Applying the Estimand Framework to Non­Inferiority Trials.

Most published applications of the estimand framework have focused on superiority trials. However, non-inferiority trials present specific challenges compared to superiority trials. The International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use notes in their addendum on estimands and sensitivity analysis in clinical trials that there may be special considerations to the implementation of estimands in clinical trials with a non-inferiority objective yet provides little guidance. This paper discusses considerations that trial teams should make when defining estimands for a clinical trial with a non-inferiority objective. We discuss how the pre-addendum way of establishing non-inferiority can be embraced by the estimand framework including a discussion of the role of the Per Protocol analysis set. We examine what clinical questions of interest can be formulated in the context of non-inferiority trials and outline why we do not think it is sensible to describe an estimand as 'conservative'. The impact of the estimand framework on key considerations in non-inferiority trials such as whether trials should have more than one primary estimand, the choice of non-inferiority margin, assay sensitivity, switching from non-inferiority to superiority and estimation are discussed. We conclude by providing a list of recommendations, and important considerations for defining estimands for trials with a non-inferiority objective.

Switch to fixed-dose ainuovirine, lamivudine, and tenofovir DF versus elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide in virologically suppressed people living with HIV-1: the 48-week results of the SPRINT trial, a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

Background: We compared the efficacy and safety profiles of ainuovirine (ANV), a new-generation non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), with boosted elvitegravir (EVG), both coformulated with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), in people living with HIV-1 (PLWH) who had achieved virological suppression on previous NNRTI-based antiretroviral (ARV) regimen. Methods: This study was a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial recruiting PLWH from 10 clinical centres across China. Main inclusion criteria included age of 18-65 years (inclusive), and stably staying on an ARV regimen combining an NNRTI with a two-drug NRTI backbone for at least 12 months. Eligible participants must have maintained plasma HIV-1 ribonucleic acid (RNA) titre below 50 copies per mL confirmed on two successive tests at an interval of at least one month prior to randomisation. Participants were randomly assigned to receive ANV 150 mg plus lamivudine (3TC) 300 mg, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) 300 mg (ANV/3TC/TDF), or cobicistat (Cobi) 150 mg boosted EVG plus emtricitabine (FTC) 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) 10 mg. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA titre at 50 copies per mL or above at week 48 using the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm, with a non-inferiority margin of 4 percentage points at a two-side 95% confidence level. This trial is active, but not recruiting, and is registered with Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR), number ChiCTR2100051605. Findings: Between October 2021 and February 2022, 923 patients were screened for eligibility, among whom 762 participants were randomized and had received at least one dose of ANV/3TC/TDF (n = 381) or EVG/Cobi/FTC/TAF (n = 381). At week 48, 7 (1.8%) participants on ANV/3TC/TDF and 6 (1.6%) participants on EVG/Cobi/FTC/TAF had plasma HIV-1 RNA titre at 50 copies per mL or above, including missing virological data within the time window (the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, estimated treatment difference [ETD], 0.3%, 95% CI -1.6 to 2.1), establishing the non-inferiority of ANV/3TC/TDF to EVG/Cobi/FTC/TAF. The proportions of participants experiencing at least one treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were comparable between the two arms (97.6% versus 97.6%). A small proportion of participants discontinued study drug due to AEs (0.3% versus 0.3%). Serious AEs occurred in 11 (2.9%) participants on ANV/3TC/TDF and 9 (2.4%) participants on EVG/Cobi/FTC/TAF, respectively, none of which was considered related to study drug at the jurisdiction of the investigator. At week 48, participants on ANV/3TC/TDF showed a significantly less weight gain from baseline compared to those on EVG/Cobi/FTC/TAF (least square mean, 1.16 versus 2.05 kg, ETD -0.90 kg, 95% CI, -1.43 to -0.37). The changes in serum lipids from baseline also favoured ANV/3TC/TDF over EVG/Cobi/FTC/TAF. Interpretation: In virologically suppressed PLWH on previous NNRTI-based ARV regimen, switch to ANV/3TC/TDF resulted in less weight gain, and improved lipid metabolism while maintaining virological suppression non-inferior to that to EVG/Cobi/FTC/TAF. Funding: Jiangsu Aidea Pharmaceutical & the National "Thirteenth Five-year Period" Major Innovative Drugs Research and Development Key Project of the People's Republic of China Ministry of Science and Technology.

Assessment of Noninferiority Margins in Cardiovascular Medicine Trials.

