Noninferiority Randomized Clinical Trial Research Articles

Five-year results of vital pulp therapy in permanent molars with irreversible pulpitis: a non-inferiority multicenter randomized clinical trial.

Previous reported results of up to 12 months as well as 24-month follow-ups revealed superior and equivalent treatment outcomes for vital pulp therapy (VPT) using calcium-enriched mixture cement (CEM) in comparison with root canal therapy (RCT) for mature molars with established irreversible pulpitis, respectively. Present non-inferiority multicenter randomized clinical trial assesses the final long-term (5-year) results as well as the effects of patients' age/gender and the presence of preoperative periapical lesion on the treatment outcomes. A total number of 407 patients were blindly allocated into two treatment groups [group 1 (VPT/CEM, n = 205) and group 2 (RCT, n = 202)] treated in 23 health-care centers by calibrated dentists. The treatment outcomes were assessed after 60 months. The 5-year results revealed no significant differences in the successes of both study arms (P = 0.29); a total number of 271 patients were available (~33 % were lost to follow-up). The patients' age/gender did not affect the outcomes; the presence of preoperative periapical lesion also did not implement a significant effect in both groups (P > 0.05). As an alternative for RCT, VPT/CEM can be considered as a valid treatment for vital mature permanent molars clinically diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis. Considering the favorable outcomes of 6- to 60-month follow-ups, as an evidence-based/simple/affordable/effective/biologic approach in cases of irreversible pulpitis, VPT/CEM is highly recommended for universal clinical practice.

Basis for the Interpretation of Noninferiority Studies: Considering the ROCKET–AF, RE-LY, and ARISTOTLE Studies

Patients with a current acute coronary syndrome and previous ischemic heart disease, peripheral arterial disease, and/or cerebrovascular disease are reported to have a poorer outcome than those without these previous conditions. It is uncertain whether this association with outcome is observed at long-term follow-up.Prospective observational study, including 4247 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Detailed clinical data and information on previous ischemic heart disease, peripheral arterial disease, and cerebrovascular disease («vascular burden») were recorded. Multivariate models were performed for in-hospital and long-term (median, 7.2 years) all-cause mortality.One vascular territory was affected in 1131 (26.6%) patients and ≥ 2 territories in 221 (5.2%). The total in-hospital mortality rate was 12.3% and the long-term incidence density was 3.5 deaths per 100 patient-years. A background of previous ischemic heart disease (odds ratio = 0.83; P = .35), peripheral arterial disease (odds ratio = 1.30; P = .34), or cerebrovascular disease (stroke) (odds ratio = 1.15; P = .59) was not independently predictive of in-hospital death. In an adjusted model, previous cerebrovascular disease and previous peripheral arterial disease were both predictors of mortality at long-term follow-up (hazard ratio = 1.57; P < .001; and hazard ratio = 1.34; P = .001; respectively). Patients with ≥ 2 diseased vascular territories showed higher long-term mortality (hazard ratio = 2.35; P < .001), but not higher in-hospital mortality (odds ratio = 1.07; P = .844).In patients with a diagnosis of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction, the previous vascular burden determines greater long-term mortality. Considered individually, previous cerebrovascular disease and peripheral arterial disease were predictors of mortality at long-term after hospital discharge.El paciente con síndrome coronario agudo con antecedentes de cardiopatía isquémica, arteriopatía periférica y/o accidente cerebrovascular previos muestra un peor pronóstico. Sin embargo, la relación existente entre dichos antecedentes y el pronóstico a largo plazo no ha sido aclarada del todo.Estudio prospectivo de 4.247 pacientes con infarto agudo de miocardio y segmento ST elevado. Se obtuvo información clínica detallada que incluye los antecedentes de cardiopatía isquémica, arteriopatía periférica y accidente cerebrovascular. Estudiamos la mortalidad intrahospitalaria y a largo plazo (mediana, 7,2 años) mediante modelos ajustados.Se observó que 1.131 (26,6%) pacientes tenían un territorio enfermo y 221 (5,2%), ≥ 2 territorios. La mortalidad hospitalaria total fue del 12,3% y la densidad de incidencia de mortalidad a largo plazo fue de 3,5/100 pacientes-año. Los antecedentes de cardiopatía isquémica (odds ratio = 0,83; p = 0,35), arteriopatía periférica (odds ratio = 1,30; p = 0,34) y accidente cerebrovascular (odds ratio = 1,15; p = 0,59) no fueron predictores independientes de mortalidad hospitalaria. En un modelo ajustado, los dos últimos fueron predictores de mortalidad a largo plazo (hazard ratio = 1,57; p < 0,001; y hazard ratio = 1,34; p = 0,001, respectivamente). La afección de ≥ 2 territorios vasculares fue predictora de mortalidad a largo plazo (hazard ratio = 2,35; p < 0,001), aunque no de mortalidad intrahospitalaria (odds ratio = 1,07; p = 0,844).En el infarto de miocardio con segmento ST elevado, la carga vascular previa condiciona mayor mortalidad a largo plazo. Individualmente, la arteriopatía periférica y el accidente cerebrovascular previos son predictores de muerte tras el alta.

