Equivalence concepts in clinical trials

According to the recent ICH E9 Guidance Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials, efficacy is most convincingly established by demonstrating superiority to placebo, by showing superiority to an active control treatment or by demonstrating a dose-response relationship (so-called ‘superiority’ trials). For serious illnesses, a placebo-controlled trial may be considered unethical if a therapeutic treatment exists which has proven efficacious in relevant superiority trial(s). In that case, the scientifically sound use of an active treatment as a control should be considered. Active control trials designed to show that the efficacy of an investigational product is not relevantly worse than that of the active comparator are called ‘non-inferiority’ trials (1). After having confirmed non-inferiority, superiority of the alternative test treatment over the reference treatment can additionally be tested without the need to adjust the significance level (2). In contrast to cross-over bioequivalence trials based on pharmacokinetic endpoints such as AUC and Cmax, therapeutic equivalence and non-inferiority trials are based on clinical end-points. Therefore, they are often conducted as parallel group comparisons. It is important to note that the conclusion of equivalence or non-inferiority is based on the inclusion of the appropriate confidence interval in the equivalence acceptance range, and that it cannot be derived from a non-significant test result of the inappropriate null hypothesis of no treatment difference.