Efficacy of experimental treatments compared with standard treatments in non-inferiority trials: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background There is concern that non-inferiority trials might be deliberately designed to conceal that a new treatment is less effective than a standard treatment. In order to test this hypothesis we performed a meta-analysis of non-inferiority trials to assess the average effect of experimental treatments compared with standard treatments. Methods One hundred and seventy non-inferiority treatment trials published in 121 core clinical journals were included. The trials were identified through a search of PubMed (1991 to 20 February 2009). Combined relative risk (RR) from meta-analysis comparing experimental with standard treatments was the main outcome measure. Results The 170 trials contributed a total of 175 independent comparisons of experimental with standard treatments. The combined RR for all 175 comparisons was 0.994 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.978–1.010] using a random-effects model and 1.002 (95% CI 0.996–1.008) using a fixed-effects model. Of the 175 comparisons, experimental treatment was considered to be non-inferior in 130 (74%). The combined RR for these 130 comparisons was 0.995 (95% CI 0.983–1.006) and the point estimate favoured the experimental treatment in 58% (n = 76) and standard treatment in 42% (n = 54). The median non-inferiority margin (RR) pre-specified by trialists was 1.31 [inter-quartile range (IQR) 1.18–1.59]. Conclusion In this meta-analysis of non-inferiority trials the average RR comparing experimental with standard treatments was close to 1. The experimental treatments that gain a verdict of non-inferiority in published trials do not appear to be systematically less effective than the standard treatments. Importantly, publication bias and bias in the design and reporting of the studies cannot be ruled out and may have skewed the study results in favour of the experimental treatments. Further studies are required to examine the importance of such bias.

[CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Small study effects in meta-analyses of osteoarthritis trials: meta-epidemiological study

Objective To examine the presence and extent of small study effects in clinical osteoarthritis research. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources 13 meta-analyses including 153 randomised trials (41 605 patients) that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or non-intervention control in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee and used patients’ reported pain as an outcome. Methods We compared estimated benefits of treatment between large trials (at least 100 patients per arm) and small trials, explored funnel plots supplemented with lines of predicted effects and contours of significance, and used three approaches to estimate treatment effects: meta-analyses including all trials irrespective of sample size, meta-analyses restricted to large trials, and treatment effects predicted for large trials. Results On average, treatment effects were more beneficial in small than in large trials (difference in effect sizes −0.21, 95% confidence interval −0.34 to −0.08, P=0.001). Depending on criteria used, six to eight funnel plots indicated small study effects. In six of 13 meta-analyses, the overall pooled estimate suggested a clinically relevant, significant benefit of treatment, whereas analyses restricted to large trials and predicted effects in large trials yielded smaller non-significant estimates. Conclusions Small study effects can often distort results of meta-analyses. The influence of small trials on estimated treatment effects should be routinely assessed.

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Long-term antibiotic treatment for Crohn's disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials

We investigated the effectiveness of long-term antibiotic treatment in patients with Crohn's disease.

Pooled analysis of trials comparing titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stents with paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary stenting

We performed a pooled analysis of three trials comparing titanium-nitride-oxide-coated bioactive stents (BAS) with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in 1,774 patients. All patients were followed for 12 months. The primary outcomes of interest were recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), death and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary endpoints were stent thrombosis (ST) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including MI, death and TLR. There were 922 patients in the BAS group and 852 in the PES group. BAS significantly reduced the risk of recurrent MI (2.7% vs. 5.6%; risk ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.31-0.81; p = 0.004) and MACE (8.9% vs. 12.6%; risk ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.54-0.94; p = 0.02) during the 12 months of follow up. In contrast, the differences between BAS and PES were not statistically significant with respect to TLR (risk ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.68-1.41), death (risk ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.61-1.51) and definite ST (risk ratio 0.28, 95% CI 0.05-1.47). In conclusion, the results of this analysis suggest that BAS is effective in reducing TLR and improves clinical outcomes by reducing MI and MACE compared with PES.

Impact of treatment characteristics on response of different breast cancer phenotypes: pooled analysis of the German neo-adjuvant chemotherapy trials

Pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant treatment correlates with outcome in breast cancer. We determined whether characteristics of neoadjuvant therapy are associated with pCR. We used multi-level models, which accounted for heterogeneity in pCR across trials and trial arms, to analyze individual patient data from 3332 women included in 7 German neoadjuvant trials with uniform protocols. PCR was associated with an increase in number of chemotherapy cycles (odds ratio [OR] 1.2 for every two additional cycles; P = 0.009), with higher cumulative anthracycline doses (OR 1.6; P = 0.002), higher cumulative taxane doses (OR 1.6; P = 0.009), and with capecitabine containing regimens (OR 1.62; P = 0.022). Association of pCR with increase in number of cycles appeared more pronounced in hormone receptor (HR)-positive tumors (OR 1.35) than in HR-negative tumors (OR 1.04; P for interaction = 0.046). Effect of anthracycline dose was particularly pronounced in HER2-negative tumors (OR 1.61), compared to HER2-positive tumors (OR 0.83; P for interaction = 0.14). Simultaneous trastuzumab treatment in HER2-positive tumors increased odds of pCR 3.2-fold (P < 0.001). No association of pCR and number of trastuzumab cycles was found (OR 1.20, P = 0.39). Dosing characteristics appear important for successful treatment of breast cancer. Longer treatment, higher cumulative doses of anthracyclines and taxanes, and the addition of capecitabine and trastuzumab are associated with better response. Tailoring according to breast cancer phenotype might be possible: longer treatment in HR-positive tumors, higher cumulative anthracycline doses for HER2-negative tumors, shorter treatment at higher cumulative doses for triple-negative tumors, and limited number of preoperative trastuzumab cycles in HER2-positive tumors.

Does land-based exercise reduce pain and disability associated with hip osteoarthritis? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective To determine if clinical guidelines recommending therapeutic exercise for people with hip osteoarthritis (OA) are supported by rigorous scientific evidence. Methods A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with hip OA and comparing some form of land-based exercise program (as opposed to exercises conducted in the water) with a non-exercise group in terms of hip pain and/or self-reported physical function. Results Thirty-two RCTs were identified, but only five met the inclusion criteria. Only one of the five included RCTs restricted recruitment to people with hip OA, the other four RCTs also recruiting participants with knee OA. The five included studies provided data on 204 and 187 hip OA participants for pain and physical function, respectively. Combining the results of the five included RCTs using a fixed-effects model demonstrated a small treatment effect for pain (standardized mean difference (SMD) −0.38; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.67 to −0.09). No significant benefit in terms of improved self-reported physical function was detected (SMD −0.02; 95% CI −0.31 to 0.28). Conclusion Currently there is only silver level evidence (one small RCT) supporting the benefit of land-based therapeutic exercise for people with symptomatic hip OA in terms of reduced pain and improved physical function. The limited number and small sample size of the included RCTs restricts the confidence that can be attributed to these results.

Measurement issues in trials of pediatric acute diarrheal diseases: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, diarrheal diseases rank second among conditions that afflict children. Despite the disease burden, there is limited consensus on how to define and measure pediatric acute diarrhea in trials. OBJECTIVES: In RCTs of children involving acute diarrhea as the primary outcome, we documented (1) how acute diarrhea and its resolution were defined, (2) all primary outcomes, (3) the psychometric properties of instruments used to measure acute diarrhea and (4) the methodologic quality of included trials, as reported. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, Embase, Global Health, and Medline from inception to February 2009. English-language RCTs of children younger than 19 years that measured acute diarrhea as a primary outcome were chosen. RESULTS: We identified 138 RCTs reporting on 1 or more primary outcomes related to pediatric acute diarrhea/diseases. Included trials used 64 unique definitions of diarrhea, 69 unique definitions of diarrhea resolution, and 46 unique primary outcomes. The majority of included trials evaluated short-term clinical disease activity (incidence and duration of diarrhea), laboratory outcomes, or a composite of these end points. Thirty-two trials used instruments (eg, single and multidomain scoring systems) to support assessment of disease activity. Of these, 3 trials stated that their instrument was valid; however, none of the trials (or their citations) reported evidence of this validity. The overall methodologic quality of included trials was good. CONCLUSIONS: Even in what would be considered methodologically sound clinical trials, definitions of diarrhea, primary outcomes, and instruments employed in RCTs of pediatric acute diarrhea are heterogeneous, lack evidence of validity, and focus on indices that may not be important to participants.

Preventing vasospasm improves outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: rationale and design of CONSCIOUS-2 and CONSCIOUS-3 trials

Cerebral vasospasm after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is a frequent but unpredictable complication associated with poor outcome. Current vasospasm therapies are suboptimal; new therapies are needed. Clazosentan, an endothelin receptor antagonist, has shown promise in phase 2 studies, and two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials (CONSCIOUS-2 and CONSCIOUS-3) are underway to further investigate its impact on vasospasm-related outcome after aSAH. Here, we describe the design of these studies, which was challenging with respect to defining endpoints and standardizing endpoint interpretation and patient care. Main inclusion criteria are: age 18-75 years; SAH due to ruptured saccular aneurysm secured by surgical clipping (CONSCIOUS-2) or endovascular coiling (CONSCIOUS-3); substantial subarachnoid clot; and World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies grades I-IV prior to aneurysm-securing procedure. In CONSCIOUS-2, patients are randomized 2:1 to clazosentan (5 mg/h) or placebo. In CONSCIOUS-3, patients are randomized 1:1:1 to clazosentan 5, 15 mg/h, or placebo. Treatment is initiated within 56 h of aSAH and continued until 14 days after aSAH. Primary endpoint is a composite of mortality and vasospasm-related morbidity within 6 weeks of aSAH (all-cause mortality, vasospasm-related new cerebral infarction, vasospasm-related delayed ischemic neurological deficit, neurological signs or symptoms in the presence of angiographic vasospasm leading to rescue therapy initiation). Main secondary endpoint is extended Glasgow Outcome Scale at week 12. A critical events committee assesses all data centrally to ensure consistency in interpretation, and patient management guidelines are used to standardize care. Results are expected at the end of 2010 and 2011 for CONSCIOUS-2 and CONSCIOUS-3, respectively.