Switching HIV Treatment in Adults Based on CD4 Count Versus Viral Load Monitoring: A Randomized, Non-Inferiority Trial in Thailand

Viral load (VL) is recommended for monitoring the response to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) but is not routinely available in most low- and middle-income countries. The purpose of the study was to determine whether a CD4-based monitoring and switching strategy would provide a similar clinical outcome compared to the standard VL-based strategy in Thailand. The Programs for HIV Prevention and Treatment (PHPT-3) non-inferiority randomized clinical trial compared a treatment switching strategy based on CD4-only (CD4) monitoring versus viral-load (VL). Consenting participants were antiretroviral-naïve HIV-infected adults (CD4 count 50-250/mm(3)) initiating non-nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based therapy. Randomization, stratified by site (21 public hospitals), was performed centrally after enrollment. Clinicians were unaware of the VL values of patients randomized to the CD4 arm. Participants switched to second-line combination with confirmed CD4 decline >30% from peak (within 200 cells from baseline) in the CD4 arm, or confirmed VL >400 copies/ml in the VL arm. Primary endpoint was clinical failure at 3 years, defined as death, new AIDS-defining event, or CD4 <50 cells/mm(3). The 3-year Kaplan-Meier cumulative risks of clinical failure were compared for non-inferiority with a margin of 7.4%. In the intent to treat analysis, data were censored at the date of death or at last visit. The secondary endpoints were difference in future-drug-option (FDO) score, a measure of resistance profiles, virologic and immunologic responses, and the safety and tolerance of HAART. 716 participants were randomized, 356 to VL monitoring and 360 to CD4 monitoring. At 3 years, 319 participants (90%) in VL and 326 (91%) in CD4 were alive and on follow-up. The cumulative risk of clinical failure was 8.0% (95% CI 5.6-11.4) in VL versus 7.4% (5.1-10.7) in CD4, and the upper-limit of the one-sided 95% CI of the difference was 3.4%, meeting the pre-determined non-inferiority criterion. Probability of switch for study criteria was 5.2% (3.2-8.4) in VL versus 7.5% (5.0-11.1) in CD4 (p=0.097). Median time from treatment initiation to switch was 11.7 months (7.7-19.4) in VL and 24.7 months (15.9-35.0) in CD4 (p=0.001). The median duration of viremia >400 copies/ml at switch was 7.2 months (5.8-8.0) in VL versus 15.8 months (8.5-20.4) in CD4 (p=0.002). FDO scores were not significantly different at time of switch. No adverse events related to the monitoring strategy were reported. The 3-year rates of clinical failure and loss of treatment options did not differ between strategies although the longer-term consequences of CD4 monitoring would need to be investigated. These results provide reassurance to treatment programs currently based on CD4 monitoring as VL measurement becomes more affordable and feasible in resource-limited settings. ClinicalTrials.govNCT00162682 Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Deficient Reporting and Interpretation of Non-Inferiority Randomized Clinical Trials in HIV Patients: A Systematic Review

