Handling an uncertain control group event risk in non-inferiority trials: non-inferiority frontiers and the power-stabilising transformation.

BACKGROUND: Non-inferiority trials are increasingly used to evaluate new treatments that are expected to have secondary advantages over standard of care, but similar efficacy on the primary outcome. When designing a non-inferiority trial with a binary primary outcome, the choice of effect measure for the non-inferiority margin (e.g. risk ratio or risk difference) has an important effect on sample size calculations; furthermore, if the control event risk observed is markedly different from that assumed, the trial can quickly lose power or the results become difficult to interpret. METHODS: We propose a new way of designing non-inferiority trials to overcome the issues raised by unexpected control event risks. Our proposal involves using clinical judgement to specify a 'non-inferiority frontier', i.e. a curve defining the most appropriate non-inferiority margin for each possible value of control event risk. Existing trials implicitly use frontiers defined by a fixed risk ratio or a fixed risk difference. We discuss their limitations and propose a fixed arcsine difference frontier, using the power-stabilising transformation for binary outcomes, which may better represent clinical judgement. We propose and compare three ways of designing a trial using this frontier: testing and reporting on the arcsine scale; testing on the arcsine scale but reporting on the risk difference or risk ratio scale; and modifying the margin on the risk difference or risk ratio scale after observing the control event risk according to the power-stabilising frontier. RESULTS: Testing and reporting on the arcsine scale leads to results which are challenging to interpret clinically. For small values of control event risk, testing on the arcsine scale and reporting results on the risk difference scale produces confidence intervals at a higher level than the nominal one or non-inferiority margins that are slightly smaller than those back-calculated from the power-stabilising frontier alone. However, working on the arcsine scale generally requires a larger sample size compared to the risk difference scale. Therefore, working on the risk difference scale, modifying the margin after observing the control event risk, might be preferable, as it requires a smaller sample size. However, this approach tends to slightly inflate type I error rate; a solution is to use a slightly lower significance level for testing, although this modestly reduces power. When working on the risk ratio scale instead, the same approach based on the modification of the margin leads to power levels above the nominal one, maintaining type I error under control. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed methods of designing non-inferiority trials using power-stabilising non-inferiority frontiers make trial design more resilient to unexpected values of the control event risk, at the only cost of requiring somewhat larger sample sizes when the goal is to report results on the risk difference scale.

A randomized trial comparing concise and standard consent forms in the START trial.

BACKGROUND: Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of research informed consent is a high priority. Some express concern about longer, more complex, written consent forms creating barriers to participant understanding. A recent meta-analysis concluded that randomized comparisons were needed. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized non-inferiority comparison of a standard versus concise consent form within a multinational trial studying the timing of starting antiretroviral therapy in HIV+ adults (START). Interested sites were randomized to standard or concise consent forms for all individuals signing START consent. Participants completed a survey measuring comprehension of study information and satisfaction with the consent process. Site personnel reported usual site consent practices. The primary outcome was comprehension of the purpose of randomization (pre-specified 7.5% non-inferiority margin). RESULTS: 77 sites (2429 participants) were randomly allocated to use standard consent and 77 sites (2000 participants) concise consent, for an evaluable cohort of 4229. Site and participant characteristics were similar for the two groups. The concise consent was non-inferior to the standard consent on comprehension of randomization (80.2% versus 82%, site adjusted difference: 0.75% (95% CI -3.8%, +5.2%)); and the two groups did not differ significantly on total comprehension score, satisfaction, or voluntariness (p>0.1). Certain independent factors, such as education, influenced comprehension and satisfaction but not differences between consent groups. CONCLUSIONS: An easier to read, more concise consent form neither hindered nor improved comprehension of study information nor satisfaction with the consent process among a large number of participants. This supports continued efforts to make consent forms more efficient. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Informed consent substudy was registered as part of START study in clinicaltrials.gov #NCT00867048, and EudraCT # 2008-006439-12.

BREATHER (PENTA 16) short-cycle therapy (SCT) (5 days on/2 days off) in young people with chronic human immunodeficiency virus infection: an open, randomised, parallel-group Phase II/III trial.

