Semin Liver Dis 2018; 38(02): 097-102
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1655777
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Noninferiority Clinical Trials: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Emmanuel Lesaffre
1   L-Biostat School of Public Health, KU Leuven, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
05 June 2018 (online)

Abstract

For decades, the superiority trial has been the most popular design to assess the efficacy of newly developed drugs in a randomized controlled clinical trial. In a superiority trial, the aim is to show that the new (experimental) treatment is better than the standard treatment or placebo. However, it becomes increasingly difficult to improve the efficacy upon that of existing drugs. For this reason, noninferiority designs have been suggested. In a noninferiority study, one aims to show that the experimental treatment does not lower the efficacy of the standard treatment too much, but this loss of efficacy should be compensated by other better properties. In this article, the design, aims, and properties of the superiority and the noninferiority trial are contrasted and illustrated on recently published studies to treat patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The author discusses the reasons why noninferiority studies are becoming popular, but also why the results of noninferiority studies may be difficult to interpret and can be easily misused. Since only a few noninferiority studies in hepatocellular cancer have been organized, also examples from other therapeutic areas were taken. Finally, it is indicated how to appreciate the qualities of published noninferiority studies.

 
  • References

  • 1 Ribeiro de Souza A, Reig M, Bruix J. Systemic treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: the search of new agents to join sorafenib in the effective therapeutic armamentarium. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2016; 17 (14) 1923-1936
  • 2 Zhu AX, Park JO, Ryoo B-Y. , et al; REACH Trial Investigators. Ramucirumab versus placebo as second-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma following first-line therapy with sorafenib (REACH): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16 (07) 859-870
  • 3 Llovet JM, Decaens T, Raoul J-L. , et al. Brivanib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who were intolerant to sorafenib or for whom sorafenib failed: results from the randomized phase III BRISK-PS study. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31 (28) 3509-3516
  • 4 Zhu AX, Kudo M, Assenat E. , et al. Effect of everolimus on survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma after failure of sorafenib: the EVOLVE-1 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014; 312 (01) 57-67
  • 5 Johnson PJ, Qin S, Park J-W. , et al. Brivanib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable, advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: results from the randomized phase III BRISK-FL study. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31 (28) 3517-3524
  • 6 Cainap C, Qin S, Huang W-T. , et al. Linifanib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: results of a randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33 (02) 172-179
  • 7 Kudo M, Finn RS, Qin S. , et al. Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2018; 391 (10126): 1163-1173
  • 8 Spiegelhalter DJ, Freedman LS. A predictive approach to selecting the size of a clinical trial, based on subjective clinical opinion. Stat Med 1986; 5 (01) 1-13
  • 9 Van De Werf F, Adgey J, Ardissino D. , et al; Assessment of the Safety and Efficacy of a New Thrombolytic (ASSENT-2) Investigators. Single-bolus tenecteplase compared with front-loaded alteplase in acute myocardial infarction: the ASSENT-2 double-blind randomised trial. Lancet 1999; 354 (9180): 716-722
  • 10 Lesaffre E, Bluhmki E, Wang-Clow F. , et al. The general concepts of an equivalence trial, applied to ASSENT-2, a large-scale mortality study comparing two fibrinolytic agents in acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2001; 22 (11) 898-902
  • 11 Bingham III CO, Sebba AI, Rubin BR. , et al. Efficacy and safety of etoricoxib 30 mg and celecoxib 200 mg in the treatment of osteoarthritis in two identically designed, randomized, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority studies. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007; 46 (03) 496-507
  • 12 Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJV. , et al; ARISTOTLE Committees and Investigators. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2011; 365 (11) 981-992
  • 13 Moyé LA. Multiple Analyses in Clinical Trials: Fundamentals for Investigators. New York: Springer; 2003
  • 14 Lesaffre E. Use and misuse of the p-value. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2008; 66 (02) 146-149
  • 15 Vilgrain V, Pereira H, Assenat E. , et al; SARAH Trial Group. Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18 (12) 1624-1636
  • 16 Le Henanff A, Giraudeau B, Baron G, Ravaud P. Quality of reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials. JAMA 2006; 295 (10) 1147-1151
  • 17 Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ, Altman DG. ; CONSORT Group. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. JAMA 2012; 308 (24) 2594-2604