More Than a Decade Since the Latest CONSORT Non-inferiority Trials Extension: Do Infectious Diseases Trials Do Enough?

More than a decade after the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials group released a reporting items checklist for non-inferiority randomized controlled trials, the infectious diseases literature continues to underreport these items. Trialists, journals, and peer reviewers should redouble their efforts to ensure infectious diseases studies meet these minimum reporting standards.

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.

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.

Non-inferiority analysis of subcutaneous versus intravenous 300 mg monthly natalizumab administration: A post hoc analysis of the REFINE study.

To quantify the probability that monthly intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous (SC) natalizumab (NTZ) had similar efficacy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), non-inferiority of efficacy of NTZ-SC versus NTZ-IV on combined MRI unique active lesions number (CUAL) was explored re-analysing the REFINE data set. Non-inferiority margins were selected equal to 25%/33%/50% fractions of the effect size of NTZ-IV versus placebo observed in the AFFIRM study. Ninety-nine RRMS were included. NTZ-SC resulted not inferior to NTZ-IV on CUAL for all margins at 2.5% significance level, and, in worst-case scenario, its effect over NTZ-IV did not exceed 3.5% (or 2.8%) of the effect of NTZ-IV versus placebo.

Superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) for sentinel lymph node detection in vulvar cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) detection with superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) nanoparticles has been widely studied and standardized for breast and prostate cancer, but there is scarce evidence concerning its use in vulvar cancer. The objective of this study was to compare SLN detection using a SPIO tracer injected at the time of the surgery detected by a magnetometer, with the standard procedure of using a technetium 99 radioisotope (Tc99) detected by a gamma probe, in patients with vulvar cancer. METHODS: The SPIO vulvar cancer study was a single-center prospective interventional non-inferiority study of SPIO compared to Tc99, conducted between 2016 and 2021 in patients who met the GROINSS-V study inclusion criteria for selective sentinel lymph node dissection in vulvar cancer. RESULTS: We included 18 patients and a total of 41 SLNs. The level of agreement between tracers was 92.7% (80.6%-97.4%), corresponding to 38 out of 41 SLNs, which confirms the non-inferiority of SPIO compared to Tc99. The SLN detection rate per groin was 96.3 (81.7%-99.3) using Tc99 and 100% (87.5%-100%) using SPIO. Both tracers had a detection rate of 100% for positive lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of SPIO as a tracer for detecting SLNs in patients with vulvar cancer has shown to be non-inferior to that of the standard radiotracer, with the advantages of not requiring nuclear medicine and being able to inject it at the time of surgery after induction of anesthesia.

Assessing efficacy in non-inferiority trials with non-adherence to interventions: Are intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses fit for purpose?

BACKGROUND: Non-inferiority trials comparing different active drugs are often subject to treatment non-adherence. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses have been advocated in such studies but are not guaranteed to be unbiased in the presence of differential non-adherence. METHODS: The REMoxTB trial evaluated two 4-month experimental regimens compared with a 6-month control regimen for newly diagnosed drug-susceptible TB. The primary endpoint was a composite unfavorable outcome of treatment failure or recurrence within 18 months post-randomization. We conducted a simulation study based on REMoxTB to assess the performance of statistical methods for handling non-adherence in non-inferiority trials, including: ITT and PP analyses, adjustment for observed adherence, multiple imputation (MI) of outcomes, inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting (IPTW), and a doubly-robust (DR) estimator. RESULTS: When non-adherence differed between trial arms, ITT, and PP analyses often resulted in non-trivial bias in the estimated treatment effect, which consequently under- or over-inflated the type I error rate. Adjustment for observed adherence led to similar issues, whereas the MI, IPTW and DR approaches were able to correct bias under most non-adherence scenarios; they could not always eliminate bias entirely in the presence of unobserved confounding. The IPTW and DR methods were generally unbiased and maintained desired type I error rates and statistical power. CONCLUSIONS: When non-adherence differs between trial arms, ITT and PP analyses can produce biased estimates of efficacy, potentially leading to the acceptance of inferior treatments or efficacious regimens being missed. IPTW and the DR estimator are relatively straightforward methods to supplement ITT and PP approaches.

