Literature DB >> 21923583

Publication of noninferiority clinical trials: changes over a 20-year interval.

Katie J Suda1, Anne M Hurley, Trevor McKibbin, Susannah E Motl Moroney.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to evaluate the change in publication rate of noninferiority trials over a 20-year interval (1989-2009). Secondary objectives were to analyze the frequency of noninferiority trials by therapeutic category, the frequency of noninferiority trial publication by journal, the impact factors of the publishing journals, any potential special advantages of the study drug over the control, the funding sources of the trials, pharmaceutical industry affiliation of the authors, and the use of ghostwriters in the creation of manuscripts.
DESIGN: Retrospective literature review of 583 articles. DATA SOURCES: PubMed (January 1989-December 2009) and EMBASE (first quarter 1989-fourth quarter 2009) databases.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 583 articles of the results of randomized controlled clinical trials with a noninferiority study design that evaluated drug therapies, published in English, between 1989 and 2009, were included in the analysis. A consistent increase was noted in their yearly publication rates, with no trials published in 1989 versus 133 in 2009. One hundred twenty-six articles (21.6%) were in the therapeutic category of infectious diseases, followed by 78 (13.4%) in cardiology. Among the journals identified, The New England Journal of Medicine had the highest publication rate of trials with a noninferiority design, with 29 (5.0%) of the identified trials published in this journal. The median impact factor of the journals publishing noninferiority trials was 4.807 (interquartile range 3.064-7.5). The most common advantage of the study drug over the control was reduced duration of treatment or reduced pill burden (80 studies [22.9%]). A total of 425 trials (72.9%) listed the pharmaceutical industry as the only funding source. Among 369 trials with authors employed by the pharmaceutical industry, 101 (17.3%) disclosed an acknowledgment to an individual, other than those listed as authors, who contributed to writing the manuscript and who was affiliated with a medical information company and/or a pharmaceutical company (i.e., potential ghostwriters).
CONCLUSION: The publication of noninferiority trials increased during the 20 years from 1989 until 2009, particularly in the therapeutic areas of infectious diseases and cardiology. Because of this growth, clinicians and researchers need to be familiar with the caveats of the noninferiority study design to appropriately interpret and design these clinical studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21923583     DOI: 10.1592/phco.31.9.833

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacotherapy        ISSN: 0277-0008            Impact factor:   4.705


  11 in total

1.  Protocol adherence rates in superiority and noninferiority randomized clinical trials published in high impact medical journals.

Authors:  Nicolas A Bamat; Osayame A Ekhaguere; Lingqiao Zhang; Dustin D Flannery; Sara C Handley; Heidi M Herrick; Susan S Ellenberg
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2020-07-15       Impact factor: 2.486

2.  Non-Inferiority Trials in Medicine: Practice Changing or a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?

Authors:  Vinay Prasad
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Including Non-inferiority Trials in Contemporary Meta-analyses of Chronic Medical Conditions: a Meta-epidemiological Study.

Authors:  Zhen Wang; Tarek Nayfeh; Nigar Sofiyeva; Oscar J Ponte; Rami Rajjoub; Konstantinos Malandris; Mohamed Seisa; Haitao Chu; Mohammad Hassan Murad
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-04-21       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 4.  Systematic review on the primary and secondary reporting of the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature.

Authors:  Serina Stretton
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-07-14       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 5.  Non-inferiority trials: are they inferior? A systematic review of reporting in major medical journals.

Authors:  Sunita Rehal; Tim P Morris; Katherine Fielding; James R Carpenter; Patrick P J Phillips
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 6.  Empirical Consequences of Current Recommendations for the Design and Interpretation of Noninferiority Trials.

Authors:  Scott K Aberegg; Andrew M Hersh; Matthew H Samore
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 7.  Methods of defining the non-inferiority margin in randomized, double-blind controlled trials: a systematic review.

Authors:  Turki A Althunian; Anthonius de Boer; Olaf H Klungel; Widya N Insani; Rolf H H Groenwold
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-03-07       Impact factor: 2.279

8.  Do non-inferiority trials of reduced intensity therapies show reduced effects? A descriptive analysis.

Authors:  Scott K Aberegg; Andrew M Hersh; Matthew H Samore
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-03-02       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Characteristics of Randomized Clinical Trials in Surgery From 2008 to 2020: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  N Bryce Robinson; Stephen Fremes; Irbaz Hameed; Mohamed Rahouma; Viola Weidenmann; Michelle Demetres; Mahmoud Morsi; Giovanni Soletti; Antonino Di Franco; Marco A Zenati; Shahzad G Raja; David Moher; Faisal Bakaeen; Joanna Chikwe; Deepak L Bhatt; Paul Kurlansky; Leonard N Girardi; Mario Gaudino
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-06-01

10.  Choice of non-inferiority (NI) margins does not protect against degradation of treatment effects on an average--an observational study of registered and published NI trials.

Authors:  Beryl Primrose Gladstone; Werner Vach
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-07-31       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.