ObjectivesNon-inferiority (NI) randomized clinical trials (RCTs) commonly evaluate efficacy of new antiretroviral (ARV) drugs in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients. Their reporting and interpretation have not been systematically evaluated. We evaluated the reporting of NI RCTs in HIV patients according to the CONSORT statement and assessed the degree of misinterpretation of RCTs when NI was inconclusive or not established.DesignSystematic review.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were reviewed until December 2011. Selection and extraction was performed independently by three reviewers.ResultsOf the 42 RCTs (n = 21,919; range 41–3,316) selected, 23 were in ARV-naïve and 19 in ARV-experienced patients. Twenty-seven (64%) RCTs provided information about prior RCTs of the active comparator, and 37 (88%) used 2-sided CIs. Two thirds of trials used a NI margin between 10 and 12%, although only 12 explained the method to determine it. Blinding was used in 9 studies only. The main conclusion was based on both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses in 5 trials, on PP analysis only in 4 studies, and on ITT only in 31 studies. Eleven of 16 studies with NI inconclusive or not established highlighted NI or equivalence, and distracted readers with positive secondary results.ConclusionsThere is poor reporting and interpretation of NI RCTs performed in HIV patients. Maximizing the reporting of the method of NI margin determination, use of blinding and both ITT and PP analyses, and interpreting negative NI according to actual primary findings will improve the understanding of results and their translation into clinical practice.

Dabigatran for the Prevention of Stroke and Systemic Embolism in Atrial Fibrillation: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of dabigatran etexilate (Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd, UK) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this drug for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) as part of the NICE single technology appraisal process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Centre for Health Economics at the University of York were commissioned to act as the evidence review group (ERG). This article presents a summary of the manufacturer's submission, the ERG report and the subsequent development of NICE guidance for the use of dabigatran within the UK National Health Service. Dabigatran was granted marketing authorisation by the European Medicines Agency for a sequential dosing regimen (DBG sequential), in which patients under 80years are treated with dabigatran 150mg twice daily (DBG150) and patients 80years and over are given dabigatran 110mg twice daily (DBG110). NICE decisions are bound by the marketing authorisation; therefore, the decision problem faced by the committee was whether the DBG sequential regimen was effective and cost-effective compared with warfarin or aspirin for patients with non-valvular AF and one or more risk factors. The RE-LY trial, a large multi-centre non-inferiority randomised clinical trial, was the primary source of clinical evidence. DBG150 was shown to be non-inferior, and subsequently superior to warfarin, for the primary outcome of all stroke/systemic embolism. DBG110 was found to be non-inferior to warfarin. Results were presented for a post hoc subgroup analysis for patients under and over 80years of age, where DBG110 showed a statistically significant reduction of haemorrhagic stroke and intracranial haemorrhage in comparison to warfarin in patients over 80years of age. This post hoc subgroup analysis by age was the basis for the licensed DBG sequential regimen. The economic evaluation compared the costs and outcomes of DBG110, DBG150 and DBG sequential against warfarin, aspirin, and aspirin plus clopidogrel. Across the three dosing regimens, dabigatran was associated with greater costs and better health outcomes than warfarin; however, DBG150 offered the most benefits and dominated DBG110 and DBG sequential (i.e. less costly and more effective). The cost-effectiveness of DBG150 was less favourable for patients well controlled on warfarin. In the first appraisal meeting, the committee issued a 'minded no' decision until additional analyses on the licensed DBG sequential regimen were presented by the manufacturer. These additional analyses indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the DBG sequential regimen compared with warfarin ranged from £8,388 to £18,987 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained depending on the level of monitoring costs assumed for warfarin. Patients on warfarin would need to be within therapeutic range 83-85% of the time for the ICER to exceed £30,000 per additional QALY. Following consideration of the additional evidence and the responses from a large number of consultees and commentators, the committee recommended dabigatran as DBG sequential as an option for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in people with non-valvular AF with one or more risk factors for ischaemic stroke.

Design and rationale of the AngioSeal versus the Radial approach In acute coronary SyndromE (ARISE) trial: a randomized comparison of a vascular closure device versus the radial approach to prevent vascular access site complications in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients

BackgroundArterial access is a major site of bleeding complications after invasive coronary procedures. Among strategies to decrease vascular complications, the radial approach is an established one. Vascular closure devices provide more comfort to patients and decrease hemostasis and need for bed rest. However, the inconsistency of data proving their safety limits their routine adoption as a strategy to prevent vascular complications, requiring evidence through adequately designed randomized trials. The aim of this study is to compare the radial versus femoral approach using a vascular closure device for the incidence of arterial puncture site vascular complications among non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients submitted to an early invasive strategy.MethodsARISE is a national, multicenter, non-inferiority randomized clinical trial. Two hundred patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome will be randomized to either radial or femoral access using a vascular closure device. The primary outcome is the occurrence of vascular complications at an arterial puncture site 30 days after the procedure, including major bleeding, retroperitoneal hematoma, compartment syndrome, hematoma ≥ 5 cm, pseudoaneurysm, arterio-venous fistula, infection, limb ischemia, arterial occlusion, adjacent nerve injury or the need for vascular surgical repair.ResultsEnrollment was initiated in September 2012, and until October 2013 91 patients were included. The inclusion phase is expected to last until the second half of 2014.ConclusionsThe ARISE trial will help define the role of a vascular closure device as a bleeding avoidance strategy in patients with NSTEACS.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01653587

Expectant management versus immediate treatment for low‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia

The optimal management strategy for women with low-grade biopsy-proven cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) is not clear. Our objective was to compare the effectiveness of regular colposcopic follow-up and treatment of progressive disease only versus immediate treatment. Data were accrued between November 2000 and March 2006 for a noninferiority randomized clinical trial of 415 women with biopsy-proven grade 1 CIN from 8 Canadian and 2 Brazilian colposcopy clinics. Subjects were randomly assigned to either undergo immediate treatment with a loop electrical excision procedure (LEEP) or receive regular colposcopic follow-up for 18 months. The primary outcome was progression of disease to CIN 2 to 3 was based on histology obtained during 18 months of follow-up. Treatments were compared using differences of proportion with a 9% noninferiority margin. Analysis was conducted on the basis of intention-to-treat. An initial LEEP was performed on 179 women. Disease progression was found in 32. Easily controlled vaginal bleeding occurred in 16 (8.9%). During follow-up, disease progression was identified in 3 (1.7%) women in the immediate treatment arm and 9 (4.4%) in the colposcopic follow-up arm-a tolerable difference of 2.7% with 1-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) upper limit of 6.0%. Compliance with all 3 follow-up visits was 61% overall, but significantly worse in women ≤30 years of age (P < .05). The risk of progression to CIN grade 2 or 3 or cancer over 18 months was similar in the 2 treatment groups. In Canada and Brazil, follow-up for 18 months is a reasonable management strategy for women with persistent low-grade cytology who are found to have grade 1 CIN on referral for colposcopy and cervical biopsy.

Treatment of pain after initial archwire placement: A noninferiority randomized clinical trial comparing over-the-counter analgesics and bite-wafer use

Pain is a major concern of patients before orthodontic treatment. Currently, the most frequently recommended treatments for pain after archwire placement or appliance adjustment are over-the-counter (OTC) analgesics. Although the overuse of OTC medications and their potential side effects are concerns, particularly for children, no study to date has investigated a nonpharmacologic option for pain management as an alternative for these analgesics. A parallel 2-group stratified block randomized clinical trial was designed to assess the pain response of adolescents during the first week after initial archwire placement. The subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 pain management groups: bite wafer (BW) or OTC analgesics. Pain levels were reported on a numerical rating scale. The intensity and unpleasantness of the pain were also assessed. Data were collected at 8 times over a 7-day period. A general linear mixed model with heterogeneous compound symmetry covariance matrix was fitted separately for each outcome. Estimates from the mixed model were used to test a noninferiority hypothesis that the BW group, on average, was not inferior with respect to pain management to the OTC group. The patterns of pain level, intensity, and unpleasantness over time were similar for the 2 groups (P >0.33). Pain management for the BW group as indicated by pain level, intensity, and unpleasantness was not inferior to that of the OTC group (P >0.39). In adolescents, the BW is a nonpharmacologic option for pain management after orthodontic procedures that is at least as effective as OTC analgesics.