BACKGROUND: For human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected adolescents facing lifelong antiretroviral therapy (ART), short-cycle therapy (SCT) with long-acting agents offers the potential for drug-free weekends, less toxicity, better adherence and cost savings. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not efavirenz (EFV)-based ART in short cycles of 5 days on and 2 days off is as efficacious (in maintaining virological suppression) as continuous EFV-based ART (continuous therapy; CT). Secondary objectives included the occurrence of new clinical HIV events or death, changes in immunological status, emergence of HIV drug resistance, drug toxicity and changes in therapy. DESIGN: Open, randomised, non-inferiority trial. SETTING: Europe, Thailand, Uganda, Argentina and the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Young people (aged 8-24 years) on EFV plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and with a HIV-1 ribonucleic acid level [viral load (VL)] of < 50 copies/ml for > 12 months. INTERVENTIONS: Young people were randomised to continue daily ART (CT) or change to SCT (5 days on, 2 days off ART). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Follow-up was for a minimum of 48 weeks (0, 4 and 12 weeks and then 12-weekly visits). The primary outcome was the difference between arms in the proportion with VL > 50 copies/ml (confirmed) by 48 weeks, estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method (12% non-inferiority margin) adjusted for region and age. RESULTS: In total, 199 young people (11 countries) were randomised (n = 99 SCT group, n = 100 CT group) and followed for a median of 86 weeks. Overall, 53% were male; the median age was 14 years (21% ≥ 18 years); 13% were from the UK, 56% were black, 19% were Asian and 21% were Caucasian; and the median CD4% and CD4 count were 34% and 735 cells/mm(3), respectively. By week 48, only one participant (CT) was lost to follow-up. The SCT arm had a 27% decreased drug exposure as measured by the adherence questionnaire and a MEMSCap(™) Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMSCap Inc., Durham, NC, USA) substudy (median cap openings per week: SCT group, n = 5; CT group, n = 7). By 48 weeks, six participants in the SCT group and seven in the CT group had a confirmed VL > 50 copies/ml [difference -1.2%, 90% confidence interval (CI) -7.3% to 4.9%] and two in the SCT group and four in the CT group had a confirmed VL > 400 copies/ml (difference -2.1%, 90% CI -6.2% to 1.9%). All six participants in the SCT group with a VL > 50 copies/ml resumed daily ART, of whom five were resuppressed, three were on the same regimen and two with a switch; two others on SCT resumed daily ART for other reasons. Overall, three participants in the SCT group and nine in the CT group (p = 0.1) changed ART regimen, five because of toxicity, four for simplification reasons, two because of compliance issues and one because of VL failure. Seven young people (SCT group, n = 2; CT group, n = 5) had major non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor mutations at VL failure, of whom two (n = 1 SCT group, n = 1 CT group) had the M184V mutation. Two young people had new Centers for Disease Control B events (SCT group, n = 1; CT group, n = 1). There were no significant differences between SCT and CT in grade 3/4 adverse events (13 vs. 14) or in serious adverse events (7 vs. 6); there were fewer ART-related adverse events in the SCT arm (2 vs. 14; p = 0.02). At week 48 there was no evidence that SCT led to increased inflammation using an extensive panel of markers. Young people expressed a strong preference for SCT in a qualitative substudy and in pre- and post-trial questionnaires. In total, 98% of the young people are taking part in a 2-year follow-up extension of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Non-inferiority of VL suppression in young people on EFV-based first-line ART with a VL of < 50 copies/ml was demonstrated for SCT compared with CT, with similar resistance, safety and inflammatory marker profiles. The SCT group had fewer ART-related adverse events. Further evaluation of the immunological and virological impact of SCT is ongoing. A limitation of the trial is that the results cannot be generalised to settings where VL monitoring is either not available or infrequent, nor to use of low-dose EFV. Two-year extended follow-up of the trial is ongoing to confirm the durability of the SCT strategy. Further trials of SCT in settings with infrequent VL monitoring and with other antiretroviral drugs such as tenofovir alafenamide, which has a long intracellular half-life, and/or dolutegravir, which has a higher barrier to resistance, are planned. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN97755073; EUDRACT 2009-012947-40; and CTA 27505/0005/001-0001. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (projects 08/53/25 and 11/136/108), the European Commission through EuroCoord (FP7/2007/2015), the Economic and Social Research Council, the PENTA Foundation, the Medical Research Council and INSERM SC10-US19, France, and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost effectiveness analysis of clinically driven versus routine laboratory monitoring of antiretroviral therapy in Uganda and Zimbabwe.

BACKGROUND: Despite funding constraints for treatment programmes in Africa, the costs and economic consequences of routine laboratory monitoring for efficacy and toxicity of antiretroviral therapy (ART) have rarely been evaluated. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in the DART trial (ISRCTN13968779). Adults in Uganda/Zimbabwe starting ART were randomised to clinically-driven monitoring (CDM) or laboratory and clinical monitoring (LCM); individual patient data on healthcare resource utilisation and outcomes were valued with primary economic costs and utilities. Total costs of first/second-line ART, routine 12-weekly CD4 and biochemistry/haematology tests, additional diagnostic investigations, clinic visits, concomitant medications and hospitalisations were considered from the public healthcare sector perspective. A Markov model was used to extrapolate costs and benefits 20 years beyond the trial. RESULTS: 3316 (1660LCM;1656CDM) symptomatic, immunosuppressed ART-naive adults (median (IQR) age 37 (32,42); CD4 86 (31,139) cells/mm(3)) were followed for median 4.9 years. LCM had a mean 0.112 year (41 days) survival benefit at an additional mean cost of $765 [95%CI:685,845], translating into an adjusted incremental cost of $7386 [3277,dominated] per life-year gained and $7793 [4442,39179] per quality-adjusted life year gained. Routine toxicity tests were prominent cost-drivers and had no benefit. With 12-weekly CD4 monitoring from year 2 on ART, low-cost second-line ART, but without toxicity monitoring, CD4 test costs need to fall below $3.78 to become cost-effective (<3xper-capita GDP, following WHO benchmarks). CD4 monitoring at current costs as undertaken in DART was not cost-effective in the long-term. CONCLUSIONS: There is no rationale for routine toxicity monitoring, which did not affect outcomes and was costly. Even though beneficial, there is little justification for routine 12-weekly CD4 monitoring of ART at current test costs in low-income African countries. CD4 monitoring, restricted to the second year on ART onwards, could be cost-effective with lower cost second-line therapy and development of a cheaper, ideally point-of-care, CD4 test.