Background: Noninferiority trials are increasingly common in cardiovascular medicine, but their reporting and interpretation are challenging, particularly when an absolute risk difference is used as noninferiority margin. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the effect of using absolute rather than relative noninferiority margins in cardiovascular trials. Methods: We reviewed noninferiority trials presented at major cardiovascular conferences from 2015 to 2022 and published within the same period. Based on the actual versus anticipated event rates in the control group, we recalculated the absolute noninferiority margin and re-assessed the trial results. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of trials with a different interpretation after recalculation. Additionally, we analyzed the conclusion statements of these trials to determine if cautionary notes for the interpretation of study results were included. Results: We analyzed a total of 768 trials, of which 88 had a noninferiority design and 66 used an absolute noninferiority margin. Of 48 comparisons from 45 trials qualifying for the analysis, 11 (22.9%) had divergent results after recalculation of the absolute noninferiority margin based on the observed rather than anticipated event rate. Ten trials originally claiming noninferiority, did not meet it after the margin recalculation. All of them did not include statements suggesting cautionary interpretation of the study results in the conclusion section. Compared with the other trials, these displayed a larger median difference between anticipated and recalculated noninferiority margins (44.7% [IQR: 38.6%-56.7%] vs 15.3% [IQR: -1.5% to 28.9%]; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Recalculating noninferiority margins based on actual event rates, rather than anticipated ones, led to different outcomes in approximately 1 out of 4 cardiovascular trials, with most divergent trials lacking cautionary interpretation. These findings emphasize the importance of using or supplementing the relative noninferiority margin, particularly in studies with significant deviations between observed and expected event rates. This underscores the critical need for enhanced methodological and reporting standards in noninferiority trials, especially those employing absolute margins.

Outcome of a 3-day vs 7-day selective digestive tract decontamination-based regimen for oral antibiotic bowel decontamination in left-sided colorectal surgery: A noninferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal surgery still experiences high rates of infectious complications, such as anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infections (SSIs). Therefore, oral antibiotic bowel decontamination (OABD) has experienced a renaissance. However, data on perioperative selective digestive tract decontamination (SDD)-based regimens or combined bowel preparation are inconsistent. Nonetheless, with widespread use of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery concepts, the ideal length for perioperative SDD treatment has to be reconsidered. METHODS: Perioperative outcome was analyzed in a cohort of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer in a retrospective study. Additional to usual perioperative outcome measures, including AL, SSIs, and overall infectious complications, the efficacy of a shortened 3-day perioperative OABD treatment was compared with the efficacy of a 7-day perioperative OABD treatment based on a noninferiority analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 256 patients were included into analysis, of whom 84 and 172 patients were treated by 3-day and 7-day perioperative OABD regimens, respectively. AL occurred in 1.2% of patients in the 3-day group and 5.2% of patients in the 7-day group, and SSIs occurred in 3.6% of patients in the 3-day group and 5.8% of patients in the 7-day group, without significant difference. The shortened 3-day perioperative SDD-based regimen was noninferior to the regular 7-day perioperative SDD-based regimen concerning the rates of AL, SSIs, and infectious complications. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrated noninferiority of a shortened 3-day SDD-based treatment vs a 7-day SDD-based treatment for AL, SSIs, and overall infectious complications.

Comparison of a Supervised Home-Based Tele-Rehabilitation with Center-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation: Protocol for a Randomized Non-Inferiority Multicenter Study in Ningxia.

Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an effective intervention for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, fewer than 5% of eligible individuals receive pulmonary rehabilitation, largely due to limited by the accessibility of rehabilitation and difficulties associated with travel and transport. Supervised home-based tele-rehabilitation (SHTR) is an alternative model to center-based pulmonary rehabilitation. We will determine whether supervised home-based tele-rehabilitation is non-inferior to center-based pulmonary rehabilitation. Methods: The participants will undergo an 8-week rehabilitation program. Pulmonary rehabilitation comprises four main modules: exercise training, education, nutritional support, and psychological and behavioral interventions. We mainly focus on the module of exercise training and education. The education module includes information on exercise training, nutrition, and psychology, which are presented in an educational booklet provided to each participant. Blinded assessors will evaluate the outcomes at baseline, post-intervention, and 6 months after the intervention. The primary outcome is the change in the 6-minute walking distance. Secondary outcomes will assess changes in the patients' 1-minute sit-to-stand test, maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP), scales (CAT, mMRC, HAD), diaphragm ultrasound (TD, DE, DIF), changes in extrathoracic muscle volume and mass, completion rate of patient exercise prescriptions, occurrence of adverse events, as well as disease exacerbation and rehospitalization rates after rehabilitation and during the 6-month follow-up. Discussion: In order to improve the accessibility of pulmonary rehabilitation and patient-related outcomes, it is necessary to propose an alternative model of pulmonary rehabilitation. This trial will establish whether a supervised home-based tele-rehabilitation is not inferior to traditional center-based pulmonary rehabilitation. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2300076969. Registered on October 25, 2023.

