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

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.

Defining Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State After the Latarjet Procedure

BACKGROUND

The Latarjet procedure is one of the most well-established treatment options for anterior shoulder instability. However, meaningful clinical outcomes after this surgery have not been defined.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to establish the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for commonly used outcome measures in patients undergoing the Latarjet procedure and determine correlations between preoperative patient characteristics and achievement of MCID or PASS.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective review at 4 institutions was performed to identify patients undergoing primary open Latarjet procedure with minimum 2-year follow-up. Data collected included patient characteristics (age, sex, sports participation), radiological parameters (glenoid bone loss, off-track Hill-Sachs lesion), and 4 patient-reported outcome measures (collected preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively): the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). The MCID and PASS for each outcome measure were calculated, and Pearson and Spearman coefficient analyses were used to identify correlations between MCID or PASS and preoperative variables (age, sex, sports participation, glenoid bone loss, off-track Hill-Sachs lesion).

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients were included in the study. The MCID values for ASES, SANE, VAS pain, and WOSI were calculated to be 9.6, 12.4, 1.7, and 254.9, respectively. The PASS values for ASES, SANE, VAS pain, and WOSI were 86.0, 82.5, 2.5, and 571.0, respectively. The rates of patients achieving MCID were 61.1% for VAS pain, 71.6% for ASES, 74.1% for SANE, and 84.2% for WOSI. The rates of achieving PASS ranged from 78.4% for WOSI to 84.0% for VAS pain. There was no correlation between any of the studied preoperative variables and the likelihood of achieving MCID or PASS.

CONCLUSION

This study defined MCID and PASS values for 4 commonly used outcome measures in patients undergoing the Latarjet procedure. These findings are essential for incorporating patient perspectives into the clinical effectiveness of the Latarjet procedure and provide valuable parameters for the design and interpretation of future clinical trials.