Time from human immunodeficiency virus seroconversion to reaching CD4+ cell count thresholds <200, <350, and <500 Cells/mm³: assessment of need following changes in treatment guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Recent updates of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment guidelines have raised the CD4+ cell count thresholds for antiretroviral therapy initiation from 350 to 500 cells/mm(3) in the United States and from 200 to 350 cells/mm³ in mid- and low-income countries. Robust data of time from HIV seroconversion to CD4+ cell counts of 200, 350, and 500 cells/mm³ are lacking but are needed to inform health care planners of the likely impact and cost effectiveness of these and possible future changes in CD4+ cell count initiation threshold. METHODS: Using Concerted Action on Seroconversion to AIDS and Death in Europe data from individuals with well-estimated dates of HIV seroconversion, we fitted mixed models on the square root of CD4+ cell counts measured before combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) initiation. Restricting analyses to adults (age >16 years), we predicted time between seroconversion and CD4+ cell count <200, <350, and <500 cells/mm³ as well as CD4+ cell count distribution and proportions reaching these thresholds at 1, 2, and 5 years after seroconversion. RESULTS: Median (interquartile range [IQR]) follow-up for the 18495 eligible individuals from seroconversion while cART-free was 3.7 years (1.5, 7). Most of the subjects were male (78%), had a median age at seroconversion of 30 years (IQR, 25-37 years), and were infected through sex between men (55%). Estimated median times (95% confidence interval [CI]) from seroconversion to CD4+ cell count <500, <350, and <200 cells/mm(3) were 1.19 (95% CI, 1.12-1.26), 4.19 (95% CI, 4.09-4.28), and 7.93 (95% CI, 7.76-8.09) years, respectively. Almost half of infected individuals would require treatment within 1 year of seroconversion for guidelines recommending its initiation at 500 cells/mm³, compared with 26% and 9% for guidelines recommending initiation at 350 and 200 cells/mm³, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest substantial increases in the number of individuals who require treatment and call for early HIV testing.

Regulatory impediments jeopardizing the conduct of clinical trials in Europe funded by the National Institutes of Health.

BACKGROUND: A number of reports have highlighted problems of conducting publicly funded trials in Europe as a consequence of the European Union (EU) Clinical Trials Directive. The impact of the EU Directive on multi-national trials, which include sites in Europe that are funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) have not been described. METHODS: Four problems in the conduct of two international HIV treatment trials funded by NIH in the EU are described: (1) conflicting regulations on the continuing review of protocols by Institutional Review Boards/Research Ethics Committees; (2) US regulations requiring Federalwide Assurances for sites which are only partially funded by NIH; (3) EU guidance on the designation of studies as a trial of an investigational medicinal product; and (4) EU guidance on trial sponsorship and the requirements for insurance and indemnification. Following the description of the problems, recommendations for improving global collaborations are made to the US Office of Human Research Protections, to NIH, and to the EU and its Member States. RESULTS: A lack of harmonization of regulations at multiple levels caused enrollment in one study to be interrupted for several months and delayed for one year the initiation of another study aimed at obtaining definitive evidence to guide the timing of the initiation of antiretroviral therapy for individuals infected with HIV. The delays and the purchase of insurance resulted in substantial increases in trial costs and caused substantial disruption at clinical sites among staff and study participants. LIMITATIONS: The problems cited and recommendations made pertain to trials funded by NIH and conducted by sites in the EU. There are many other challenges in the conduct of international research, public and private, that global harmonization would alleviate. CONCLUSIONS: Disharmony, at multiple levels, in international regulations and guidelines is stifling publicly funded global research. International scientific organizations and government groups should make the documentation and solution of these problems a priority.

Parametric randomization-based methods for correcting for treatment changes in the assessment of the causal effect of treatment.

We develop parametric maximum likelihood methods to adjust for treatment changes during follow-up in order to assess the causal effect of treatment in clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes. The accelerated failure time model of Robins and Tsiatis relates each observed event time to the underlying event time that would have been observed if the control treatment had been given throughout the trial. We introduce a bivariate parametric frailty model for time to treatment change and time to trial endpoint. Estimating equations which respect the randomization are constructed and compared to maximum likelihood methods in a simulation study. The Concorde trial of immediate versus deferred zidovudine in HIV infection is used as a motivating example and illustration of the methods.