Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28274254›Full record

ArticleTrials2017

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

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

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT00326820 phase3unknown statusnot on this map

Zoledronate Versus Ibandronate Comparative Evaluation: A Randomized Phase III, Open-Label, Multicenter, Parallel Group Clinical Trial to Evaluate and Compare the Efficacy, Safety Profile and Tolerability of Oral Ibandronate Versus Intravenous Zoledronate in the Treatment of Breast Cancer Patients With Bone Metastases

TypeinterventionalSponsorWales Cancer Trials UnitRan2006 to 2015Enrolled1,404ConditionsBreast Cancer, Hypercalcemia of Malignancy, Metastatic CancerArmsibandronate sodium, zoledronic acid, Zolendronic Acid
NCT00708656 phase3completednot on this map

A Randomized, Single-Blind Study to Assess Efficacy and Safety of Dosing Mesalazine 800 mg Tablets (Asacol®) at 2.4 g Once Daily Versus Divided Doses 3 Times Daily for 12 Months in Maintenance of Remission of Ulcerative Colitis.

TypeinterventionalSponsorCardiff and Vale University Health BoardRan2006 to 2010Enrolled213ConditionsUlcerative ColitisArmsmesalazine (Asacol®)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

David GillespieSouth East Wales Trials Unit, Centre for Trials Research, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. gillespied1@cardiff.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6934-2928
Daniel FarewellDivision of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Peter Barrett-LeeVelindre Cancer Centre, Velindre Rd., Whitchurch, Cardiff, UK.
Angela CasbardWales Cancer Trials Unit, Centre for Trials Research, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Anthony Barney HawthorneDepartment of Medicine, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust, Cardiff, UK.
Chris HurtWales Cancer Trials Unit, Centre for Trials Research, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Nick MurrayNorth Adelaide Oncology, Kimberley House, Calvary North Adelaide Hospital, 89 Strangways Terrace, North Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Chris ProbertGastroenterology Research Unit, Department of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Ashton Street, Liverpool, UK.
Rachel StensonDivision of Infection and Immunity Research, School of Medicine, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Kerenza HoodCentre for Trials Research, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Cardiff University · GBCardiff and Vale University Health Board · GBRoyal Adelaide Hospital · AUUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 15954Medical Research Council G0902108
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 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.

methodsTwo 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.

resultsIn 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.

conclusionDeriving 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 registrationThe CODA study: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00708656 . Registered on 8 April 2008. The ZICE study trial: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00326820 . Registered on 16 May 2006.

Indexed as

Research DesignAdministration, IntravenousAdministration, OralAnti-Inflammatory AgentsBone Density Conservation AgentsBone NeoplasmsBreast NeoplasmsColitis, UlcerativeData Interpretation, StatisticalDiphosphonatesFemaleGastrointestinal AgentsHumansIbandronic AcidImidazolesIntention to Treat AnalysisAnti-Inflammatory AgentsBone Density Conservation AgentsDiphosphonatesGastrointestinal AgentsIbandronic AcidImidazolesMesalamineZoledronic AcidEfficacyIntention-to-treatNon-inferiorityPer-protocolStructural mean modelsTreatment non-adherence

Identifiers

PMID28274254
PMCPMC5343391
OpenAlexW2297004681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.