Search

Background Trials to identify the minimal effective treatment duration are needed in different therapeutic areas, including bacterial infections, tuberculosis and hepatitis C. However, standard non-inferiority designs have several limitations, including arbitrariness of non-inferiority margins, choice of research arms and very large sample sizes. Methods We recast the problem of finding an appropriate non-inferior treatment duration in terms of modelling the entire duration-response curve within a pre-specified range. We propose a multi-arm randomised trial design, allocating patients to different treatment durations. We use fractional polynomials and spline-based methods to flexibly model the duration-response curve. We call this a 'Durations design'. We compare different methods in terms of a scaled version of the area between true and estimated prediction curves. We evaluate sensitivity to key design parameters, including sample size, number and position of arms. Results A total sample size of ~ 500 patients divided into a moderate number of equidistant arms (5-7) is sufficient to estimate the duration-response curve within a 5% error margin in 95% of the simulations. Fractional polynomials provide similar or better results than spline-based methods in most scenarios. Conclusion Our proposed practical randomised trial 'Durations design' shows promising performance in the estimation of the duration-response curve; subject to a pending careful investigation of its inferential properties, it provides a potential alternative to standard non-inferiority designs, avoiding many of their limitations, and yet being fairly robust to different possible duration-response curves. The trial outcome is the whole duration-response curve, which may be used by clinicians and policymakers to make informed decisions, facilitating a move away from a forced binary hypothesis testing paradigm.

Background: The size of the margin strongly influences the required sample size in non-inferiority and equivalence trials. What is sometimes ignored, however, is that for trials with binary outcomes, the scale of the margin – risk difference, risk ratio or odds ratio – also has a large impact on power and thus on sample size requirement. When considering several scales at the design stage of a trial, these sample size consequences should be taken into account. Sometimes, changing the scale may be needed at a later stage of a trial, for example, when the event proportion in the control arm turns out different from expected. Also after completion of a trial, a switch to another scale is sometimes made, for example, when using a regression model in a secondary analysis or when combining study results in a meta-analysis that requires unifying scales. The exact consequences of such switches are currently unknown. Methods and Results: This article first outlines sample size consequences for different choices of analysis scale at the design stage of a trial. We add a new result on sample size requirement comparing the risk difference scale with the risk ratio scale. Then, we study two different approaches to changing the analysis scale after the trial has commenced: (1) mapping the original non-inferiority margin using the event proportion in the control arm that was anticipated at the design stage or (2) mapping the original non-inferiority margin using the observed event proportion in the control arm. We use simulations to illustrate consequences on type I and type II error rates. Methods are illustrated on the INES trial, a non-inferiority trial that compared single birth rates in subfertile couples after different fertility treatments. Our results demonstrate large differences in required sample size when choosing between risk difference, risk ratio and odds ratio scales at the design stage of non-inferiority trials. In some cases, the sample size requirement is twice as large on one scale compared with another. Changing the scale after commencing the trial using anticipated proportions mainly impacts type II error rate, whereas switching using observed proportions is not advised due to not maintaining type I error rate. Differences were more pronounced with larger margins. Conclusions: Trialists should be aware that the analysis scale can have large impact on type I and type II error rates in non-inferiority trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]