Novel Antibiotics May Be Noninferior but Are They Becoming Less Effective?: a Systematic Review

Implementing an EU pull incentive for antimicrobial innovation and access: blueprint for action

In June, 2023, the Council of the EU published a recommendation that the European Commission should contribute to the design and governance of an EU cross-country pull incentive to stimulate antimicrobial innovation and access. In this Personal View, we discuss six key considerations to support the implementation of the new pull incentive-ie, the size of the potential pull incentive and possible contributions of the member states, design of the incentive model, interplay of the new pull incentive with the proposed revisions of the EU pharmaceutical legislation, roles and responsibilities of both the EU and member states, balance between pull and push incentives, and global cooperation and responsibility. As the involvement of the member states with the EU pull incentive will be voluntary, member states should have confidence that the processes used to identify eligible antimicrobials, negotiate terms and conditions, and oversee access agreements are transparent, inclusive, and methodologically robust.

More Than a Decade Since the Latest CONSORT Non-inferiority Trials Extension: Do Infectious Diseases Trials Do Enough?

More than a decade after the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials group released a reporting items checklist for non-inferiority randomized controlled trials, the infectious diseases literature continues to underreport these items. Trialists, journals, and peer reviewers should redouble their efforts to ensure infectious diseases studies meet these minimum reporting standards.

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.

Challenges and opportunities for incentivising antibiotic research and development in Europe

Antimicrobial, and particularly antibiotic resistance are one of the world's biggest challenges today, and urgent action is needed to reinvigorate the antibiotic development pipeline. To inform policy discussions during and after the 2023 Swedish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, we critically appraise incentive options recently proposed by the European Commission, and member states, and consider what has been achieved over the last two decades in relation to antibiotic research and development. While several new antibiotics have achieved regulatory approval in recent years, almost none have innovative characteristics such as new chemical classes or novel mechanisms of action. We consider four incentive options to incentivise research and development of new antibiotics, including subscription payments, market entry rewards, transferable exclusivity extensions, and milestone payments. While each option has advantages and drawbacks, a combination of incentives may be required and continued investment is needed by the EU in push incentives, such as direct funding and grants, to incentivise drug discovery and preclinical stages of development. The EU must also coordinate with international initiatives and support access to new and pre-existing antibiotics in LMICs through platforms such as the WHO, and G7 and G20 group of countries.

Methodological and reporting quality of non-inferiority randomized controlled trials comparing antifungal therapies: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Detailed reporting is essential in non-inferiority randomized controlled trials (NI-RCTs) to assess evidence quality, as these trials inform standards of care.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of antifungal NI-RCTs.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane CENTRAL and the United States Federal Drug Administration (FDA) drugs database were searched to 9 September 2020.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

NI-RCTs differing by antifungal formulation, type, dose, administration and/or duration were included. Articles were independently assessed in duplicate using quality indicators developed by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients enrolled in antifungal trials for prophylactic and therapeutic use.

METHODS

The Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool was used to assess risk of bias. Descriptive statistics were used; all statistical tests were two sided.

RESULTS

Of 32 included studies, 22 (68.7%) did not justify the NIM. Handling of missing data was not described in 20 (62.5%). Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were both reported in 12/32 (37.5%) studies. Eleven of 32 studies (34.3%) reported potentially misleading conclusions. Industry-financed studies were more likely to report only the ITT analysis (n = 14/27, 51.9%). Methodological and reporting quality was unaffected by publication year; risk of bias from missing data changed over time. Overall risk of bias across included studies was moderate to high, with high risk in randomization process (n = 8/32, 25%), missing outcome data (n = 5/32, 15.6%), and selection of reported result (n = 9/32, 28.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Justification of the non-inferiority margin, reporting of ITT and PP analyses, missing data handling description, and ensuring conclusions are consistent with reported data is necessary to improve CONSORT adherence. Small sample size and overall risk of bias are study limitations. (Systematic Review Registration Number PROSPERO CRD42020219497).

Are antifungal non-inferiority trials at risk of eroding effectiveness because of bio-creep? A secondary analysis of a systematic review

Non-inferiority randomized controlled trial (RCT) effectiveness may erode when results favour the active control over time, and when a decreasingly effective control arm is used in serial trials. We analyzed 32 antifungal noninferiority RCTs (NI-RCTs) for these scenarios in this secondary analysis of a systematic review. Our exploratory analysis suggests that the erosion risk in the effectiveness of antifungal non-inferiority trials is uncommon. Findings are limited by small sample size, and overall risk of bias.