RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Non-inferiority (NI) trials require unique trial design and methods, which pose challenges in their interpretation and applicability, risking introduction of inferior therapies in clinical practice. With the abundance of novel therapies, NI trials are increasing in publication. Prior studies found inadequate quality of reporting of NI studies, but were limited to certain specialties/journals, lacked NI margin evaluation, and did not examine temporal changes in quality. We conducted a systematic review without restriction to journal type, journal impact factor, disease state or intervention to evaluate the quality of NI trials, including a comprehensive risk of bias assessment and comparison of quality over time. METHODOLOGY: We searched PubMed and Cochrane Library databases for NI trials published in English in 2014 and 2019. They were assessed for: study design and NI margin characteristics, primary results, and risk of bias for blinding, concealment, analysis method and missing outcome data. RESULTS: We included 823 studies. Between 2014 and 2019, a shift from publication in specialty to general journals (15% vs 28%, p < 0.001) and from pharmacological to non-pharmacological interventions (25% vs 38%, p = 0.025) was observed. The NI margin was specified in most trials for both years (94% vs 95%). Rationale for the NI margin increased (36% vs 57%, p < 0.001), but remained low, with clinical judgement the most common rationale (30% vs 23%), but more 2019 articles incorporating patient values (0.3% vs 21%, p < 0.001). Over 50% of studies were open-label for both years. Gold standard method of analyses (both per protocol + (modified) intention to treat) declined over time (43% vs 36%, p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: The methodological quality and reporting of NI trials remains inadequate although improving in some areas. Improved methods for NI margin justification, blinding, and analysis method are warranted to facilitate clinical decision-making.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Low-cost generic programs (LCGPs) that expand access to affordable cardiovascular disease (CVD) medicines can assist patients in achieving desired cardiovascular outcomes. It is important that LCGPs offer CVD medicines that promote evidence-based prescribing. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate LCGPs' coverage of evidence-based CVD medications using a clinical framework that examines coverage of core treatments, coverage of options with the highest-quality evidence, and the variety of medication options and strengths that create choices and allow dosing titration. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Publicly available LCGPs in March and April 2023 in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 19 LCGPs. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of LCGPs that offered evidence-based CVD medicines within a clinical framework for 6 CVDs (atrial fibrillation, heart failure, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, post-acute coronary syndrome secondary prevention, and stable angina) according to 4 availability metrics (breadth, choice, high-quality evidence, and titratability). RESULTS: The availability of CVD medication varied by program, drug, and CVD condition. Some programs had more breadth and choice of coverage for most CVDs (H-E-B, Kroger, Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company, and Walmart), whereas many had more focused coverage and others markedly limited offerings. Nearly all LCGPs offered angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, ß-blockers, thiazides, and moderate-intensity statins, but availability was low for higher-cost or lower-use generics (antiplatelets and antiarrhythmics). Core pharmacotherapy coverage and choices were limited for atrial fibrillation and heart failure but widely available for hypertension and hyperlipidemia. LIMITATION: In-depth cost analysis was not investigated. CONCLUSION: Coverage of evidence-based medications for the 6 CVDs investigated varied by LCGP and condition. Because high availability of core CVD pharmacotherapy can enhance optimal disease state management, LCGPs should identify existing limitations in their coverage and continuously revise their formularies to improve the comprehensiveness of CVD medication coverage. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.