Design of HIV noninferiority trials: where are we going?

Methodological and Reporting Quality of Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Antiretroviral Therapies: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether the reporting quality of antiretroviral (ARV) noninferiority (NI) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has improved since the CONSORT guideline release in 2006. The primary objective of this systematic review was assessing the methodological and reporting quality of ARV NI-RCTs. We also assessed reporting quality by funding source and publication year.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central from inception to 14 November 2022. We included NI-RCTs comparing ≥2 ARV regimens used for human immunodeficiency virus treatment or prophylaxis. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool to assess risk of bias. Screening and data extraction were performed blinded and in duplicate. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data; statistical tests were 2 sided, with significance defined as P < .05. The systematic review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42022328586), and not funded.

RESULTS

We included 160 articles reporting 171 trials. Of these articles, 101 (63.1%) did not justify the NI margin used, and 28 (17.5%) did not provide sufficient information for sample size calculation. Eighty-nine of 160 (55.6%) reported both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, while 118 (73.8%) described missing data handling. Ten of 171 trials (5.9%) reported potentially misleading results. Pharmaceutical industry-funded trials were more likely to be double-blinded (28.1% vs 10.3%; P = .03) and to describe missing data handling (78.5% vs 59.0%; P = .02). The overall risk of bias was low in 96 of 160 studies (60.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

ARV NI-RCTs should improve NI margin justification, reporting of intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, and missing data handling to increase CONSORT adherence.

Dolutegravir-Based or Low-Dose Efavirenz-Based Regimen for the Treatment of HIV-1

BACKGROUND

An efavirenz-based regimen (with a 600-mg dose of efavirenz, known as EFV600) was the World Health Organization preferred first-line treatment for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection until June 2018. Given concerns about side effects, dolutegravir-based and low-dose efavirenz-based combinations have been considered as first-line treatments for HIV-1 in resource-limited settings.

METHODS

We conducted an open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 noninferiority trial in Cameroon. Adults with HIV-1 infection who had not received antiretroviral therapy and had an HIV-1 RNA level (viral load) of at least 1000 copies per milliliter were randomly assigned to receive either dolutegravir or the reference treatment of low-dose efavirenz (a 400-mg dose, known as EFV400), combined with tenofovir and lamivudine. The primary end point was the proportion of participants with a viral load of less than 50 copies per milliliter at week 48, on the basis of the Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm. The difference between treatment groups was calculated, and noninferiority was tested with a margin of 10 percentage points.

RESULTS

A total of 613 participants received at least one dose of the assigned regimen. At week 48, a viral load of less than 50 copies per milliliter was observed in 231 of 310 participants (74.5%) in the dolutegravir group and in 209 of 303 participants (69.0%) in the EFV400 group, with a difference of 5.5 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.6 to 12.7; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Among those with a baseline viral load of at least 100,000 copies per milliliter, a viral load of less than 50 copies per milliliter was observed in 137 of 207 participants (66.2%) in the dolutegravir group and in 123 of 200 participants (61.5%) in the EFV400 group, with a difference of 4.7 percentage points (95% CI, -4.6 to 14.0). Virologic failure (a viral load of >1000 copies per milliliter) was observed in 3 participants in the dolutegravir group (with none acquiring drug-resistance mutations) and in 16 participants in the EFV400 group. More weight gain was observed in the dolutegravir group than in the EFV400 group (median weight gain, 5.0 kg vs. 3.0 kg; incidence of obesity, 12.3% vs. 5.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

In HIV-1-infected adults in Cameroon, a dolutegravir-based regimen was noninferior to an EFV400-based reference regimen with regard to viral suppression at week 48. Among participants who had a viral load of at least 100,000 copies per milliliter when antiretroviral therapy was initiated, fewer participants than expected had viral suppression. (Funded by Unitaid and the French National Agency for AIDS Research; NAMSAL ANRS 12313 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02777229.).

Ritonavir-boosted darunavir combined with raltegravir or tenofovir-emtricitabine in antiretroviral-naive adults infected with HIV-1: 96 week results from the NEAT001/ANRS143 randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Standard first-line antiretroviral therapy for HIV-1 infection includes two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NtRTIs), but these drugs have limitations. We assessed the 96 week efficacy and safety of an NtRTI-sparing regimen.

METHODS

Between August, 2010, and September, 2011, we enrolled treatment-naive adults into this randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial in treatment-naive adults in 15 European countries. The composite primary outcome was change to randomised treatment before week 32 because of insufficient virological response, no virological response by week 32, HIV-1 RNA concentration 50 copies per mL or higher at any time after week 32; death from any cause; any new or recurrent AIDS event; or any serious non-AIDS event. Patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral treatment with 400 mg raltegravir twice daily plus 800 mg darunavir and 100 mg ritonavir once daily (NtRTI-sparing regimen) or tenofovir-emtricitabine in a 245 mg and 200 mg fixed-dose combination once daily, plus 800 mg darunavir and 100 mg ritonavir once daily (standard regimen). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01066962.

FINDINGS

Of 805 patients enrolled, 401 received the NtRTI-sparing regimen and 404 the standard regimen, with median follow-up of 123 weeks (IQR 112-133). Treatment failure was seen in 77 (19%) in the NtRTI-sparing group and 61 (15%) in the standard group. Kaplan-Meier estimated proportions of treatment failure by week 96 were 17·8% and 13·8%, respectively (difference 4·0%, 95% CI -0·8 to 8·8). The frequency of serious or treatment-modifying adverse events were similar (10·2 vs 8·3 per 100 person-years and 3·9 vs 4·2 per 100 person-years, respectively).

INTERPRETATION

Our NtRTI-sparing regimen was non-inferior to standard treatment and represents a treatment option for patients with CD4 cell counts higher than 200 cells per μL.

FUNDING

European Union Sixth Framework Programme, Inserm-ANRS, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck Laboratories.

Some current issues in the design of HIV noninferiority trials

Since the introduction of protease inhibitors and their combination with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in tri-therapy, there has been a continuous improvement in the efficacy of antiretroviral treatments. Such combinations have been rendered even more effective by the introduction of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and, more recently, integrase inhibitors. This progress has led to a move away from superiority designs towards noninferiority designs for randomized clinical trials for HIV. Noninferiority trials aim to demonstrate that a new regimen is no worse than the current standard. The methodological issues associated with such designs have been discussed, but recent HIV trials provide us with an opportunity to consider the choice of hypotheses. Recent HIV trials have been overpowered, due to the assumption of lower success rates than observed and the enrollment of a large number of patients. The use of stratified statistical methods for primary endpoint analysis, with sample size calculated by classical methods (without stratification), also increases the statistical power. Some HIV trials have a statistical power close to 99%. Surprisingly, the results of some previous studies or phase II trials are not taken into account when designing the corresponding phase III trials. We discuss alternative hypotheses and designs.