Are the tests overpowered or underpowered? A unified solution to correctly specify type I errors in design of clinical trials for two sample proportions.

As one of the most commonly used data types, methods in testing or designing a trial for binary endpoints from two independent populations are still being developed until recently. However, the power and the minimum required sample size comparisons between different tests may not be valid if their type I errors are not controlled at the same level. In this article, we unify all related testing procedures into a decision framework, including both frequentist and Bayesian methods. Sufficient conditions of the type I error attained at the boundary of hypotheses are derived, which help reduce the magnitude of the exact calculations and lay out a foundation for developing computational algorithms to correctly specify the actual type I error. The efficient algorithms are thus proposed to calculate the cutoff value in a deterministic decision rule and the probability value in a randomized decision rule, such that the actual type I error is under but closest to, or equal to, the intended level, respectively. The algorithm may also be used to calculate the sample size to achieve the prespecified type I error and power. The usefulness of the proposed methodology is further demonstrated in the power calculation for designing superiority and noninferiority trials.

Noninferiority trials in acute pain research: a valid approach or a slippery slope?

The conduct and reporting of studies with a noninferiority hypothesis is challenging because of the complexity involved in their design and interpretation. However, studies with a noninferiority design have increased in popularity. A recently published trial reported on the noninferiority of lidocaine infusion to epidural analgesia in major abdominal surgeries. Apart from needing a critical appraisal, this draws attention to improve our understanding of noninferiority study framework and its unique features. Given the increasing focus on using various analgesic adjuncts and multiple approaches to fascial plane blocks to avoid more definitive and standard approaches, it is imperative that particular attention is paid to appropriate execution and reporting of noninferiority studies.

Unresolved issues with noninferiority pragmatic trials: Results of a literature survey.

BACKGROUND: Issues with specification of margins, adherence, and analytic population can potentially bias results toward the alternative in randomized noninferiority pragmatic trials. To investigate this potential for bias, we conducted a targeted search of the medical literature to examine how noninferiority pragmatic trials address these issues. METHODS: An Ovid MEDLINE database search was performed identifying publications in New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, or British Medical Journal published between 2015 and 2021 that included the words "pragmatic" or "comparative effectiveness" and "noninferiority" or "non-inferiority." Our search identified 14 potential trials, 12 meeting our inclusion criteria (11 individually randomized, 1 cluster-randomized). RESULTS: Eleven trials had results that met the criteria established for noninferiority. Noninferiority margins were prespecified for all trials; all but two trials provided justification of the margin. Most trials did some monitoring of treatment adherence. All trials conducted intent-to-treat or modified intent-to-treat analyses along with per-protocol analyses and these analyses reached similar conclusions. Only two trials included all randomized participants in the primary analysis, one used multiple imputation for missing data. The percentage excluded from primary analyses ranged from ∼2% to 30%. Reasons for exclusion included randomization in error, nonadherence, not receiving assigned treatment, death, withdrawal, lost to follow-up, and incomplete data. CONCLUSION: Specification of margins, adherence, and analytic population require careful consideration to prevent bias toward the alternative in noninferiority pragmatic trials. Although separate guidance has been developed for noninferiority and pragmatic trials, it is not compatible with conducting a noninferiority pragmatic trial. Hence, these trials should probably not be done in their current format without developing new guidelines.

Methodological and Reporting Quality of Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Antiretroviral Therapies: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the reporting quality of antiretroviral (ARV) noninferiority (NI) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has improved since the CONSORT guideline release in 2006. The primary objective of this systematic review was assessing the methodological and reporting quality of ARV NI-RCTs. We also assessed reporting quality by funding source and publication year. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central from inception to 14 November 2022. We included NI-RCTs comparing ≥2 ARV regimens used for human immunodeficiency virus treatment or prophylaxis. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool to assess risk of bias. Screening and data extraction were performed blinded and in duplicate. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data; statistical tests were 2 sided, with significance defined as P < .05. The systematic review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42022328586), and not funded. RESULTS: We included 160 articles reporting 171 trials. Of these articles, 101 (63.1%) did not justify the NI margin used, and 28 (17.5%) did not provide sufficient information for sample size calculation. Eighty-nine of 160 (55.6%) reported both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, while 118 (73.8%) described missing data handling. Ten of 171 trials (5.9%) reported potentially misleading results. Pharmaceutical industry-funded trials were more likely to be double-blinded (28.1% vs 10.3%; P = .03) and to describe missing data handling (78.5% vs 59.0%; P = .02). The overall risk of bias was low in 96 of 160 studies (60.0%). CONCLUSIONS: ARV NI-RCTs should improve NI margin justification, reporting of intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, and missing data handling to increase CONSORT adherence.

artbin: Extended sample size for randomized trials with binary outcomes.

