Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

The use of randomisation-based efficacy estimators in non-inferiority trials

Authors: David Gillespie, Daniel Farewell, Peter Barrett-Lee, Angela Casbard, Anthony Barney Hawthorne, Chris Hurt, Nick Murray, Chris Probert, Rachel Stenson, Kerenza Hood

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In a non-inferiority (NI) trial, analysis based on the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle is anti-conservative, so current guidelines recommend analysing on a per-protocol (PP) population in addition. However, PP analysis relies on the often implausible assumption of no confounders. Randomisation-based efficacy estimators (RBEEs) allow for treatment non-adherence while maintaining a comparison of randomised groups. Fischer et al. have developed an approach for estimating RBEEs in randomised trials with two active treatments, a common feature of NI trials. The aim of this paper was to demonstrate the use of RBEEs in NI trials using this approach, and to appraise the feasibility of these estimators as the primary analysis in NI trials.

Methods

Two NI trials were used. One comparing two different dosing regimens for the maintenance of remission in people with ulcerative colitis (CODA), and the other comparing an orally administered treatment to an intravenously administered treatment in preventing skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer (ZICE). Variables that predicted adherence in each of the trial arms, and were also independent of outcome, were sought in each of the studies. Structural mean models (SMMs) were fitted that conditioned on these variables, and the point estimates and confidence intervals compared to that found in the corresponding ITT and PP analyses.

Results

In the CODA study, no variables were found that differentially predicted treatment adherence while remaining independent of outcome. The SMM, using standard methodology, moved the point estimate closer to 0 (no difference between arms) compared to the ITT and PP analyses, but the confidence interval was still within the NI margin, indicating that the conclusions drawn would remain the same. In the ZICE study, cognitive functioning as measured by the corresponding domain of the QLQ-C30, and use of chemotherapy at baseline were both differentially associated with adherence while remaining independent of outcome. However, while the SMM again moved the point estimate closer to 0, the confidence interval was wide, overlapping with any NI margin that could be justified.

Conclusion

Deriving RBEEs in NI trials with two active treatments can provide a randomisation-respecting estimate of treatment efficacy that accounts for treatment adherence, is straightforward to implement, but requires thorough planning during the design stage of the study to ensure that strong baseline predictors of treatment are captured. Extension of the approach to handle nonlinear outcome variables is also required.

Trial registration

The CODA study: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00708656. Registered on 8 April 2008. The ZICE study trial: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00326820. Registered on 16 May 2006.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux P, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(8):e1–e37.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ, Group C. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 2006;295(10):1152–60.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
5.
ICH Steering Committee. Statistical principles for clinical trials (E9). Geneva, Switzerland: International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use; 1998.
6.
Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66(2):150–4.PubMed
7.
Lewis JA. Statistical principles for clinical trials (ICH E9): an introductory note on an international guideline. Stat Med. 1999;18(15):1903–42.CrossRefPubMed
8.
White IR. Uses and limitations of randomization-based efficacy estimators. Stat Methods Med Res. 2005;14(4):327–47.CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Fischer K, Goetghebeur E, Vrijens B, White IR. A structural mean model to allow for noncompliance in a randomized trial comparing 2 active treatments. Biostatistics. 2011;12(2):247–57.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Montori VM, Guyatt GH. Intention-to-treat principle. Can Med Assoc J. 2001;165(10):1339–41.
12.
13.
14.
Angrist JD, Imbens GW, Rubin DB. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Stat Assoc. 1996;91(434):444–55.CrossRef
15.
Hawthorne AB, Stenson R, Gillespie D, Swarbrick ET, Dhar A, Kapur KC, Hood K, Probert CS. One‐year investigator‐blind randomized multicenter trial comparing Asacol 2.4 g once daily with 800 mg three times daily for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2012;18(10):1885–93.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Gillespie D, Hood K, Farewell D, Stenson R, Probert C, Hawthorne AB. Electronic monitoring of medication adherence in a 1-year clinical study of 2 dosing regimens of mesalazine for adults in remission with ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2014;20(1):82–91.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Barrett-Lee P, Casbard A, Abraham J, Hood K, Coleman R, Simmonds P, Timmins H, Wheatley D, Grieve R, Griffiths G. Oral ibandronic acid versus intravenous zoledronic acid in treatment of bone metastases from breast cancer: a randomised, open label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(1):114–22.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Cheung YB. A modified least-squares regression approach to the estimation of risk difference. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166(11):1337–44.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Aikens JE, Nease DE, Nau DP, Klinkman MS, Schwenk TL. Adherence to maintenance-phase antidepressant medication as a function of patient beliefs about medication. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(1):23–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Liu H, Golin CE, Miller LG, Hays RD, Beck CK, Sanandaji S, Christian J, Maldonado T, Duran D, Kaplan AH. A comparison study of multiple measures of adherence to HIV protease inhibitors. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134(10):968–77.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Lu M, Safren SA, Skolnik PR, Rogers WH, Coady W, Hardy H, Wilson IB. Optimal recall period and response task for self-reported HIV medication adherence. AIDS Behav. 2008;12(1):86–94.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Hernán MA, Robins JM. Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist’s dream? Epidemiology. 2006;17(4):360–72.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Bell ML, Fiero M, Horton NJ, Hsu C-H. Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):1.CrossRef
24.
Vansteelandt S, Goetghebeur E. Causal inference with generalized structural mean models. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Stat Methodol). 2003;65(4):817–35.CrossRef
25.
Wiles N, Fischer K, Cowen P, Nutt D, Peters T, Lewis G, White I. Allowing for non-adherence to treatment in a randomized controlled trial of two antidepressants (citalopram versus reboxetine): an example from the GENPOD trial. Psychol Med. 2014;44(13):2855–66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Taylor TH, Mecchella JN, Larson RJ, Kerin KD, MacKenzie TA. Initiation of allopurinol at first medical contact for acute attacks of gout: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Med. 2012;125(11):1126–34. e7.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Anderson PK, Gill RD. Cox’s regression model for counting processes: a large sample study. Ann Stat. 1982;10:1100–20.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The use of randomisation-based efficacy estimators in non-inferiority trials
Authors
David Gillespie
Daniel Farewell
Peter Barrett-Lee
Angela Casbard
Anthony Barney Hawthorne
Chris Hurt
Nick Murray
Chris Probert
Rachel Stenson
Kerenza Hood
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1837-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Trials 1/2017 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Development of an infant feeding core outcome set for childhood obesity interventions: study protocol

Study protocol

Electroacupuncture plus moxibustion therapy for patients with major depressive disorder: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Emergency treatment with levetiracetam or phenytoin in status epilepticus in children—the EcLiPSE study: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Study protocol

VASO (Vitamin D and Arthroplasty Surgery Outcomes) study - supplementation of vitamin D deficiency to improve outcomes after total hip or knee replacement: study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial

Study protocol

Efficacy of inhaled HYdrogen on neurological outcome following BRain Ischemia During post-cardiac arrest care (HYBRID II trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Commentary

Assessing loss to follow-up in the MObile Technology for Improved Family Planning (MOTIF) randomised controlled trial