Skip to main content
Log in

Some Issues in the Design and Analysis of Equivalence Trials

  • Published:
Drug information journal : DIJ / Drug Information Association Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Given the number of approved drugs, it is increasingly the case that the comparison arm for a new drug or combination product is another drug or combination, that is, the trial uses an “active-control.” Such active-controlled trials raise issues not seen in placebo-controlled trials. This note reviews and discusses some issues associated with the design and analysis of equivalence trials. Included are discussions of the choice of the equivalence allowance in designing the trial, and the roles of confidence intervals and intent-to-treat analyses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Senn, S. Inherent difficulties with active control equivalence trials. Stat Med. 1993;12:2367–2375.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kirshner, B. Methodological standards for assessing therapeutic equivalence. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:839–849.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. McMaster University Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics. How to read clinical journals: V: To distinguish useful from useless or even harmful therapy. Canad Med Assoc J. 1981;124:1156–1162.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Blackwelder, WC. “Proving the null hypothesis” in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1982;3:345–353.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schuirmann, DJ. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J Phar-macokin Biopharm. 1987;15:657–680.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hauschke, D, Steinijans, VW, Diletti, E. A distribution-free procedure for statistical analyses of bio-equivalence studies. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1990;28:72–78.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pledger, G, Hall, D. Active control equivalence studies: Do they address the efficacy issue? In: Peace KE ed. Statistical Issues In Drug Research and Development. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1990:226–238.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Amato, DA. The design and analysis of equivalence trails. In: Finkelstein, DM, Schoenfeld DA eds. AIDS Clinical Trials. New York: Wiley-Liss; 1995:155–265.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Morikawa, T, Yoshida, M. A useful testing strategy in phase III trials: Combined test of superiority and test of equivalence. J Biopharm Statist. 1995;5:297–306.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gardner, MJ, Altman, DG. Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Br Med J. 1986;292:746–750.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Simon, R. Confidence intervals for reporting results of clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 1986;105:429–435.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Braitman, LE. Confidence intervals assess both clinical significance and statistical significance. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114:515–517.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jennison, C, Turnbull, BW. Sequential equivalence testing and repeated confidence intervals, with applications to normal and binary responses. Biometrics. 1993;49:31–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hauck, WW, Anderson, S. Types of bioequivalence and related statistical considerations. Int J Clin Pharmacol, Ther Toxicol. 1992;30:181–187.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Berger, RL, Hsu, JC. Bioequivalence trials, intersection-union tests, and equivalence confidence sets (with discussion). Stat Sci. 1997;11:283–319.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jones, B, Jarvis, P, Lewis, JA, Ebbutt, AF. Trials to assess equivalence: The importance of rigorous methods. Brit Med J. 1996;313:36–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Dunnett, CW, Gent, M. An alternative to the use of two-sided tests in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1996;15:1729–1738.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Anderson, S, Hauck, WW. Consideration of individual bioequivalence. J Pharmacokin Biopharm. 1990;18:259–273.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sheiner, LB. Bioequivalence revisited. Stat Med. 1992;11:1777–1788.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schall, R, Luus, HG. On population and individual bioequivalence. Stat Med. 1993;12:1109–1124.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hauck, WW, Bois, FY, Hyslop, T, Gee, L, Anderson, S. A parametric approach to population bioequivalence. Stat Med. 1997;16:441–454.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. O’Brien PC. Comparing two samples: Extensions of the t, rank-sum, and log-rank tests. J Am Stat Assoc. 1988;83:52–61.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Blair, RC, Morel, JG. On the use of the generalized t and generalized rank-sum statistics in medical research. Stat Med. 1992;11:491–501.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Temple, R. Government viewpoint of clinical trials. Drug Inf J. 1982;16:10–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Diletti, E, Hauschke, D, Steinijans, VW. Sample size determination for bioequivalence assessment by means of confidence intervals. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1991;29:1–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bristol, DR. Planning survival studies to compare a treatment to an active control. J Biopharm Stat. 1993;3:153–158.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Frick, H. On approximate and exact sample sizes of equivalence tests for binomial proportions. Biom J. 1994;36:841–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Roebruck, P. Comparison of tests and sample size formulae for proving therapeutic equivalence based on the difference of binomial probabilities. Stat Med. 1995;14:1583–1594.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lewis, JA, Machin, D. Intention to treat—Who should use ITT? Br J Cancer. 1993;68:647–650.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Sheiner, LB. The intellectual health of clinical drug evaluation. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1991;50:4–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sheiner, LB, Rubin, DB. Intention-to-treat analysis and the goals of clinical trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1995;57:6–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Angrist, JD, Imbens, GW, Rubin, DB. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables (with discussion). J Am Stat Assoc. 1996;91:444–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Law, MG, Kaldor, JM. Survival analyses of randomized clinical trials adjusted for patients who switch treatments. Stat Med. 1996;15:2069–2076.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Robins, JM. Correction for non-compliance in equivalence trials. Stat Med. 1998;17:269–302.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Little RJA, Rubin, DB. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. New York: Wiley; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Anderson, S, Hauck, WW. The transitivity of bioequivalence testing: Potential for drift. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1996;34:369–374.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hauck, W.W., Anderson, S. Some Issues in the Design and Analysis of Equivalence Trials. Ther Innov Regul Sci 33, 109–118 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286159903300114

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009286159903300114

Key Words

Navigation