We describe the command artbin, which offers various new facilities for the calculation of sample size for binary outcome variables that are not otherwise available in Stata. While artbin has been available since 2004, it has not been previously described in the Stata Journal. artbin has been recently updated to include new options for different statistical tests, methods and study designs, improved syntax, and better handling of noninferiority trials. In this article, we describe the updated version of artbin and detail the various formulas used within artbin in different settings.

artcat: Sample-size calculation for an ordered categorical outcome.

We describe a new command, artcat, that calculates sample size or power for a randomized controlled trial or similar experiment with an ordered categorical outcome, where analysis is by the proportional-odds model. artcat implements the method of Whitehead (1993, Statistics in Medicine 12: 2257-2271). We also propose and implement a new method that 1) allows the user to specify a treatment effect that does not obey the proportional-odds assumption, 2) offers greater accuracy for large treatment effects, and 3) allows for noninferiority trials. We illustrate the command and explore the value of an ordered categorical outcome over a binary outcome in various settings. We show by simulation that the methods perform well and that the new method is more accurate than Whitehead's method.

Dialyzer Performance During Hemodialysis Without Systemic Anticoagulation Using a Heparin-Grafted Dialyzer Combined With a Citrate-Enriched Dialysate: Results of the Randomized Crossover Noninferiority EvoCit Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: The EvoCit study was designed to evaluate performance of a heparin-grafted dialyzer during hemodialysis with and without systemic anticoagulation. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, crossover, noninferiority trial. Noninferiority was defined as a difference of≤10% for the primary outcome. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Single hemodialysis center; 26 prevalent patients treated with 617 hemodialysis sessions. INTERVENTIONS: Hemodialysis using a heparin-grafted dialyzer combined with a 1.0mmol/L citrate-enriched dialysate ("EvoCit") without systemic anticoagulation compared with hemodialysis performed with a heparin-grafted dialyzer with systemic heparin ("EvoHep"). Patients were randomly allocated to a first period of 4 weeks and crossed over to the alternative strategy for a second period of 4 weeks. OUTCOMES: The primary end point was the difference in Kt/Vurea between EvoCit and EvoHep. Secondary end points were urea reduction ratio, middle molecule removal, treatment time, thrombin generation, and reduction in dialyzer blood compartment volume. RESULTS: The estimated difference in Kt/Vurea between EvoCit and EvoHep was-0.03 (95% CI, -0.06 to-0.007), establishing noninferiority with mean Kt/Vurea of 1.47±0.05 (SE) for EvoCit and 1.50±0.05 for EvoHep. Noninferiority was also established for reduction ratios of urea and ß2-microglobulin. Premature discontinuation of dialysis was required for 4.2% of sessions among 6 patients during EvoCit and no sessions during EvoHep. Effective treatment time was 236±5 minutes for EvoCit and 238±1 minutes for EvoHep. Thrombin generation was increased and there was greater reduction in dialyzer blood compartment volume after treatments with EvoCit compared with EvoHep. LIMITATIONS: The effects of avoiding systemic anticoagulation on clinical outcomes were not evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: EvoCit is noninferior to EvoHep with respect to solute clearance but results in a greater number of shortened treatments, more membrane clotting, and greater thrombin generation TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT03887468.

An investigation of the constancy of effect in Cochrane systematic reviews in context with the assumptions for noninferiority trials.

