Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 192–196 | Cite as

Understanding Equivalence and Noninferiority Testing

Reviews

Abstract

Increasingly, the goal of many studies is to determine if new therapies have equivalent or noninferior efficacies to the ones currently in use. These studies are called equivalence/noninferiority studies, and the statistical methods for their analysis require only simple modifications to the traditional hypotheses testing framework. Nevertheless, important and subtle issues arise with the application of such methods. This article describes the concepts and statistical methods involved in testing equivalence/noninferiority. The aim is to enable the clinician to understand and critically assess the growing number of articles utilizing such methods.

KEY WORDS

equivalence margin TOST hypotheses testing 

Notes

Conflict of Interest

None disclosed.

References

  1. 1.
    Staszewski S, Keisser P, Montaner J, et al. Abacavir-Lamivudine-Zidobudine vs Indinavir-Lamivudine-Zidobudine in antiretroviral-naïve HIV-infected adults. JAMA. 2001;285:1155–1163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schuirmann DJ. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokin Biopharm. 1987;15:657–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fifth Organization to Assess Strategies in Acute Ischemic Syndromes Investigators (OASIS-5). Comparison of fondaparinux and enoxaparin in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1464–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wellek S. Testing Statistical Hypotheses of Equivalence. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall; 2003.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garret AD. Therapeutic equivalence: fallacies and falsification. Statist Med. 2003;22:741–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaul S, Diamond GA. Good enough: a primer on the analysis and interpretation of noninferiority trials. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:62–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barker LE, Luman ET, McCauley MM, Chu SY. assessing equivalence: an alternative to the use of difference tests for measuring disparities in vaccination coverage. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156:1056–1061.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hintze J. PASS 2008. NCSS. LLC. Kaysville, Utah (www.ncss.com).
  9. 9.
    Wiens BL, Zhao W. The role of intention to treat in analysis of noninferiority studies. Clinical Trials. 2007;4:286–291.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ebbutt AF, Frith L. Practical issues in equivalence trials. Statist Med. 1998;17:1691–1701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Ellenberg SS, Temple R. Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments: part 2: practical issues and specific cases. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133:464–470.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Temple R, Ellenberg SS. Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments: part 1: ethical and scientific issues. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133:455–453.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Le Henanff A, Girardeau B, Baron G, et al. Quality of reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials. JAMA. 2006;295:1147–1151.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gotzsche PC. Lessons from and cautions about noninferiority and equivalence random trials. JAMA. 2006;295:1172–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, et al. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials. An extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 2006;295:1152–1160.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Quantitative Health SciencesCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations