Andrew M Hersh1, Robert J Walter2, Scott K Abberegg3. 1. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, TX, USA. Andrew.m.hersh.mil@mail.mil. 2. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, TX, USA. 3. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Noninferiority trials are becoming more common. Their design often requires investigators to "trade" a secondary benefit for efficacy. Use of mortality as an outcome of interest leads to important ethical conflicts whereby researchers must establish a minimal clinically important difference for mortality, a process which has the potential to result in problematic conclusions. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the frequency of the use of mortality as an outcome in noninferiority trials, as well as to determine the average pre-specified noninferiority ("delta") values. DESIGN: We searched MEDLINE for reports of parallel-group randomized controlled noninferiority trials published in five high-impact general medical journals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data abstracted from articles including trial design parameters, results, and interpretation of results based on CONSORT recommendations. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-three manuscripts reporting 196 noninferiority comparisons were included in our analysis. Of these, over a third (67 trials) used mortality either as their sole endpoint (11 trials) or as part of a composite endpoint (56 trials). Nine trials were consort A, 21 trials consort B, 19 trials consort C, 12 were consort F, 4 consort G, and 2 were consort H. Four analyses showed statistically significant more deaths in the new treatment arm, while meeting consort criteria as "inconclusive" (consort G), (Behringer et al. in Lancet. 385(9976):1418-1427, 2015; Kaul et al. in N Engl J Med. 373(18):1709-1719, 2015; Bwakura-Dangarembizi et al. in N Engl J Med. 370(1):41-53, 2014) and thirteen trials utilizing mortality as an endpoint and had an absolute increase of > 3%, and six had an absolute increase of > 5%. CONCLUSIONS: The use of mortality as an outcome in noninferiority trials is not rare and scenarios where the new treatment is statistically worse, but a conclusion of noninferiority or inconclusive do occur. We highlight these issues and propose simple steps to reduce the risk of ethically dubious conclusions.
BACKGROUND: Noninferiority trials are becoming more common. Their design often requires investigators to "trade" a secondary benefit for efficacy. Use of mortality as an outcome of interest leads to important ethical conflicts whereby researchers must establish a minimal clinically important difference for mortality, a process which has the potential to result in problematic conclusions. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the frequency of the use of mortality as an outcome in noninferiority trials, as well as to determine the average pre-specified noninferiority ("delta") values. DESIGN: We searched MEDLINE for reports of parallel-group randomized controlled noninferiority trials published in five high-impact general medical journals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data abstracted from articles including trial design parameters, results, and interpretation of results based on CONSORT recommendations. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-three manuscripts reporting 196 noninferiority comparisons were included in our analysis. Of these, over a third (67 trials) used mortality either as their sole endpoint (11 trials) or as part of a composite endpoint (56 trials). Nine trials were consort A, 21 trials consort B, 19 trials consort C, 12 were consort F, 4 consort G, and 2 were consort H. Four analyses showed statistically significant more deaths in the new treatment arm, while meeting consort criteria as "inconclusive" (consort G), (Behringer et al. in Lancet. 385(9976):1418-1427, 2015; Kaul et al. in N Engl J Med. 373(18):1709-1719, 2015; Bwakura-Dangarembizi et al. in N Engl J Med. 370(1):41-53, 2014) and thirteen trials utilizing mortality as an endpoint and had an absolute increase of > 3%, and six had an absolute increase of > 5%. CONCLUSIONS: The use of mortality as an outcome in noninferiority trials is not rare and scenarios where the new treatment is statistically worse, but a conclusion of noninferiority or inconclusive do occur. We highlight these issues and propose simple steps to reduce the risk of ethically dubious conclusions.
Entities:
Keywords:
clinical trials; medical ethics; noninferiority trials; outcomes measures
Authors: Darius Soonawala; Rutger A Middelburg; Matthias Egger; Jan P Vandenbroucke; Olaf M Dekkers Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2010-09-13 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Harry R Büller; Martin H Prins; Anthonie W A Lensin; Hervé Decousus; Barry F Jacobson; Erich Minar; Jaromir Chlumsky; Peter Verhamme; Phil Wells; Giancarlo Agnelli; Alexander Cohen; Scott D Berkowitz; Henri Bounameaux; Bruce L Davidson; Frank Misselwitz; Alex S Gallus; Gary E Raskob; Sebastian Schellong; Annelise Segers Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marie-Germaine Bousser; Pierre Amarenco; Angel Chamorro; Marc Fisher; Ian Ford; Kim M Fox; Michael G Hennerici; Heinrich P Mattle; Peter M Rothwell; Agnès de Cordoüe; Marie-Dominique Fratacci Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-05-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Juanita M Crook; Christopher J O'Callaghan; Graeme Duncan; David P Dearnaley; Celestia S Higano; Eric M Horwitz; Eliot Frymire; Shawn Malone; Joseph Chin; Abdenour Nabid; Padraig Warde; Thomas Corbett; Steve Angyalfi; S Larry Goldenberg; Mary K Gospodarowicz; Fred Saad; John P Logue; Emma Hall; Paul F Schellhammer; Keyue Ding; Laurence Klotz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-09-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Paulus Kirchhof; Dietrich Andresen; Ralph Bosch; Martin Borggrefe; Thomas Meinertz; Ulli Parade; Ursula Ravens; Alexander Samol; Gerhard Steinbeck; Andras Treszl; Karl Wegscheider; Günter Breithardt Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 79.321