Evaluating the Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) and Response Adjusted for Duration of Antibiotic Risk (RADAR) for Clinical Trials of Antibiotics in Pediatric Pneumonia.

Objective outcomes for pediatric community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are lacking. The desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) and response adjusted for duration of antibiotic risk (RADAR) outcome encompass clinical benefit and adverse effects, while also accounting for antibiotic exposure. We evaluated DOOR/RADAR through simulations and compared sample size considerations to non-inferiority designs in a hypothetical trial comparing antibiotics to no antibiotics (i.e., placebo) for children with mild CAP. We also evaluated a trial comparing different durations of antibiotics. Three scenarios were considered - one with no difference in DOOR between the two groups, one in which placebo is more efficacious, and another in which amoxicillin is more efficacious than placebo. Power to detect a difference between arms was greater using DOOR/RADAR compared to DOOR. Assuming a sample size of 200, DOOR had 2.5%, 50%, and 65% power to detect a statistical difference between arms for Scenarios 1-3, respectively, significantly less than DOOR/RADAR. Importantly, DOOR/RADAR incorrectly identified placebo as superior in Scenario 3 where amoxicillin was truly efficacious. Sample size requirements for non-inferiority designs were larger to achieve similar levels of power as DOOR and DOOR/RADAR. DOOR/RADAR has the potential to lead to an incorrect conclusion declaring placebo superior when amoxicillin is efficacious.

Stacked generalization as a computational method for the genomic selection.

As genomic selection emerges as a promising breeding method for both plants and animals, numerous methods have been introduced and applied to various real and simulated data sets. Research suggests that no single method is universally better than others; rather, performance is highly dependent on the characteristics of the data and the nature of the prediction task. This implies that each method has its strengths and weaknesses. In this study, we exploit this notion and propose a different approach. Rather than comparing multiple methods to determine the best one for a particular study, we advocate combining multiple methods to achieve better performance than each method in isolation. In pursuit of this goal, we introduce and develop a computational method of the stacked generalization within ensemble methods. In this method, the meta-model merges predictions from multiple base models to achieve improved performance. We applied this method to plant and animal data and compared its performance with currently available methods using standard performance metrics. We found that the proposed method yielded a lower or comparable mean squared error in predicting phenotypes compared to the current methods. In addition, the proposed method showed greater resistance to overfitting compared to the current methods. Further analysis included statistical hypothesis testing, which showed that the proposed method outperformed or matched the current methods. In summary, the proposed stacked generalization integrates currently available methods to achieve stable and better performance. In this context, our study provides general recommendations for effective practices in genomic selection.

Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women: Partitioning Misclassifications by Proxy Data Collection Methods using Weighed Food Records as the Reference in Ethiopia.