Comparison of vonoprazan dual therapy, quadruple therapy and standard quadruple therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection in Hainan: a single-center, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the potential efficacy and safety of dual therapy and quadruple therapy with vonoprazan (VPZ) as well as the standard quadruple therapy of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori (Hp) infection in Hainan province. METHODS: A single-centre, non-blinded, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial was conducted at the outpatient department of gastroenterology at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical University from June 2022 to February 2023. 135 patients aged 18-75 years with Hp infection were enrolled and randomized into three different groups (group V1: VPZ 20 mg twice a day and amoxicillin 1.0 g three times a day for 14 days V2: vonoprazan 20 mg, amoxicillin capsules 1.0 g, furazolidone 0.1 g and bismuth potassiulm citrate 240 mg, twice daily for 14 days;; group V3: ilaprazole 5 mg, Amoxicillin 1.0 g, Furazolidone 100 mg, bismuth potassiulm citrate 240 mg, twice a day for 14 days). Four weeks after the end of treatment, Hp eradication was confirmed by rechecking 13C-urea breath test (UBT). RESULTS: The eradication efficacy of V1 and V3 was non-inferior to that of V2, which is consistent with the results obtained from the Kruskal-Wallis H test. The eradication rate by intentional analysis was 84.4% (38/45, 95%CI 73.4%-95.5%, P>0.05) for all the three groups. If analyzed by per-protocol, the eradication rates were 88.4% (38/43, 95%CI 78.4%-98.4%), 92.7% (38/41, 95%CI 84.4%-101.0%),88.4% (38/43，95%CI 78.4%-98.4%) in groups V1, V2 and V3, respectively, which did not show a significant difference (P > 0.05). The incidence of adverse effects was significantly lower in VPZ dual therapy compared to the other two treatment regimens (P < 0.05). VPZ dual therapy or quadruple therapy was also relatively less costly than standard quadruple therapy. CONCLUSION: VPZ dual therapy and quadruple therapy shows promise of not being worse than the standard quadruple therapy by a clinically relevant margin. More studies might be needed to definitively determine if the new therapy is equally effective or even superior.

5-year follow-up results of a JCOG1104 (OPAS-1) phase III non-inferiority trial to compare 4 courses and 8 courses of S-1 adjuvant chemotherapy for pathological stage II gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 for 1 year (corresponding to eight courses) is the standard treatment for pathological stage II gastric cancer. The phase III trial (JCOG1104) investigating the non-inferiority of four courses of S-1 to eight courses was terminated due to futility at the first interim analysis. To confirm the primary results, we reported the results after a 5-years follow-up in JCOG1104. METHODS: Patients histologically diagnosed with stage II gastric cancer after radical gastrectomy were randomly assigned to receive S-1 for eight or four courses. In detail, 80 mg/m2/day S-1 was administered for 4 weeks followed by a 2-week rest as a single course. RESULTS: Between February 16, 2012, and March 19, 2017, 590 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to 8-course (295 patients) and 4-course (295 patients) regimens. After a 5-years follow-up, the relapse-free survival at 3 years was 92.2% for the 8-course arm and 90.1% for the 4-course arm, and that at 5 years was 87.7% for the 8-course arm and 85.6% for the 4-course arm (hazard ratio 1.265, 95% CI 0.846-1.892). The overall survival at 3 years was 94.9% for the 8-course arm, 93.2% for the 4-course arm, and that at 5 years was 89.7% for the 8-course arm, and 88.6% for the 4-course arm (HR 1.121, 95% CI 0.719-1.749). CONCLUSIONS: The survival of the four-course arm was slightly but consistently inferior to that of the eight-course arm. Eight-course S-1 should thus remain the standard adjuvant chemotherapy for pathological stage II gastric cancer.

