IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0063272.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deficient Reporting and Interpretation of Non-Inferiority Randomized Clinical Trials in HIV Patients: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Adrian V Hernandez
  • Vinay Pasupuleti
  • Abhishek Deshpande
  • Priyaleela Thota
  • Jaime A Collins
  • Jose E Vidal

Abstract

Objectives: Non-inferiority (NI) randomized clinical trials (RCTs) commonly evaluate efficacy of new antiretroviral (ARV) drugs in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients. Their reporting and interpretation have not been systematically evaluated. We evaluated the reporting of NI RCTs in HIV patients according to the CONSORT statement and assessed the degree of misinterpretation of RCTs when NI was inconclusive or not established. Design: Systematic review. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were reviewed until December 2011. Selection and extraction was performed independently by three reviewers. Results: Of the 42 RCTs (n = 21,919; range 41–3,316) selected, 23 were in ARV-naïve and 19 in ARV-experienced patients. Twenty-seven (64%) RCTs provided information about prior RCTs of the active comparator, and 37 (88%) used 2-sided CIs. Two thirds of trials used a NI margin between 10 and 12%, although only 12 explained the method to determine it. Blinding was used in 9 studies only. The main conclusion was based on both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses in 5 trials, on PP analysis only in 4 studies, and on ITT only in 31 studies. Eleven of 16 studies with NI inconclusive or not established highlighted NI or equivalence, and distracted readers with positive secondary results. Conclusions: There is poor reporting and interpretation of NI RCTs performed in HIV patients. Maximizing the reporting of the method of NI margin determination, use of blinding and both ITT and PP analyses, and interpreting negative NI according to actual primary findings will improve the understanding of results and their translation into clinical practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Adrian V Hernandez & Vinay Pasupuleti & Abhishek Deshpande & Priyaleela Thota & Jaime A Collins & Jose E Vidal, 2013. "Deficient Reporting and Interpretation of Non-Inferiority Randomized Clinical Trials in HIV Patients: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-12, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0063272
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063272
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063272
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063272&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0063272?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philippe Flandre, 2011. "Statistical Methods in Recent HIV Noninferiority Trials: Reanalysis of 11 Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-8, September.
    2. Cynthia Firnhaber & Livio Azzoni & Andrea S Foulkes & Robert Gross & Xiangfan Yin & Desiree Van Amsterdam & Doreen Schulze & Deborah K Glencross & Wendy Stevens & Gillian Hunt & Lynn Morris & Lawrence, 2011. "Randomized Trial of Time-Limited Interruptions of Protease Inhibitor-Based Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) vs. Continuous Therapy for HIV-1 Infection," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(6), pages 1-9, June.
    3. Grace Wangge & Olaf H Klungel & Kit C B Roes & Anthonius de Boer & Arno W Hoes & Mirjam J Knol, 2010. "Room for Improvement in Conducting and Reporting Non-Inferiority Randomized Controlled Trials on Drugs: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-8, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0063272. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.