of 105 [28.6 %] vs. room-temperature: 32 of 112 [28.6 %]). The pre-specified margin for statistical non-inferiority in the protocol was set at 10 % for the preheated disinfectant. There were no significant differences between groups regarding SSIs three month postoperatively, which occurred in 0.9 % (1 of 108) treated with preheated and 1.8 % (2 of 112) treated with room-temperature skin disinfectant.

Conclusion

Preheated skin disinfection is non-inferior to room-temperature disinfection in bacterial reduction. We therefore suggest that preheated skin disinfection become routine in clean surgery.

Trial registration

The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCTO2260479).

Internet-vs. group-delivered cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia: A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

The aim of this study was to compare guided Internet-delivered to group-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia. We conducted an 8-week randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with 6-months follow-up. Participants were forty-eight adults with insomnia, recruited via media. Interventions were guided Internet-delivered CBT (ICBT) and group-delivered CBT (GCBT) for insomnia. Primary outcome measure was the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), secondary outcome measures were sleep diary data, depressive symptoms, response- and remission rates. Both treatment groups showed significant improvements and large effect sizes for ISI (Within Cohen's d: ICBT post = 1.8, 6-months follow-up = 2.1; GCBT post = 2.1, 6-months follow-up = 2.2). Confidence interval of the difference between groups post-treatment and at FU6 indicated non-inferiority of ICBT compared to GCBT. At post-treatment, two thirds of patients in both groups were considered responders (ISI-reduction > 7p). Using diagnostic criteria, 63% (ICBT) and 75% (GCBT) were in remission. Sleep diary data showed moderate to large effect sizes. We conclude that both guided Internet-CBT and group-CBT in this study were efficacious with regard to insomnia severity, sleep parameters and depressive symptoms. The results are in line with previous research, and strengthen the evidence for guided Internet-CBT for insomnia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study protocol was approved by, and registered with, the regional ethics review board in Linköping, Sweden, registration number 2010/385-31.

Comparison of the safety and immunogenicity of an MF59®-adjuvanted with a non-adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccine in elderly subjects

AIM

Adjuvanted influenza vaccines can overcome the poor antibody response of conventional non-adjuvanted vaccines in the elderly. We evaluated the immunogenicity, safety and clinical effectiveness of an MF59(®)-adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (aTIV) compared with a non-adjuvanted vaccine (TIV) in subjects ≥65 years old, with or without co-morbidities.

METHODS

In 2010-2011, subjects (N=7082) were randomized to receive one dose of aTIV or TIV. Co-primary objectives were to assess lot-to-lot consistency of aTIV, non-inferiority, superiority and immunogenicity 22 days after vaccination. Clinical effectiveness, reactogenicity and serious adverse events were monitored up to Day 366.

RESULTS

The immunological equivalence of three lots of aTIV was demonstrated. aTIV was not only non-inferior to TIV but also elicited significantly higher antibody responses at Day 22 than TIV against all homologous and heterologous strains, even in subjects with co-morbidities. Superiority was not established. Reactogenicity was higher in the aTIV group, but reactions were mild to moderate and transient.

CONCLUSIONS

aTIV elicited a significantly higher antibody response than TIV, especially against A/H3N2 strains, although superiority by pre-defined criteria was not formally met. The study demonstrates potential immunological benefits of MF59-adjuvanted influenza vaccines for the elderly. This trial was registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01162122).