Background: Nonquantitative list-based or open 24-h recalls (24-HRs) have been shown to overestimate the prevalence of Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD-W), as compared with direct quantitative observations. However, the main sources of error are unknown. Objectives: To assess the measurement agreement of proxy data collection methods for MDD-W, as compared with weighed food records (WFRs). Methods: Applying a noninferiority design, data were collected from 431 nonpregnant females in Ethiopia. MDD-W estimates from both proxy data collection methods were compared with the WFR prevalence by McNemar's chi-square tests, Cohen's Kappa, and receiver operator characteristic analyses. Ten-point food group diversity scores (FGDS) were compared by Bland-Altman plots, Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests, and weighted Kappa. Food group misclassifications were partitioned into errors related to respondent biases or the questionnaire development. Results: List-based and open 24-HRs overreported MDD-W by 8 and 4 percentage points, respectively, as compared with WFR (objective MDD-W prevalence: 8%). Furthermore, list-based 24-HRs overestimated FGDS by 0.4 points (limits of agreement [LOA]: -1.1, 2.0), whereas open 24-HRs led to a 0.3 point (LOA: -1.2, 1.7) overestimate. Food groups most likely to be misreported using proxy data collection methods were "pulses," "nuts and seeds," "dairy products," and "other fruits." Underreporting of consumption occurred among <4% of females for all food groups. Furthermore, respondent biases were the predominant cause of food group overreporting, except for the "pulses" and "other vegetables" food groups, where food items incorrectly included on the food list were the main source of errors. Conclusions: Food group consumption misclassifications by proxy data collection methods were mainly attributable to females overreporting consumption because of respondent biases or the criterion for foods to be counted, rather than the suboptimal development of the food list in Ethiopia. To obtain precise and accurate MDD-W estimates at the (sub)national level, rigorous context-specific food list development, questionnaire pilot testing, and enumerator training are recommended to mitigate identified biases.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Study in India for Comparing Efficacy, Safety, and PK of ZRC-3277 (Pertuzumab Biosimilar) With Perjeta® in Patients With HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity of ZRC-3277 (pertuzumab biosimilar) with Perjeta® (pertuzumab) in previously untreated patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase III, multicenter, double-blind study across 38 sites in India randomized (1:1) patients with HER2-positive MBC in either the ZRC-3277 or Perjeta® group. Both groups also received trastuzumab and docetaxel. Of 268 enrolled patients, mITT population had 243 patients (119 and 124 in the ZRC-3277 and Perjeta® groups, respectively). The primary objective was to compare the between-group objective response rate (ORR) after 6 cycles of treatment. ORR was determined by evaluating scans of computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging following Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (RECIST 1.1). Two-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the difference in ORR was determined to evaluate the noninferiority of ZRC-3277 to Perjeta®. The secondary outcomes included the assessment of PK, immunogenicity, and safety between the 2 groups. RESULTS: In the mITT population, 104 (87.39%) and 114 (91.94%) participants achieved the ORR in the ZRC-3277 and Perjeta® groups, respectively. For predefined -15% noninferiority margin, obtained 2-sided 95% CIs (-12.19%, 3.11%) for the difference in ORR (-4.55%) between the 2 groups demonstrated the noninferiority of ZRC-3277 to Perjeta®. PK, immunogenicity, and safety were not significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Efficacy, PK, immunogenicity, and safety profiles of ZRC-3277 was found to be similar to those of Perjeta®.

Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has been endorsed by clinical guidelines for colon cancer, but not for rectal cancer on account of unapproved oncologic equivalence with open surgery. AIMS: We started this largest-to-date meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopy in the treatment of rectal cancer compared with open surgery. MATERIALS & METHODS: Both randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic proctectomy and open surgery between January 1990 and March 2020 were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase Databases (PROSPERO registration number CRD42020211718). The data of intraoperative, pathological, postoperative and survival outcomes were compared between two groups. RESULTS: Twenty RCTs and 93 NRCTs including 216,615 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with 48,888 patients received laparoscopic surgery and 167,727 patients underwent open surgery. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery group showed faster recovery, less complications and decreased mortality within 30 days. The positive rate of circumferential margin (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.85, p < 0.0001) and distal margin (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.85 p < 0.0001) was significantly reduced in the laparoscopic surgery group, but the completeness of total mesorectal excision showed no significant difference. The 3-year and 5-year local recurrence, disease-free survival and overall survival were all improved in the laparoscopic surgery group, while the distal recurrence did not differ significantly between the two approaches. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer with respect to oncological outcomes and long-term survival. Moreover, laparoscopic surgery provides short-term advantages, including faster recovery and less complications.

Efficacy and safety of cytisine versus nortriptyline for smoking cessation: A multicentre, randomized, double-blinded and placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Cytisine serves as an affordable smoking cessation aid with acceptable safety profile. However, data comparing its efficacy and safety to standard therapies are limited. We aimed to examine efficacy and safety of cytisine compared to nortriptyline, which is the only approved smoking-cessation medication in Thailand. METHODS: A 12-month, multicentre, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted. Participants aged ≥20 years who smoked ≥10 cigarettes/day were randomly assigned to receive a 25-day cytisine or a 12-week nortriptyline treatment course. Brief interventions (BI) for smoking cessation were provided to all participants. The primary outcome was biochemically verified continuous abstinence rate (CAR) at 12 months. Additionally, self-reported abstinence, verified by exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) ≤ 10 ppm, was collected at 2 weeks, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months to assess both CAR and 7-day point prevalence abstinence rate (PAR). RESULTS: A total of 1086 participants were recruited and randomized into cytisine (n = 540) and nortriptyline (n = 546) groups. The 12-month CAR was 12.22% for cytisine and 9.52% for nortriptyline. The relative difference was 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]; -0.01 to 0.06) and the relative risk was 1.28 (95% CI; 0.91-1.81). No differences were observed in secondary outcomes between both groups. The incidence of adverse effects from cytisine appeared to be lower than that of nortriptyline. CONCLUSION: At 12 months, cytisine plus BI was as effective as nortriptyline plus BI for smoking cessation. The adverse events for both cytisine and nortriptyline were minimal and well-tolerated.