Comparing letrozole and mifepristone pre-treatment in medical management of first trimester missed miscarriage: a prospective open-label non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether letrozole pre-treatment is non-inferior to mifepristone pre-treatment, followed by misoprostol, for complete evacuation in the medical treatment of first-trimester missed miscarriage. DESIGN: Prospective open-label non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. SETTING: A university-affiliated hospital. POPULATION: We recruited 294 women diagnosed with first-trimester missed miscarriage who opted for medical treatment. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to: (i) the mifepristone group, who received 200 mg mifepristone orally followed 24-48 h later by 800 µg misoprostol vaginally; or (ii) the letrozole group, who received 10 mg letrozole orally once-a-day for 3 days, followed by 800 µg misoprostol vaginally on the third (i.e. last) day of letrozole administration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the rate of complete evacuation without surgical intervention at 42 days post-treatment. Secondary outcomes included induction-to-expulsion interval, adverse effects, women's satisfaction, number of doses of misoprostol required, duration of vaginal bleeding, pain score on the day of misoprostol administration and other adverse events. RESULTS: The complete evacuation rates were 97.8% (95% CI 95.1%-100%) and 97.2% (95% CI 94.4%-99.9%) in the letrozole and mifepristone groups, respectively (p ≤ 0.001 for non-inferiority). The mean induction-to-tissue expulsion interval in the letrozole group was longer compared with the mifepristone group (15.4 vs 9.0 h) (p = 0.03). The letrozole group had less heavy post-treatment bleeding and an earlier return of menses. There were no statistically significant differences in the number of doses of misoprostol required, the duration of vaginal bleeding, the pain score on the day of misoprostol administration and the rate of other adverse events between the two groups. The majority of the women (91.2% and 93.9% in the letrozole and mifepristone groups, respectively) were satisfied with their treatment option. CONCLUSIONS: Letrozole is non-inferior to mifepristone as a pre-treatment, followed by misoprostol, for the medical treatment of first-trimester missed miscarriage.

Is adamgammadex the brother of sugammadex or the next generation of reversal agent?

Sugammadex is now in widespread use to reverse the neuromuscular blocking effects of rocuronium. Adverse effects from sugammadex are rare, but anaphylactic and cardiovascular reactions to the drug have been reported. In an attempt to reduce such side-effects, a modified gamma-cyclodextrin, adamgammadex, has been developed. Phase 3 clinical trials suggest that it is slightly less potent than sugammadex and has a non-inferior speed of onset. In a multicentre trial of 310 patients, there was a suggestion of a lower incidence of allergic responses and recurarisation after adamgammadex compared with sugammadex. The clinical implications of this study are discussed in this editorial.

Comparison of extrafine beclomethasone dipropionate/formoterol fumarate dry powder inhaler and pressurized metered-dose inhaler in Chinese patients with asthma: the FORTUNE study.

OBJECTIVE: When selecting inhaled therapies, it is important to consider both the active molecules and the device. Extrafine formulation beclomethasone dipropionate plus formoterol fumarate (BDP/FF) has been available for some years delivered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI). More recently, a breath-activated, multi-dose dry-powder inhaler (DPI), the NEXThaler, has been approved. The current study aimed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of BDP/FF delivered via the DPI vs. via the pMDI, in Chinese adults with asthma. METHODS: After a four-week run-in period, when all patients received BDP/FF pMDI 100/6 µg, two inhalations twice daily (BID), patients were randomized equally to BDP/FF pMDI or DPI, both 100/6 µg, two inhalations BID for 12 weeks. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of BDP/FF DPI vs. BDP/FF pMDI in terms of average pre-dose morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) over the entire treatment period. RESULTS: Of 252 and 242 patients in the DPI and pMDI groups, respectively, 88.5% and 88.8% completed the study. The primary objective was met, with no statistically significant difference between the treatments in average pre-dose morning PEF, and with the lower limit of the 95% CI above the -15 L/min non-inferiority margin (adjusted mean difference: 5.25 L/min [95% CI: -0.56, 11.06]). Adverse events were reported by 48.4% and 49.6% patients in the DPI and pMDI groups, respectively, most mild or moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The NEXThaler DPI is a similarly effective device to the pMDI for the administration of BDP/FF in adults, so extending the options available for the management of asthma.

Design of a clinical trial using generalized pairwise comparisons to test a less intensive treatment regimen.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Showing "similar efficacy" of a less intensive treatment typically requires a non-inferiority trial. Yet such trials may be challenging to design and conduct. In acute promyelocytic leukemia, great progress has been achieved with the introduction of targeted therapies, but toxicity remains a major clinical issue. There is a pressing need to show the favorable benefit/risk of less intensive treatment regimens. METHODS: We designed a clinical trial that uses generalized pairwise comparisons of five prioritized outcomes (alive and event-free at 2 years, grade 3/4 documented infections, differentiation syndrome, hepatotoxicity, and neuropathy) to confirm a favorable benefit/risk of a less intensive treatment regimen. We conducted simulations based on historical data and assumptions about the differences expected between the standard of care and the less intensive treatment regimen to calculate the sample size required to have high power to show a positive Net Treatment Benefit in favor of the less intensive treatment regimen. RESULTS: Across 10,000 simulations, average sample sizes of 260 to 300 patients are required for a trial using generalized pairwise comparisons to detect typical Net Treatment Benefits of 0.19 (interquartile range 0.14-0.23 for a sample size of 280). The Net Treatment Benefit is interpreted as a difference between the probability of doing better on the less intensive treatment regimen than on the standard of care, minus the probability of the opposite situation. A Net Treatment Benefit of 0.19 translates to a number needed to treat of about 5.3 patients (1/0.19 ≃ 5.3). CONCLUSION: Generalized pairwise comparisons allow for simultaneous assessment of efficacy and safety, with priority given to the former. The sample size required would be of the order of 300 patients, as compared with more than 700 patients for a non-inferiority trial using a margin of 4% against the less intensive treatment regimen for the absolute difference in event-free survival at 2 years, as considered here.

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.

Wearable Integrated Volitional Control Electrical Stimulation Device as Treatment for Paresis of the Upper Extremity in Early Subacute Stroke Patients: A Randomized Controlled Non-inferiority Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of a wearable integrated volitional control electrical stimulation (WIVES) device that has been developed as more compact and simpler to use in daily life compared with conventional integrated volitional control electrical stimulation (IVES) devices. DESIGN: Randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. SETTING: Convalescent rehabilitation ward. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with paresis of the upper extremity (UE) after early subacute stroke (N=20). INTERVENTIONS: Eligible patients were randomized to receive IVES treatment or WIVES treatment for 8 hours per day for 28 days in daily living, in addition to standard rehabilitation treatment. In both groups, the extensor digitorum communis on the affected side was the target muscle for stimulation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary outcomes were assessed with Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the UE (FMA-UE) before and after treatment. Non-inferiority was determined with a specified margin of non-inferiority. RESULTS: Twenty patients completed the trial (IVES group: n=10, WIVES group: n=10). FMA-UE improved in both groups. The mean change in FMA-UE was 4.7 for the IVES group and 6.0 for the WIVES group (P>.05, 95% confidence interval: -6.73 to 4.13). The mean difference between the groups was 1.3, and the upper 95% confidence interval did not exceed the non-inferiority margin. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of WIVES treatment is non-inferior to that of IVES treatment. As a portable device, IVES may facilitate the use of affected upper extremities in daily living and may help improve paresis of the UE.

A confirmatory basket design considering non-inferiority and superiority testing.

