Systematic qualitative review of randomised trials conducted in nonsmall cell lung cancer with a noninferiority or equivalence design

Abstract

The use of noninferiority randomised trials for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer has emerged during the past 10-15 years but has raised some issues related to their justification and methodology. The present systematic review aimed to assess trial characteristics and methodological aspects. All randomised clinical trials with a hypothesis of noninferiority/equivalence, published in English, were identified. Several readers extracted a priori defined methodological information. A qualitative analysis was then performed. We identified 20 randomised clinical trials (three phase II and 17 phase III), 11 of them being conducted in strong collaboration with industry. We highlighted some deficiencies in the reports like the lack of justification for both the noninferiority assumption and the definition of the noninferiority margin, as well as inconsistencies between the results and the authors' conclusions. CONSORT guidelines were better followed for general items than for specific items (p<0.001). Improvement in the reporting of the methodology of noninferiority/equivalence trials is needed to avoid misleading interpretation and to allow readers to be fully aware of the assumptions underlying the trial designs. They should be restricted to limited specific situations with a strong justification why a noninferiority hypothesis is acceptable.