Design of HIV noninferiority trials
- 20 February 2013
- journal article
- viewpoint
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in AIDS
- Vol. 27 (4), 653-657
- https://doi.org/10.1097/qad.0b013e32835b105e
Abstract
Since the introduction of zidovudine, a nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitor, there has been continuous improvement in the efficacy of antiretroviral treatments. Briefly, antiretroviral therapy moved from the era of zidovudine monotherapy to a combination of two analogues of the reverse transcriptase and then to triple-drug therapy with the introduction of protease inhibitors in 1996. The efficacy of triple-drug combinations was further consolidated with the introduction of the non-nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitor. Beyond 1996, the impressive improvement in efficacy has implied that death and clinical endpoints could not be reasonably used as primary efficacy endpoints. Recent studies used plasma viral load as surrogate endpoints to evaluate efficacy of antiretroviral combinations. Progress in antiretroviral efficacy has also led to a move from superiority to noninferiority design. Methodological issues in noninferiority design have been already criticized, but recent trials provide a good opportunity for discussing some key features of that design. Recent studies are used to illustrate some inconsistencies in the choice of response rates, power and noninferiority margin. It appears that HIV noninferiority trials are overpowered by assuming lower success rates than those observed, enrolling a large number of patients and choosing a large margin. Consequently, failure to demonstrate noninferiority is uncommon. Novel designs or endpoints should be introduced emphasizing the expected benefits in terms of toxicity, adherence, resistance or costs.Keywords
This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit:
- Novel clinical trial designs for the development of new antiretroviral agentsAIDS, 2012
- Phase 2 double-blind, randomized trial of etravirine versus efavirenz in treatment-naive patientsAIDS, 2011
- Raltegravir once daily or twice daily in previously untreated patients with HIV-1: a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 non-inferiority trialThe Lancet Infectious Diseases, 2011
- Statistical Methods in Recent HIV Noninferiority Trials: Reanalysis of 11 TrialsPLOS ONE, 2011
- Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with two background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (THRIVE): a phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trialThe Lancet, 2011
- Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with tenofovir and emtricitabine in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (ECHO): a phase 3 randomised double-blind active-controlled trialThe Lancet, 2011
- Week 48 analysis of once-daily vs. twice-daily darunavir/ritonavir in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patientsAIDS, 2011
- Efficacy and safety of TMC278 in antiretroviral-naive HIV-1 patients: week 96 results of a phase IIb randomized trialAIDS, 2010
- Designing and interpreting HIV noninferiority trials in naive and experienced patientsAIDS, 2008
- Reporting of Noninferiority and Equivalence Randomized TrialsJAMA, 2006