HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Blackwelder, W.C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Blackwelder, W.C.

Current Issues in Clinical Equivalence Trials

8613 Hempstead Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20817-6711, USA; wcb{at}boo.net

A clinical trial designed to show that an experimental treatment E is similar to a control treatment S in a specified direction is a one-sided equivalence or similarity trial—in the terminology of the International Conference on Harmonisation, a non-inferiority trial (ICH, 1998). We design such a study to show that E is not worse than S (often an accepted or standard treatment) by as much as a pre-specified margin ₀. The quantity ₀ can be either a difference or ratio of an appropriate outcome in individuals treated with E and S. A critical issue is whether one can conclude from a non-inferiority trial that E is effective. Closely related is an appropriate choice of ₀, which should be substantially less than the estimated effect of S if available from previous studies; ₀ should also be acceptable to clinicians, either because of advantages of E or because a difference or ratio less than ₀ is considered unimportant clinically. Another possible approach for showing that E is effective is to estimate its effect compared with placebo from historical data. If previous studies that consistently show an effect of S are not available, alternative study designs should be considered. Findings of superiority or non-inferiority of E, when the study was planned to show the other, are possible and may be supportable. A finding that E is at the same time statistically significantly worse than S and "non-inferior" to S should not be a problem, if the criterion ₀ is appropriate and this possibility was considered in the protocol. Various sorts of non-adherence may make treatments appear similar, even if they are not. In particular, random non-adherence of study participants to the assigned treatment regimen may cause an intention-to-treat analysis to give a misleading result of similarity. Thus, maintaining a high degree of adherence to protocol is especially important in an equivalence or non-inferiority trial. Interim analysis does not present statistical problems in these trials; early stopping may not be wise in many cases, however, because strong interim evidence for non-inferiority may actually be an indicator that E is superior to S.

KEY WORDS: equivalence • non-inferiority • superiority • clinical trials

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N.B. Pitts and J.W. Stamm Preface J. Dent. Res., July 1, 2004; 83(suppl_1): C4 - C5. [Full Text] [PDF]