Justification, margin values, and analysis populations for oncologic noninferiority and equivalence trials: a meta-epidemiological study
- PMID: 39657246
- PMCID: PMC12058270
- DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djae318
Justification, margin values, and analysis populations for oncologic noninferiority and equivalence trials: a meta-epidemiological study
Abstract
Background: Noninferiority and equivalence trials evaluate whether an experimental therapy's effect on the primary endpoint is contained within an acceptable margin compared with standard of care. The reliability and impact of this conclusion, however, is largely dependent on the justification for this design, the choice of margin, and the analysis population used.
Methods: A meta-epidemiological study was performed of phase 3 randomized noninferiority and equivalence oncologic trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. Data were extracted from each trial's registration page and primary manuscript.
Results: We identified 65 noninferiority and 10 equivalence trials that collectively enrolled 61 632 patients. Of these, 61 (81%) trials demonstrated noninferiority or equivalence. A total of 65 (87%) trials were justified in the use of a noninferiority or equivalence design either because of an inherent advantage (53 trials), a statistically significant quality-of-life improvement (6 trials), or a statistically significant toxicity improvement (6 trials) of the interventional treatment relative to the control arm. Additionally, 69 (92.0%) trials reported a prespecified noninferiority or equivalence margin of which only 23 (33.3%) provided justification for this margin based on prior literature. For trials with time-to-event primary endpoints, the median noninferiority margin was a hazard ratio of 1.22 (range = 1.08-1.52). Investigators reported a per-protocol analysis for the primary endpoint in only 28 (37%) trials.
Conclusions: Although most published noninferiority and equivalence trials have clear justification for their design, few provide rationale for the chosen margin or report a per-protocol analysis. These findings underscore the need for rigorous standards in trial design and reporting.
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.
Conflict of interest statement
Alexander D. Sherry, MD, reports honoraria from Sermo. Zachary R. McCaw, PhD, reports employment at Insitro (unrelated to this manuscript’s content). Pavlos Msaouel, MD, PhD, reports honoraria for scientific advisory board membership from Mirati Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Exelixis; consulting fees from Axiom Healthcare; nonbranded educational programs supported by Exelixis, Pfizer, and DAVA oncology; leadership or fiduciary roles as a Medical Steering Committee Member for the Kidney Cancer Association and as a Kidney Cancer Scientific Advisory Board Member for KCCure; and research funding from Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Mirati Therapeutics, and Gateway for Cancer Research (all unrelated to this manuscript’s content). No other authors report any conflicts of interest.
Similar articles
-
Oral morphine for cancer pain.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 22;4(4):CD003868. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003868.pub4. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016. PMID: 27105021 Free PMC article.
-
Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain: a network meta-analysis.Health Technol Assess. 2024 Oct;28(62):1-155. doi: 10.3310/MKRT2948. Health Technol Assess. 2024. PMID: 39367772 Free PMC article.
-
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 19;4(4):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub4. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 May 23;5:CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub5. PMID: 33871055 Free PMC article. Updated.
-
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for ovarian cancer.Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(28):1-110. doi: 10.3310/hta5280. Health Technol Assess. 2001. PMID: 11701100
-
Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 16;1(1):MR000039. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000039.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. PMID: 29372930 Free PMC article.
References
-
- FDA. Non-inferiority clinical trials to establish effectiveness guidance for industry. 2016. Accessed December 30, 2024. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents....
-
- Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, et al.; CONSORT Group. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. JAMA. 2012;308:2594-2604. - PubMed
-
- EMA. Points to consider on switching between superiority and non-inferiority. 2000. Accessed December 30, 2024. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/switching-between-superiority-non-inferiori...
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical