Noninferiority trials are used to assess whether the effect of a new drug is not worse than an active comparator by more than a noninferiority margin. If the difference between the new drug and the active comparator does not exceed this prespecified margin, noninferiority can be concluded. This margin must be specified based on clinical and statistical reasoning; however, it is considered as one of the most challenging steps in the design of noninferiority trials. Regulators recommend that the margin should be defined based on the historical evidence of the active comparator (the latter is often the well‐established standard treatment of the disease), which can be performed by different approaches. There are several factors and assumptions that need to be accounted for during the process of defining the margin and during the analysis of noninferiority. Three methods are commonly used to analyse noninferiority trials: the fixed‐margin method; the point‐estimate method; and the synthesis method. This article provides an overview of analysing noninferiority and choosing the noninferiority margin.

BackgroundThere is no consensus on the preferred method for defining the non-inferiority margin in non-inferiority trials, and previous studies showed that the rationale for its choice is often not reported. This study investigated how the non-inferiority margin is defined in the published literature, and whether its reporting has changed over time.MethodsA systematic PubMed search was conducted for all published randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trials from January 1, 1966, to February 6, 2015. The primary outcome was the number of margins that were defined by methods other than the historical evidence of the active comparator. This was evaluated for a time trend. We also assessed the under-reporting of the methods of defining the margin as a secondary outcome, and whether this changed over time. Both outcomes were analyzed using a Poisson log-linear model. Predictors for better reporting of the methods, and the use of the fixed-margin method (one of the historical evidence methods) were also analyzed using logistic regression.ResultsTwo hundred seventy-three articles were included, which account for 273 non-inferiority margins. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of margins that were defined by other methods compared to those defined based on the historical evidence (ratio 2.17, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.82, p = 0.11), and this did not change over time. The number of margins for which methods were unreported was similar to those with reported methods (ratio 1.35, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.43, p = 0.31), with no change over time. The method of defining the margin was less often reported in journals with low-impact factors compared to journals with high-impact factors (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.37, p < 0.0001). The publication of the FDA draft guidance in 2010 was associated with increased reporting of the fixed-margin method (after versus before 2010) (OR 3.54; 95% CI 1.12 to 13.35, p = 0.04).ConclusionsNon-inferiority margins are not commonly defined based on the historical evidence of the active comparator, and they are poorly reported. Authors, reviewers, and editors need to take notice of reporting this critical information to allow for better judgment of non-inferiority trials.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1859-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness and safety of a drug in daily practice with the outcomes of a target non-inferiority trial by rigorously mimickingin an observational study the trial's design features. Methods: This cohort study was conducted using the British Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to emulate the ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation) trial. Patients with atrial fibrillation who were newly prescribed (>=12 months of no use) either rivaroxaban or warfarinfrom October 2008 to December 2017 were included. Non-inferiority of rivaroxaban to warfarin in the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism was assessed in different analysis populations (intention-to-treat [ITT], per-protocol [PP], and as-treated populations) using a hazardratio (HR) of 1.46 as the non-inferiority margin. Major bleeding (safety outcome) was also assessed and compared to that of the target trial. All outcomes were analyzed using Cox-proportional hazard analyses. Results: We included 25,473 incident users of rivaroxaban (n=4,008) or warfarin (n=21,465). Similar to the trial, non-inferiority in the primary out come was demonstrated in all three analysis populations: HR=1.04 (95%CI 0.84 to 1.30) (ITT), HR=0.98 (95%CI 0.70 to 1.38) (PP), and HR=1.11 (95%CI 0.86 to 1.42) (as-treated). Risk of major bleeding was also similar to the target trial. Conclusion: The results of this study provide supportive evidence to the effectiveness of rivaroxaban and adds knowledge on the usefulness of emulating a non-inferiority trial to assess drug effectiveness.

Background The risk of surgical site infections (SSIs), particularly methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) SSIs, after spinal surgeries is one of the most daunting experiences to patients and surgeons. Some authors suggest applying vancomycin powder on the wound before skin closure to minimize the risk of SSIs; however, this practice is not supported by well-established evidence. This study sought to assess the effectiveness of topical (i.e. intra-wound) vancomycin in minimizing the risk of SSIs in patients who underwent spinal surgeries at a Saudi hospital. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the hospital database. Patients who underwent spinal surgeries from the period of 09/2013 to 09/2019 were included and followed up (observed from the time of the surgery) to 30 days (surgeries without implants) or 90 days (with implants). The odds ratio (OR) of the primary outcome between vancomycin treated versus non-treated patients was estimated using a logistic regression model adjusting for the measured confounders. A sensitivity analysis was conducted using propensity score analysis (inverse probability of treatment weighting [IPTW] with stabilized weights) to control for confounding by indication. All study analyses were completed using RStudio Version 1.2.5033. Results We included 81 vancomycin treated vs. 375 untreated patients with 28 infections (8/81 vs. 20/375; respectively). The adjusted OR of SSIs between the two groups was 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.11 to 1.34). The result of the propensity score analysis was consistent (OR: 0.97 [95% CI 0.35 to 2.68]). Conclusions We could not find a lower association of SSIs with intra-wound vancomycin in patients who underwent spinal surgeries. Further studies are needed to assess benefits of using topical vancomycin for this indication vs. the risk of antimicrobial resistance.

No abstract