When designing a noninferiority (NI) study one of the most important steps is to set the noninferiority (NI) limit. The NI limit is an acceptable loss of efficacy for a new investigative treatment compared to an active control treatment - often standard care. The limit should be a value so small that the loss efficacy is clinically zero. An approach to the setting of a noninferiority limit such that an effect over placebo can be shown through an indirect comparison to placebo-controlled trials where the active control treatment was compared to placebo. In this context, the setting of the NI limit depends on three assumptions: assay sensitivity, bias minimisation, and the constancy assumption. The last assumption of constancy assumes the effect of the active control over placebo is constant. This paper aims to assess the constancy assumption in placebo-controlled trials. METHODS: 236 Cochrane reviews of placebo-controlled trials published in 2015-2016 were collected and used to assess the relation between the placebo, active treatment, and the standardised treatment different (SMD) with the time (year of publication). RESULTS: The analysis showed that both the size of the study and the treatment effect were associated with year of publication. The three main variables that affect the estimate of any future trial are the estimate from the meta-analysis of previous trials prior to the trial, the year difference in the meta-analysis, and the year of the trial conduction. The regression analysis showed that an increase of one unit in the point estimate of the historical meta-analysis would lead to an increase in the predicted estimate of future trial on the SMD scale by 0.88. This result suggests the final trial results are 12% smaller than that from the meta-analysis of trials until that point. CONCLUSION: The result of this study indicates that assuming constancy of the treatment difference between the active control and placebo can be questioned. It is therefore important to consider the effect of time in estimating the treatment response if indirect comparisons are being used as the basis of a NI limit.

Head down tilt 15° in experimental intracerebral hemorrhage: a randomized noninferiority safety trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Head down tilt 15° (HDT15°), applied before recanalization, increases collateral flow and improves outcome in experimental ischemic stroke. For its simplicity and low cost, HDT15° holds considerable potential to be developed as an emergency treatment of acute stroke in the prehospital setting, where hemorrhagic stroke is the major mimic of ischemic stroke. In this study, we assessed safety of HDT15° in the acute phase of experimental intracerebral hemorrhage. METHODS: Intracerebral hemorrhage was produced by stereotaxic injection of collagenase in Wistar rats. A randomized noninferiority trial design was used to assign rats to HDT15° or flat position (n = 64). HDT15° was applied for 1 h during the time window of hematoma expansion. The primary outcome was hematoma volume at 24 h. Secondary outcomes were mass effect, mortality, and functional deficit in the main study and acute changes of intracranial pressure, hematoma growth, and cardiorespiratory parameters in separate sets of randomized animals (n = 32). RESULTS: HDT15° achieved the specified criteria of noninferiority for hematoma volume at 24 h. Mass effect, mortality, and functional deficit at 24 h showed no difference in the two groups. HDT15° induced a mild increase in intracranial pressure with respect to the pretreatment values (+2.91 ± 1.76 mmHg). HDT15° had a neutral effect on MRI-based analysis of hematoma growth and cardiorespiratory parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Application of HDT15° in the hyperacute phase of experimental intracerebral hemorrhage does not worsen early outcome. Further research is needed to implement HDT15° as an emergency collateral therapeutic for acute stroke.

The levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the costs and non-inferiority of a strategy starting with the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) compared with endometrial ablation (EA) in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective alongside a multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial. SETTING: General practices and gynaecology departments in the Netherlands. POPULATION: In all, 270 women with HMB, aged ≥34 years old, without intracavitary pathology or wish for a future child. METHODS: Randomisation to a strategy starting with the LNG-IUS (n = 132) or EA (n = 138). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct medical costs and (in)direct non-medical costs were calculated. The primary outcome was menstrual blood loss after 24 months, measured with the mean Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart (PBAC)-score (non-inferiority margin 25 points). A secondary outcome was successful blood loss reduction (PBAC-score ≤75 points). RESULTS: Total costs per patient were €2,285 in the LNG-IUS strategy and €3,465 in the EA strategy (difference: €1,180). At 24 months, mean PBAC-scores were 64.8 in the LNG-IUS group (n = 115) and 14.2 in the EA group (n = 132); difference 50.5 points (95% CI 4.3-96.7). In the LNG-IUS group, 87% of women had a PBAC-score ≤75 points versus 94% in the EA group (relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.85-1.01). The ICER was €23 (95% CI €5-111) per PBAC-point. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy starting with the LNG-IUS was cheaper than starting with EA, but non-inferiority could not be demonstrated. The LNG-IUS is reversible and less invasive and can be a cost-effective treatment option, depending on the success rate women are willing to accept. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding starting with LNG-IUS is cheaper but slightly less effective than endometrial ablation.

