Search

Wonnam Kim,1,* Yeon-Cheol Park,2,3,* Bonhyuk Goo,2 Jung-Hyun Kim,2 Dongwoo Nam,3,4 Eunseok Kim,5,6 Hyun-Jong Lee,7 Dong-Hyun Pyun,8,9 Hae Sun Suh,8– 10 Yoonsung Lee,11 Man S Kim,11 Byung-Kwan Seo,2,3 Yong-Hyeon Baek2,3 1Division of Pharmacology, School of Korean Medicine, Pusan National University, Yangsan, Republic of Korea; 2Department of Acupuncture & Moxibustion, Kyung Hee University College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul, Republic of Korea; 3Department of Acupuncture & Moxibustion, College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea; 4Department of Acupuncture & Moxibustion, Kyung Hee University College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea; 5Division of Clinical Medicine, School of Korean Medicine, Pusan National University, Yangsan, Republic of Korea; 6Department of Acupuncture and Moxibustion Medicine, Pusan National University Korean Medicine Hospital, Yangsan, Republic of Korea; 7Department of Acupuncture & Moxibustion, College of Korean Medicine, Daegu Haany University, Daegu, Republic of Korea; 8Department of Regulatory Science, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea; 9Institute of Regulatory Innovation Through Science (IRIS), Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea; 10College of Pharmacy, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea; 11Clinical Research Institute, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, School of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Yong-Hyeon Baek, Department of Acupuncture & Moxibustion, College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, 02447, Republic of Korea, Tel +82 2 440 6099, Fax +82 2 440 714, Email byhacu@khu.ac.krPurpose: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is one of the most prevalent degenerative joint diseases worldwide. The herbal decoction, Dokhwalgisaeng-tang (DHGST), has been commonly used in East Asia to treat osteoarthritis. However, there is insufficient evidence to draw clear conclusions concerning its effectiveness and safety for patients with KOA. We aim to determine the efficacy, safety, and economic feasibility of DHGST compared with Celecoxib, an oral COX-2 inhibitor, for patients with degenerative KOA.Trial Design and Methods: This multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, involving 160 participants who will be randomized using block randomization with 1:1 allocation, will compare DHGST and Celecoxib. The total trial period is 24 weeks after random allocation, comprising 12 weeks of treatment and 12 weeks of follow-up. Participants with KOA will be administered 200 mg of DHGST (treatment group) or Celecoxib capsules (control group) for 12 weeks. Efficacy and safety evaluations will be conducted at weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12, and 24. The primary outcome measurement is the Korean Western Ontario McMaster score at week 12. Changes in pain intensity using a 100 mm visual analog scale, changes in quality of life using a EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level self-report survey, and patient satisfaction will also be measured to evaluate effectiveness between the two groups. A trial-based economic feasibility evaluation will be conducted to analyze treatment cost-effectiveness from societal and healthcare system perspectives. Drug safety will be assessed through adverse reactions and laboratory test findings.Discussion: This trial protocol has the following limitations. Applying a double-dummy design is not possible, as the tablet and granule forms can easily be distinguished visually, and achieving participant blinding is challenging. The trial findings are intended to inform participants, physicians, and other stakeholders in determining whether DHGST could be used as an alternative therapeutic option for KOA.Trial Registration Number: KCT0008424 (Clinical Research Information Service of the Republic of Korea), registered on 12 May 2023.Keywords: degenerative joint disease, Dokhwalgisaeng-tang, noninferiority trial, randomized controlled trial

Abstract When designing a noninferiority (NI) study one of the most important steps is to set the noninferiority (NI) limit. The NI limit is an acceptable loss of efficacy for a new investigative treatment compared to an active control treatment – often standard care. The limit should be a value so small that the loss efficacy is clinically zero. An approach to the setting of a noninferiority limit such that an effect over placebo can be shown through an indirect comparison to placebo-controlled trials where the active control treatment was compared to placebo. In this context, the setting of the NI limit depends on three assumptions: assay sensitivity, bias minimisation, and the constancy assumption. The last assumption of constancy assumes the effect of the active control over placebo is constant. This paper aims to assess the constancy assumption in placebo-controlled trials. Methods: 236 Cochrane reviews of placebo-controlled trials published in 2015–2016 were collected and used to assess the relation between the placebo, active treatment, and the standardised treatment different (SMD) with the time (year of publication). Results : The analysis showed that both the size of the study and the treatment effect were associated with year of publication. The three main variables that affect the estimate of any future trial are the estimate from the meta-analysis of previous trials prior to the trial, the year difference in the meta-analysis, and the year of the trial conduction. The regression analysis showed that an increase of one unit in the point estimate of the historical meta-analysis would lead to an increase in the predicted estimate of future trial on the SMD scale by 0.88. This result suggests the final trial results are 12% smaller than that from the meta-analysis of trials until that point. Conclusion : The result of this study indicates that assuming constancy of the treatment difference between the active control and placebo can be questioned. It is therefore important to consider the effect of time in estimating the treatment response if indirect comparisons are being used as the basis of a NI limit.