For multiple rare diseases as defined by a common biomarker signature, or a disease with multiple disease subtypes of low frequency, it is often possible to provide confirmatory evidence for these disease or subtypes (baskets) as a combined group. A novel drug, as a second generation, may have marginal improvement in efficacy overall but superior efficacy in some baskets. In this situation, it is appealing to test hypotheses of both non-inferiority overall and superiority on certain baskets. The challenge is designing a confirmatory study efficient to address multiple questions in one trial. A two-stage adaptive design is proposed to test the non-inferiority hypothesis at the interim stage, followed by pruning and pooling before testing a superiority hypothesis at the final stage. Such a design enables an efficient and novel registration pathway, including an early claim of non-inferiority followed by a potential label extension with superiority on certain baskets and an improved benefit-risk profile demonstrated by longer term efficacy and safety data. Operating characteristics of this design are examined by simulation studies, and its appealing features make it ready for use in a confirmatory setting, especially in emerging markets, where both the need and the possibility for efficient use of resources may be the greatest.

Non-inferiority trials with time-to-event data: clarifying the impact of censoring.

In non-inferiority (NI) trials with time-to-event data, different types and patterns of censoring may occur, but their impact on trial results is not entirely clear. We investigated the influence of informative and non-informative censoring by conducting extensive simulation studies under the assumption that the NI margin is defined as a maximum acceptable hazard ratio and scenarios typically observed in recent NI trials. We found that while non-informative censoring tends to only affect the power, informative censoring can impact the treatment effect estimates, type I error rate, and power. The magnitude of these effects depends on the between-group differences in the failure and informative censoring risks, as well as the correlation between censoring and failure times, among other factors. The adverse impact of informative censoring was generally decreased with larger NI margins.

Validation of a viable delirium detection test performed by nurses and physicians during routine patient care.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a frequent mental impairment in geriatric patients hospitalized in acute care facilities. It carries a high risk of complications and is often the first symptom of acute illness. It is clearly important to identify the development of delirium at an early stage, and several short and effective diagnostic tests have been developed and validated for this purpose. Despite this, patients on hospital wards are seldom monitored for signs of emergent delirium, suggesting that compliance with guidelines would be improved by introducing a simpler and more user-friendly test. METHODS: We recently implemented a simple delirium assessment tool, called RMA that can be introduced into the daily routine of ward staff without significantly adding to their workload. The nurses noted their impression of the patient's cognitive state in the electronic medical record, and during the morning round the ward physician administered a short attention test to any patients suspected of new cognitive impairment. In this study, we compared RMA test against the widely used and well validated 4AT. RESULTS: RMA performed daily by the ward staff was found to be non-inferior to 4AT performed by an experienced rater. Compared to 4AT, R&M had a sensitivity of 93.9% and a specificity of 98.3%. An Altman-Bland plot indicated that both tests can be used interchangeably. CONCLUSIONS: The RMA test is reliable, easy to administer, likely to boost compliance with guidelines, and is expected to raise awareness of delirium among the nurses and physicians directly involved in the diagnostic process.

New approaches for testing non-inferiority for three-arm trials with Poisson distributed outcomes.

With the availability of limited resources, innovation for improved statistical method for the design and analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is of paramount importance for newer and better treatment discovery for any therapeutic area. Although clinical efficacy is almost always the primary evaluating criteria to measure any beneficial effect of a treatment, there are several important other factors (e.g., side effects, cost burden, less debilitating, less intensive, etc.), which can permit some less efficacious treatment options favorable to a subgroup of patients. This leads to non-inferiority (NI) testing. The objective of NI trial is to show that an experimental treatment is not worse than an active reference treatment by more than a pre-specified margin. Traditional NI trials do not include a placebo arm for ethical reason; however, this necessitates stringent and often unverifiable assumptions. On the other hand, three-arm NI trials consisting of placebo, reference, and experimental treatment, can simultaneously test the superiority of the reference over placebo and NI of experimental treatment over the reference. In this article, we proposed both novel Frequentist and Bayesian procedures for testing NI in the three-arm trial with Poisson distributed count outcome. RCTs with count data as the primary outcome are quite common in various disease areas such as lesion count in cancer trials, relapses in multiple sclerosis, dermatology, neurology, cardiovascular research, adverse event count, etc. We first propose an improved Frequentist approach, which is then followed by it's Bayesian version. Bayesian methods have natural advantage in any active-control trials, including NI trial when substantial historical information is available for placebo and established reference treatment. In addition, we discuss sample size calculation and draw an interesting connection between the two paradigms.

