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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Senn, S. Inherent difficulties with active control equivalence trials. Stat Med. 1993;12:2367–2375.
Kirshner, B. Methodological standards for assessing therapeutic equivalence. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:839–849.
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.
Blackwelder, WC. “Proving the null hypothesis” in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1982;3:345–353.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gardner, MJ, Altman, DG. Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Br Med J. 1986;292:746–750.
Simon, R. Confidence intervals for reporting results of clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 1986;105:429–435.
Braitman, LE. Confidence intervals assess both clinical significance and statistical significance. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114:515–517.
Jennison, C, Turnbull, BW. Sequential equivalence testing and repeated confidence intervals, with applications to normal and binary responses. Biometrics. 1993;49:31–43.
Hauck, WW, Anderson, S. Types of bioequivalence and related statistical considerations. Int J Clin Pharmacol, Ther Toxicol. 1992;30:181–187.
Berger, RL, Hsu, JC. Bioequivalence trials, intersection-union tests, and equivalence confidence sets (with discussion). Stat Sci. 1997;11:283–319.
Jones, B, Jarvis, P, Lewis, JA, Ebbutt, AF. Trials to assess equivalence: The importance of rigorous methods. Brit Med J. 1996;313:36–39.
Dunnett, CW, Gent, M. An alternative to the use of two-sided tests in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1996;15:1729–1738.
Anderson, S, Hauck, WW. Consideration of individual bioequivalence. J Pharmacokin Biopharm. 1990;18:259–273.
Sheiner, LB. Bioequivalence revisited. Stat Med. 1992;11:1777–1788.
Schall, R, Luus, HG. On population and individual bioequivalence. Stat Med. 1993;12:1109–1124.
Hauck, WW, Bois, FY, Hyslop, T, Gee, L, Anderson, S. A parametric approach to population bioequivalence. Stat Med. 1997;16:441–454.
O’Brien PC. Comparing two samples: Extensions of the t, rank-sum, and log-rank tests. J Am Stat Assoc. 1988;83:52–61.
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.
Temple, R. Government viewpoint of clinical trials. Drug Inf J. 1982;16:10–17.
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.
Bristol, DR. Planning survival studies to compare a treatment to an active control. J Biopharm Stat. 1993;3:153–158.
Frick, H. On approximate and exact sample sizes of equivalence tests for binomial proportions. Biom J. 1994;36:841–854.
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.
Lewis, JA, Machin, D. Intention to treat—Who should use ITT? Br J Cancer. 1993;68:647–650.
Sheiner, LB. The intellectual health of clinical drug evaluation. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1991;50:4–9.
Sheiner, LB, Rubin, DB. Intention-to-treat analysis and the goals of clinical trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1995;57:6–15.
Angrist, JD, Imbens, GW, Rubin, DB. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables (with discussion). J Am Stat Assoc. 1996;91:444–472.
Law, MG, Kaldor, JM. Survival analyses of randomized clinical trials adjusted for patients who switch treatments. Stat Med. 1996;15:2069–2076.
Robins, JM. Correction for non-compliance in equivalence trials. Stat Med. 1998;17:269–302.
Little RJA, Rubin, DB. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. New York: Wiley; 1987.
Anderson, S, Hauck, WW. The transitivity of bioequivalence testing: Potential for drift. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1996;34:369–374.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights 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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009286159903300114