Superiority and non-inferiority: two sides of the same coin?

Abstract

BackgroundThe classification of phase 3 trials as superiority or non-inferiority has become routine, and it is widely accepted that there are important differences between the two types of trial in their design, analysis and interpretation.Main textThere is a clear rationale for the superiority/non-inferiority framework in the context of regulatory trials. The focus of our article is non-regulatory trials with a public health objective. First, using two examples from infectious disease research, we show that the classification of superiority or non-inferiority trials is not always straightforward. Second, we show that several arguments for different approaches to the design, analysis and interpretation of superiority and non-inferiority trials are unconvincing when examined in detail. We consider, in particular, the calculation of sample size (and the choice of delta or the non-inferiority margin), intention-to-treat versus per-protocol analyses, and one-sided versus two-sided confidence intervals. We argue that the superiority/non-inferiority framework is not just unnecessary but can have a detrimental effect, being a barrier to clear scientific thought and communication. In particular, it places undue emphasis on tests for significance or non-inferiority at the expense of estimation. We emphasise that these concerns apply to phase 3 non-regulatory trials in general, not just to those where the classification of the trial as superiority or non-inferiority is ambiguous.ConclusionsGuidelines and statistical practice should abandon the sharp division between superiority and non-inferiority phase 3 non-regulatory trials and be more closely aligned to the clinical and public health questions that motivate the trial.

Non-inferiority trials in cardiology: what clinicians need to know

“…Table 1 shows a comparison of important aspects between superiority and non-inferiority trials. Despite these differences, it has been argued that the classification of trials as superiority or non-inferiority is arbitrary and somewhat artificial, especially with non-regulatory trials and when classifications of treatment groups as new or standard is ambiguous 11…”

Efficacy, safety and impact on antimicrobial resistance of duration and dose of amoxicillin treatment for young children with Community-Acquired Pneumonia: a protocol for a randomIsed controlled Trial (CAP-IT)

“…However, inference will be based primarily on point estimates and CIs rather than binary classification of a ‘non-inferior’ or ‘not non-inferior’ outcome. 42 …”

The Connection between the Averted Infections Ratio and the Rate Ratio in Active-control Trials of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Agents

“…The standard primary outcome measure, following the approach used in earlier placebo controlled trials, is the HIV incidence rate ratio comparing the experimental and control groups (Cutrell et al 2017; Donnell et al 2013). In a recent paper, we pointed out serious difficulties in the interpretation of this measure and described an alternative measure of effectiveness, the averted infections ratio (AIR), based on the concept of averted infections (Dunn et al 2018). The AIR is interpreted as proportion of infections that would be averted by using the experimental agent rather than the control agent (compared to no intervention).…”