Empirical Consequences of Current Recommendations for the Design and Interpretation of Noninferiority Trials
Abstract
Background
Noninferiority trials are increasingly common, though they have less standardized designs and their interpretation is less familiar to clinicians than superiority trials.
Objective
To empirically evaluate a cohort of noninferiority trials to determine 1) their interpretation as recommended by CONSORT, 2) choice of alpha threshold and its sidedness, and 3) differences between methods of analysis such as intention-to-treat and per-protocol.
Design
We searched MEDLINE for parallel-group randomized controlled noninferiority trials published in the five highest-impact general medical journals between 2011 and 2016.
Main Measures
Data abstracted included trial design parameters, results, and interpretation of results based on CONSORT recommendations.
Key Results
One hundred sixty-three trials and 182 noninferiority comparisons were included in our analysis. Based on CONSORT-recommended interpretation, 79% of experimental therapies met criteria for noninferiority, 13% met criteria for superiority, 20% were declared inconclusive, and 2% met criteria for inferiority. However, for 12% of trials, the experimental therapy was statistically significantly worse than the active control, but CONSORT recommended an interpretation of inconclusive or noninferior. A two-sided alpha equivalent of greater than 0.05 was used in 34% of the trials, and in five of these trials, the use of a standard two-sided alpha of 0.05 led to changes in the interpretation of results that disfavored the experimental therapy. In four of the five comparisons where different methods of analysis (e.g., intention-to-treat and per-protocol) yielded different results, the intention-to-treat analysis was the more conservative. In 11% of trials, a secondary advantage of the new therapy was neither reported nor could it be inferred by reviewers.
Conclusions
In this cohort, the design and interpretation of noninferiority trials led to significant and systematic bias in favor of the experimental therapy. Clinicians should exercise caution when interpreting these trials. Future trials may be more reliable if design parameters are standardized.
Publisher URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-017-4161-4
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-017-4161-4
Keeping up-to-date with research can feel impossible, with papers being published faster than you'll ever be able to read them. That's where Researcher comes in: we're simplifying discovery and making important discussions happen. With over 19,000 sources, including peer-reviewed journals, preprints, blogs, universities, podcasts and Live events across 10 research areas, you'll never miss what's important to you. It's like social media, but better. Oh, and we should mention - it's free.
Researcher displays publicly available abstracts and doesn’t host any full article content. If the content is open access, we will direct clicks from the abstracts to the publisher website and display the PDF copy on our platform. Clicks to view the full text will be directed to the publisher website, where only users with subscriptions or access through their institution are able to view the full article.