Patient Satisfaction with Physician–Patient Communication During Telemedicine

The quality of physician-patient communication is a critical factor in treatment outcomes and patient satisfaction with care. To date, few studies have specifically conducted an in-depth evaluation of the effect of telemedicine (TM) on physician-patient communication in a medical setting. Our objective was to determine whether physical separation and technology used during TM have a negative effect on physician-patient communication. In this noninferiority randomized clinical trial, patients were randomized to receive a single consultation with one of 9 physicians, either in person (IP) or via TM. Patients (n = 221) were recruited from pulmonary, endocrine, and rheumatology clinics at a Midwestern Veterans Administration hospital. Physician-patient communication was measured using a validated self-report questionnaire consisting of 33 items measuring satisfaction with visit convenience and physician's patient-centered communication, clinical competence, and interpersonal skills. Satisfaction for physician's patient-centered communication was similar for both consultation types (TM = 3.76 versus IP = 3.61), and noninferiority of TM was confirmed (noninferiority t-test p = 0.002). Patient satisfaction with physician's clinical competence (TM = 4.63 versus IP = 4.52) and physician's interpersonal skills (TM = 4.79 versus IP = 4.74) were similar, and noninferiority of TM was confirmed (noninferiority t-test p = 0.006 and p = 0.04, respectively). Patients reported greater satisfaction with convenience for TM as compared to IP consultations (TM = 4.41 versus IP = 2.37, noninferiority t-test p < 0.001). Patients were equally satisfied with physician's ability to develop rapport, use shared decision making, and promote patient-centered communication during TM and IP consultations. Our data suggest that, despite physical separation, physician-patient communication during TM is not inferior to communication during IP consultations.

Design of the Value of Urodynamic Evaluation (ValUE) trial: A non-inferiority randomized trial of preoperative urodynamic investigations

Background and purpose Urodynamic studies (UDS) are routinely obtained prior to surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) despite a lack of evidence that UDS information has an actual impact on outcome. The primary aim of this non-inferiority randomized clinical trial is to determine whether women with symptomatic, uncomplicated SUI who undergo only a basic office evaluation (BOE) prior to SUI surgery (No UDS arm) have non-inferior treatment outcomes compared to women who have BOE and UDS (UDS arm). Secondary aims are: 1) to determine how often physicians use preoperative UDS results to alter clinical and surgical decision-making, 2)to compare the amount of improvement in incontinence outcomes, and 3) to determine the incremental cost and utility of performing UDS compared with not performing UDS. Methods After an initial basic office evaluation, women planning surgery for uncomplicated SUI who consent to study participation will be randomized to receive preoperative UDS or No UDS. Treatment will be planned and performed by the surgeon utilizing all the data available to them. We will compare results from the basic office evaluation (No UDS) with results from the basic office evaluation and preoperative UDS. Results The primary outcome will be measured at 12 months using responses to the Urogenital Distress Inventory and the Patient Global Index-Improvement. Conclusions Randomized trials comparing the effects of different diagnostic alternatives on treatment outcomes pose study design challenges. A non-inferiority design is appropriate when comparing a less invasive and less expensive alternative with a standard of care approach.

Intestinal absorption in the "contaminated small-bowel syndrome".

<h3>Background</h3> Chest CT displays chest pathology better than chest X-ray (CXR). We evaluated the effects on health outcomes of replacing CXR by ultra-low-dose chest-CT (ULDCT) in the diagnostic work-up of patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the emergency department. <h3>Methods</h3> Pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised clinical trial in patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the emergency department. Between 31 January 2017 and 31 May 2018, every month, participating centres were randomly allocated to using ULDCT or CXR. Primary outcome was functional health at 28 days, measured by the Short Form (SF)-12 physical component summary scale score (PCS score), non-inferiority margin was set at 1 point. Secondary outcomes included hospital admission, hospital length of stay (LOS) and patients in follow-up because of incidental findings. <h3>Results</h3> 2418 consecutive patients (ULDCT: 1208 and CXR: 1210) were included. Mean SF-12 PCS score at 28 days was 37.0 for ULDCT and 35.9 for CXR (difference 1.1; 95% lower CI: 0.003). After ULDCT, 638/1208 (52.7%) patients were admitted (median LOS of 4.8 days; IQR 2.1–8.8) compared with 659/1210 (54.5%) patients after CXR (median LOS 4.6 days; IQR 2.1–8.8). More ULDCT patients were in follow-up because of incidental findings: 26 (2.2%) versus 4 (0.3%). <h3>Conclusions</h3> Short-term functional health was comparable between ULDCT and CXR, as were hospital admissions and LOS, but more incidental findings were found in the ULDCT group. Our trial does not support routine use of ULDCT in the work-up of patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the emergency department. <h3>Trial registration number</h3> NTR6163.