Non-Inferiority Trials: A Systematic Review on Methodological Quality and Reporting Standards.

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.

Key insights and challeneges in noninferiority trials.

Noninferiority clinical trials are crucial for evaluating the effectiveness of new interventions compared to standard interventions. By establishing statistical and clinical comparability, these trials can be conducted to demonstrate that a new intervention is not significantly inferior to the standard intervention. However, selecting appropriate noninferiority margins and study designs are essential to ensuring valid and reliable results. Moreover, employing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement for reporting noninferiority clinical trials enhances the quality and transparency of research findings. This article addresses key considerations and challenges faced by investigators in planning, conducting, and interpreting the results of noninferiority clinical trials.

The Philosophy of Surgical Success and Outcomes of Cartiva Versus Fusion.

Noninferiority studies in surgery are, by their very nature, reductionist. They use multiple variables to generate a yes or no answer about the new device being tested. A binary outcome is appropriate for a regulatory agency such as the Food and Drug Administration, but the clinical situation is more nuanced. It is critical to understand the underlying philosophies and choices that go into trial design when a surgeon is recommending a new device. In the case of Cartiva, any of 3 reasonable alternative means of defining surgical success would have altered the final outcome of the MOTION trial. Additionally, using a more rigorous noninferiority margin rather than adding an additional cushion based upon the argument that motion alone had extra inherent value would have also led to failure of the trial to demonstrate noninferiority.

Investigating non-inferiority of internet-delivered versus face-to-face cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I): a randomised controlled trial (iSleep well).

BACKGROUND: Insomnia is a highly prevalent disorder associated with numerous adverse health outcomes. Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is recommended as first-line treatment by clinical guidelines but is accessible to only a minority of patients suffering from insomnia. Internet-delivered CBT-I (iCBT-I) could contribute to the widespread dissemination of this first-line treatment. As there is insufficient evidence regarding non-inferiority, this study directly aims to compare therapist-guided internet-delivered versus face-to-face CBT-I in terms of insomnia severity post-treatment. Furthermore, a health-economic evaluation will be conducted, and potential benefits and disadvantages of therapist-guided iCBT-I will be examined. METHODS: This study protocol describes a randomised controlled two-arm parallel-group non-inferiority trial comparing therapist-guided iCBT-I with face-to-face CBT-I in routine clinical care. A total of 422 patients with insomnia disorder will be randomised and treated at 16 study centres throughout Germany. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 10 weeks after randomisation (post), and 6 months after randomisation (follow-up). The primary outcome is insomnia severity measured using the Insomnia Severity Index. Secondary outcomes include depression-related symptoms, quality of life, fatigue, physical activity, daylight exposure, adverse events related to treatment, and a health-economic evaluation. Finally, potential moderator variables and several descriptive and exploratory outcomes will be assessed (e.g. benefits and disadvantages of internet-delivered treatment). DISCUSSION: The widespread implementation of CBT-I is a significant healthcare challenge. The non-inferiority of therapist-guided iCBT-I versus face-to-face CBT-I will be investigated in an adequately powered sample in routine clinical care, with the same therapeutic content and same level of therapist qualifications provided with both interventions. If this trial demonstrates the non-inferiority of therapist-guided iCBT-I, healthcare providers may be more confident recommending this treatment to their patients, contributing to the wider dissemination of CBT-I. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number in the German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00028153 ( https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00028153 ). Registered on 16th May 2023.

A phase 3 non-inferiority trial of locally manufactured Meningococcal ACWY vaccine 'Ingovax ACWY' among Bangladeshi adults.