Aim: Quantitative analysis of brain single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) perfusion imaging is dependent on normative datasets that are challenging to produce. This study investigated the combination of SPECT neuroimaging from a large clinical population rather than small numbers of controls. The authors hypothesized this “population template” would demonstrate noninferiority to a control dataset, providing a viable alternative for quantifying perfusion abnormalities in SPECT neuroimaging. Methods: A total of 2, 068 clinical SPECT scans were averaged to form the “population template”. Validation was three-fold. First, the template was imported into SPECT brain analysis software, MIMneuro®, and compared against its control dataset of 90 individuals through its region and cluster analysis tools. Second, a cohort of 100 cognitively impaired subjects was evaluated against both the population template and MIMneuro®’s normative dataset to compute region-based metrics. Concordance and intraclass correlation coefficients, mean square deviations, total deviation indices, and limits of agreement were derived from these data to measure agreement and test for noninferiority. Finally, the same patients were clinically read in CereMetrix® to confirm that expected perfusion patterns appeared after comparison to the template. Results: MIMneuro®’s default threshold for normality is ± 1.65 z-score and this served as our noninferiority margin. Direct comparison of the template to controls produced no regions that exceeded this threshold and all clusters identified were far from statistically significant. Agreement measures revealed consistency between the softwares and that CereMetrix® results were noninferior to MIMneuro®, albeit with proportional bias. Visual analysis also confirmed that expected perfusion patterns appeared when individual scans were compared to the population template within CereMetrix®. Conclusions: The authors demonstrated a population template was noninferior to a smaller control dataset despite inclusion of abnormal scans. This suggests that our patient-based population template can serve as an alternative for identifying and quantifying perfusion abnormalities in brain SPECT.

Noninferiority trials test whether a new experimental treatment is not unacceptably less efficacious than an active control treatment already in use. With continuous improvements in health technologies, standard care, and clinical outcomes, the incremental benefits of newly developed treatments may be only marginal over existing treatments. Sometimes assigning patients to a placebo is unethical. In such circumstances, there has been increasing emphasis on the use of noninferiority trial designs. Noninferiority trials are more complex to design, conduct, and interpret than typical superiority trials. This paper reviews the concept of noninferiority trials and discusses some important issues related to them.

Abstract Background Binge eating disorder (BED) is a prevalent clinical eating disorder associated with increased psychopathology, psychiatric comorbidity, overweight and obesity, and increased health care costs. Since its inclusion in the DSM-IV, a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have suggested efficacy of book-based self-help interventions in the treatment of this disorder. However, evidence from larger RCTs is needed. Delivery of self-help through new technologies such as the internet should be investigated in particular, as these approaches have the potential to be more interactive and thus more attractive to patients than book-based approaches. This study will evaluate the efficacy of an internet-based guided self-help program (GSH-I) and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which has been proven in several studies to be the gold standard treatment for BED, in a prospective multicenter randomized trial. Methods The study assumes the noninferiority of GSH-I compared to CBT. Both treatments lasted 4 months, and maintenance of outcome will be assessed 6 and 18 months after the end of treatment. A total of 175 patients with BED and a body mass index between 27 and 40 kg/m2 were randomized at 7 centers in Germany and Switzerland. A 20% attrition rate was assumed. As in most BED treatment trials, the difference in the number of binge eating days over the past 28 days is the primary outcome variable. Secondary outcome measures include the specific eating disorder psychopathology, general psychopathology, body weight, quality of life, and self-esteem. Predictors and moderators of treatment outcome will be determined, and the cost-effectiveness of both treatment conditions will be evaluated. Results The methodology for the INTERBED study has been detailed. Conclusions Although there is evidence that CBT is the first-line treatment for BED, it is not widely available. As BED is still a recent diagnostic category, many cases likely remain undiagnosed, and a large number of patients either receive delayed treatment or never get adequate treatment. A multicenter efficacy trial will give insight into the efficacy of a new internet-based guided self-help program and will allow a direct comparison to the evidence-based gold standard treatment of CBT in Germany. Trial Registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN40484777 German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00000409