Imbalanced randomization in clinical trials.

Randomization is a common technique used in clinical trials to eliminate potential bias and confounders in a patient population. Equal allocation to treatment groups is the standard due to its optimal efficiency in many cases. However, in certain scenarios, unequal allocation can improve efficiency. In superiority trials with more than two groups, the optimal randomization is not always a balanced randomization. In noninferiority (NI) trials, additive margin with equal variance is the http://www.statlab.wisc.edu/shiny/SSNI/.

Score confidence intervals and sample sizes for stratified comparisons of binomial proportions.

In a series of articles, Gart and Nam construct the efficient score tests and confidence intervals with or without skewness correction for stratified comparisons of binomial proportions on the risk difference, relative risk, and odds ratio effect metrics. However, the stratified score methods and their properties are not well understood. We rederive the efficient score tests, which reveals their theoretical relationship with the contrast-based score tests, and provides a basis for adapting the method by using other weighting schemes. The inverse variance weight is optimal for a common treatment effect in large samples. We explore the behavior of the score approach in the presence of extreme outcomes when either no or all subjects in some strata are responders, and provide guidance on the choice of weights in the analysis of rare events. The score method is recommended for studies with a small number of moderate or large sized strata. A general framework is proposed to calculate the asymptotic power and sample size for the score test in superiority, noninferiority and equivalence clinical trials, or case-control studies. We also describe a nearly exact procedure that underestimates the exact power, but the degree of underestimation can be controlled to a negligible level. The proposed methods are illustrated by numerical examples.

Noninferiority study evaluating the efficacy of a teat disinfectant containing copper and zinc for prevention of naturally occurring intramammary infections in an automatic milking system.

The aim of this study was to demonstrate the noninferiority of a novel teat disinfectant based on copper and zinc (ZkinCu; Copper Andino, Santiago de Chile, Chile) compared with a previously proven glycolic acid active disinfectant (OceanBlu; DeLaval, Kansas City, MO) as a positive control, with respect to the incidence of new intramammary infections under natural challenge conditions on a commercial robotic dairy farm. This study was conducted in 6 robotic pens of approximately 60 milking cows each. The pens were randomly assigned to 1 of the 2 studied disinfectants. Throughout the 8 wk study, the same pre- and post-milking teat disinfectant was used in each pen. The same milking procedures were used in each robot throughout the study. Pre-milking hygiene consisted of applying the disinfectant (OceanBlu or ZkinCu) with the robotic arm. The same product was applied on the teats after milking. At the beginning of the study, all quarters of all study cows were sampled. In successive samplings (wk 2, 4, 6, and 8), composite milk samples were collected on farm to determine SCC. Once composite SCC results were available (2 d) and based on an SCC of ≥100,000 cells/mL, quarter milk samples underwent bacteriological culture. Clinical mastitis was identified by study personnel. Intramammary infection in biweekly quarter milk samples was determined based on composite SCC levels (≥100,000 cells/mL) and the presence of bacteria. A new IMI was defined as a quarter in which the organism isolated was not present in the previous bacteriological sample, or the previous composite SCC sample was <100,000 cells/mL. Clinical mastitis samples were also considered to be new IMI. The trial was designed as a positive control field trial, in which the objective was to show noninferiority of ZkinCu versus the control (OceanBlu). The overall crude incidences of new IMI for 2 wk at risk were 4.9 and 7.3% for the ZkinCu and OceanBlu groups, respectively. The predominant organisms recovered from quarters with new IMI were Streptococcus uberis, Corynebacterium spp., and coagulase-negative staphylococci in both the ZkinCu and OceanBlu groups. The risk of infection in the OceanBlu group was higher (ß = 0.644; 95% confidence interval = 0.05-1.22). The interaction of treatment by week was not significant. The new IMI rate estimates (95% confidence interval) for ZkinCu and OceanBlu were 1.7% (0.8-2.5) and 3.2% (1.7-4.7), respectively. One novel aspect of this study is that it was one of the first commercial noninferiority trials to evaluate a new pre- and post-milking teat disinfectant in a dairy herd with an automatic milking system. The experimental teat disinfectant ZkinCu, evaluated in this field trial with naturally occurring IMI, showed noninferiority relative to the positive control for the prevention of new IMI. This study was conducted in a herd with an automatic milking system, and the results are applicable to herds with similar characteristics. Additional studies are needed to ensure reproducibility under different management conditions.

Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Cefoperazone-Sulbactam versus Cefepime in the Treatment of Hospital-Acquired and Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia.

Cefoperazone, a third-generation cephamycin with broad-spectrum antibacterial activity and the ability to permeate bacterial cell membranes, is active against commonly encountered multidrug-resistant pathogens for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and health care-associated pneumonia (HCAP). To clarify the clinical effects of cefoperazone-sulbactam in the treatment of HAP and HCAP, we conducted an open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial that recruited patients aged ≥18 years suffering HAP/HCAP. Participants were randomly assigned to the cefoperazone-sulbactam (2 g of each per 12 h) or cefepime (2 g per 12 h) arm. Clinical and microbiological responses were evaluated at early posttherapy and test-of-cure visits. Recruited patients were allocated to subpopulations for intent-to-treat (n = 154), per-protocol (n = 147), and safety (n = 166) analyses. Intent-to-treat analysis demonstrated that (i) at the early posttherapy visit, 87.3% of patients receiving cefoperazone-sulbactam and 84.3% of patients receiving cefepime achieved clinical improvement or cure (risk difference of 3.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.0% to 15.0%), and (ii) at the test-of-cure visit, 73.1% of patients receiving cefoperazone-sulbactam and 56.8% of patients receiving cefepime were assessed as cured (risk difference of 16.3%; 95% CI, 0.0% to 33.0%). These results indicated the noninferiority of cefoperazone-sulbactam to cefepime, which was confirmed by per-protocol analysis. The chest radiographic consolidation/infiltration resolution rate, microbiological eradiation rate, and percentage of adverse events were comparable in both groups. Serious adverse events were rare, and none was judged to be related to the study drugs. Cefoperazone-sulbactam at 2 g every 12 h was noninferior to cefepime at 2 g every 2 h for patients with HCAP.

A noniterative sample size procedure for tests based on t distributions.

A noniterative sample size procedure is proposed for a general hypothesis test based on the t distribution by modifying and extending Guenther's approach for the one sample and two sample t tests. The generalized procedure is employed to determine the sample size for treatment comparisons using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and the mixed effects model for repeated measures in randomized clinical trials. The sample size is calculated by adding a few simple correction terms to the sample size from the normal approximation to account for the nonnormality of the t statistic and lower order variance terms, which are functions of the covariates in the model. But it does not require specifying the covariate distribution. The noniterative procedure is suitable for superiority tests, noninferiority tests, and a special case of the tests for equivalence or bioequivalence and generally yields the exact or nearly exact sample size estimate after rounding to an integer. The method for calculating the exact power of the two sample t test with unequal variance in superiority trials is extended to equivalence trials. We also derive accurate power formulae for ANCOVA and mixed effects model for repeated measures, and the formula for ANCOVA is exact for normally distributed covariates. Numerical examples demonstrate the accuracy of the proposed methods particularly in small samples.

Once-daily vs twice-daily tacrolimus for de novo living kidney transplantation patients including ABO/HLA compatible and incompatible: A randomized trial.

Tacrolimus (TAC) is available as a twice-daily capsule (TAC-BID), once-daily capsule (TAC-QD), and once-daily tablet. Recipients with ABO-incompatible/anti-human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-incompatible transplantation were excluded in previous trials and have thus not been evaluated. We conducted a 5-year trial to determine whether TAC-QD is noninferior to TAC-BID for transplant outcomes. Adults who underwent de novo living kidney transplantation were randomly assigned (62 TAC-QD; 63 TAC-BID). We did not exclude ABO-/HLA- incompatible transplantation. TAC was initiated 7 days preoperatively (0.10 mg/kg/d). Mycophenolate mofetil, methylprednisolone, and basiliximab were administered. The primary endpoint was graft failure (non-censored for death). We performed a noninferiority test. The noninferiority margin was 10% in risk difference. Five-year graft failure rates were 6.5% and 9.5% for TAC-QD and TAC-BID, respectively (noninferiority, P = 0.009). The estimated glomerular filtration rates were similar between the groups (noninferiority, P < 0.001). TAC-QD did not have point estimates of risk difference above the inferiority margin in any assessed endpoints. However, a tendency of interaction was observed between biopsy-proven acute rejection and the follow-up period. In a living kidney transplant population with 40% of patients with ABO/HLA incompatibility, the effect of TAC-QD was not appreciably worse on various clinical transplant outcomes than that of TAC-BID over 5 years.