Meningococcal disease is caused by Neisseria meningitidis or meningococcus. Every year globally around 1.2 million people are affected and approximately 120,000 deaths occur due to meningitis. The disease can be prevented by a single dose of meningococcal vaccine. We carried out a randomized observer-blinded non-inferiority trial to evaluate and compare the immunogenicity and safety of a local meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine 'Ingovax ACWY' (test) with Quadri MeningoTM (comparator), an approved meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine in India. A total of 88 healthy adults (18-45 years old) were randomized at a 1:1 ratio in two vaccine groups receiving a single dose vaccine subcutaneously. All participants were followed until three months post-vaccination. Blood for clinical parameters (hematology and biochemistry) and serum bactericidal assay (SBA) was collected prior to vaccination and one-month post-vaccination. Solicited adverse events (AEs) were assessed up to 6 days following vaccination and unsolicited AEs were monitored throughout the follow-up period. There was no significant difference in rates of AE between the two groups. The commonest solicited AE was injection site pain. No serious AEs were reported. There was no significant difference (p<0.05) in seroconversion rate as well as pre and post-vaccination SBA geometric mean titers (GMT)between test and comparator vaccine. The post-vaccination GMT ratio (GMR) of the test and comparator vaccine was found to be 0.9, 1, 1.29, and 0.85 for serogroup A, C, W135, and Y respectively. For all the serogroups, lower limit of 95% CI of the GMR was found to be greater than the pre-defined 0.5 non-inferiority margin suggesting that Ingovax ACWY is similar to Quadri MeningoTM vaccine. We observed the immunogenicity and safety of Ingovax ACWY is non-inferior to comparator vaccine. The development of facilities for manufacturing polysaccharide ACWY vaccines locally will further lead to capacity building in the field of vaccines for Bangladesh.

Caffeic acid phenethyl ester derivative exerts remarkable anti-hepatocellular carcinoma effect, non-inferior to sorafenib, in vivo analysis.

Caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE) and its derivatives exhibit considerable effects against hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with unquestioned safety. Here we investigated CAPE derivative 1' (CAPE 1') monotherapy to HCC, compared with sorafenib. HCC Bel-7402 cells were treated with CAPE 1', the IC50 was detected using CCK-8 analysis, and acute toxicity testing (5 g/kg) was performed to evaluate safety. In vivo, tumor growth after CAPE 1' treatment was evaluated using an subcutaneous tumor xenograft model. Five groups were examined, with group 1 given vehicle solution, groups 2, 3, and 4 given CAPE 1' (20, 50, and 100 mg/kg/day, respectively), and group 5 given sorafenib (30 mg/kg/day). Tumor volume growth and tumor volume-to-weight ratio were calculated and statistically analyzed. An estimated IC50 was 5.6 µM. Acute toxicity tests revealed no animal death or visible adverse effects with dosage up to 5 g/kg. Compared to negative controls, CAPE 1' treatment led to significantly slower increases of tumor volume and tumor volume-to-weight. CAPE 1' and sorafenib exerted similar inhibitory effects on HCC tumors. CAPE 1' was non-inferior to sorafenib for HCC treatment, both in vitro and in vivo. It has great potential as a promising drug for HCC, based on effectiveness and safety profile.

Non-operative management of uncomplicated appendicitis in children: a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority study evaluating safety and efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Appendicitis is the commonest paediatric surgical emergency. Adult studies suggest non-operative management (NOM) may have a place in care. There have been no adequately powered randomized controlled trials in children. OBJECTIVE: to determine the safety and efficacy of NOM for paediatric simple appendicitis. METHODS: A non-inferiority randomized controlled trial was conducted comparing operative (OM) to NOM of SA in children aged five-15 years. Primary outcome was treatment success (no unplanned or unnecessary operation, or complication) at 30 days and 12 months, with a non-inferiority margin of 15%. (anzctr.org.au: ACTRN12616000788471). RESULTS: From 11 June 2016 to 30 November 2020, 222 children were randomized: 94 (42.34%) to OM and 128 (57.66%) to NOM. Non-inferiority of NOM was not demonstrated at either time point, with 45.67% of NOM patients subsequently undergoing operation. There was no significant difference in complications. CONCLUSIONS: While noninferiority was not shown, NOM was safe, with no difference in adverse outcomes between the two groups. Further research to refine the place of NOM of simple appendicitis in children is required, including nuanced patient selection, longer term evaluation, the place of choice, and the acceptability of the treatment for children and their carers.