Additional considerations before using a ctDNA-guided approach for informing adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The DYNAMIC trial investigated the use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to guide adjuvant treatment decisions in stage II colon cancer. Despite the DYNAMIC trial's assertion that a ctDNA-guided approach could minimize the use of adjuvant treatment without compromising recurrence-free survival (RFS), we raised concerns regarding the trial's methodology and the practical implications of its findings in a Debate article. Here, we expand upon these concerns in a response to a correspondence by the authors of the DYNAMIC trial. MAIN BODY: We dispute the choice of a large non-inferiority margin in the DYNAMIC trial, simply because an 8.5 percentage points decrease in recurrence-free survival could result in significant harm to patients. We challenge the authors' comparisons of the DYNAMIC trial outcomes with observational studies. Such comparison is subject to selection bias and changes over time that limit their relevance. The prognostic role of ctDNA do not automatically imply that more treatment in patients with ctDNA positivity would improve outcomes, which we highlight. In real-world settings, we anticipate a potential rise in chemotherapy use due to clinicians utilizing ctDNA alongside existing clinicopathologic factors, rather than using ctDNA as an entire replacement. Lastly, a key concern in DYNAMIC was an 350% higher use of oxaliplatin in the ctDNA arm compared with standard management (9.5% versus 2.7%, respectively), which poses a risk for long-term neuropathy. CONCLUSION: We look forward improvements in patient selection in the adjuvant setting, but we maintain our reservations about the DYNAMIC trial and the real-life implementation of its results. As an alternative to exploring de-escalation strategies with large margins non-inferiority trials, we propose that superiority trials in stage II patients could be a more effective strategy.

Evaluation of Commercially Available Machine Interpretation Applications for Simple Clinical Communication.

BACKGROUND: Accessing professional medical interpreters for brief, low risk exchanges can be challenging. Machine translation (MT) for verbal communication has the potential to be a useful clinical tool, but few evaluations exist. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the quality of three MT applications for English-Spanish and English-Mandarin two-way interpretation of low complexity brief clinical communication compared with human interpretation. DESIGN: Audio-taped phrases were interpreted via human and 3 MT applications. Bilingual assessors evaluated the quality of MT interpretation on four assessment categories (accuracy, fluency, meaning, and clinical risk) using 5-point Likert scales. We used a non-inferiority design with 15% inferiority margin to evaluate the quality of three MT applications with professional medical interpreters serving as gold standards. MAIN MEASURES: Proportion of interpretation exchanges deemed acceptable, defined as a composite score of 16 or greater out of 20 based on the four assessment categories. KEY RESULTS: For English to Spanish, the proportion of MT-interpreted phrases scored as acceptable ranged from 0.68 to 0.84, while for English to Mandarin, the range was from 0.62 to 0.76. Both Spanish/Mandarin to English MT interpretation had low acceptable scores (range 0.36 to 0.41). No MT interpretation met the non-inferiority threshold. CONCLUSION: While MT interpretation was better for English to Spanish or Mandarin than the reverse, the overall quality of MT interpretation was poor for two-way clinical communication. Clinicians should advocate for easier access to professional interpretation in all clinical spaces and defer use of MT until these applications improve.