Comparison of a group-delivered and individually delivered lifestyle-integrated functional exercise (LiFE) program in older persons: a randomized noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The Lifestyle-Integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) program is effective in improving strength, balance, and physical activity (PA) while simultaneously reducing falls in older people by incorporating exercise activities in recurring daily tasks. However, implementing the original LiFE program includes substantial resource requirements. Therefore, as part of the LiFE-is-LiFE project, a group format (gLiFE) of the LiFE program has been developed, which will be tested regarding its noninferiority to the individually delivered LiFE in terms of PA-adjusted fall incidence and overall cost-effectiveness. METHODS: In a multi-centre, single-blinded noninferiority trial, an envisaged sample of N = 300 participants (> 70 years; faller and/or confirmed falls risk; community-dwelling) will be randomized in either LiFE or gLiFE. Both groups will undergo the same strength and balance activities as well as PA promotion activities and habitualization strategies as described in the LiFE programme, however, based on different approaches of delivery: During the 6-month intervention phase, LiFE participants will receive seven home visits and two telephone calls; in gLiFE, the program will be delivered in seven group sessions and also two telephone calls. Main outcomes are a) fall incidence per PA and b) incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing costs and quality-adjusted life years between the two interventions. Secondary outcomes include PA behaviour, motor performance, health status, psychosocial status, program evaluation, and adherence. Measurements will be conducted at baseline, 6-month and 12-month follow-up; evaluation of intervention sessions and assessment of psychosocial variables related to execution and habitualization of LiFE activities will be made during the intervention period as well. DISCUSSION: Compared to LiFE, we expect gLiFE to (a) reduce falls per PA by a similar rate; (b) be more cost-effective; (c) comparably enhance physical performance in terms of strength and balance as well as PA. By investigating the economic and societal benefit, this study will be of high practical relevance as noninferiority of gLiFE would facilitate large-scale implementation due to lower resource usage. This would result in better reach and increased accessibility, which is important for subjects with a history of falls and/or being at risk of falls. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03462654 . Registered on March 12, 2018.

Progress in the Fight Against Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria 2005-2016: Modern Noninferiority Trial Designs Enable Antibiotic Development in Advance of Epidemic Bacterial Resistance.

From a public health perspective, new antibacterial agents should be evaluated and approved for use before widespread resistance to existing agents emerges. However, for multidrug-resistant pathogens, demonstration of superior efficacy of a new agent over a current standard-of-care agent is routinely feasible only when epidemic spread of these dangerous organisms has already occurred. One solution to enable proactive drug development is to evaluate new antibiotics with improved in vitro activity against MDR pathogens using recently updated guidelines for active control, noninferiority trials of selected severe infections caused by more susceptible pathogens. Such trials are feasible because they enroll patients with infections due to pathogens with a "usual drug resistance" phenotype that will be responsive to widely registered standard-of-care comparator antibiotics. Such anticipatory drug development has constructively reshaped the antibiotic pipeline and offers the best chance of making safe and efficacious antibiotics available to the public ahead of epidemic resistance.

Developing Outcomes Assessments as Endpoints for Registrational Clinical Trials of Antibacterial Drugs: 2015 Update From the Biomarkers Consortium of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health.

One important component in determining the benefits and harms of medical interventions is the use of well-defined and reliable outcome assessments as endpoints in clinical trials. Improving endpoints can better define patient benefits, allowing more accurate assessment of drug efficacy and more informed benefit-vs-risk decisions; another potential plus is facilitating efficient trial design. Since our first report in 2012, 2 Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Consortium Project Teams have continued to develop outcome assessments for potential uses as endpoints in registrational clinical trials of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. In addition, the teams have initiated similar work in the indications of hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. This report provides an update on progress to date in these 4 diseases.