A Case Study Demonstrating Superiority of a New Compound over the Gold Standard


Some basic issues relevant for demonstration of superior efficacy are discussed with the case of the development of zoledronic acid 4 and 8 mg in hypercalcemia of malignancy. Topics such as number of studies, significance level, consistency of results across subgroups, and choice of primary efficacy variable are addressed. Two calibration studies using a comparison with a prespecified value as a criterion for efficacy are compared with one between-treatment pooled analysis. A further point is the switch from noninferiority to superiority. Some lessons for statistics can be drawn from the case study.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.


  1. 1.

    Warrell RP. Metabolic emergencies. In: DeVita V. Jr, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, ed. Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology. Ed. 5. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1997:2486–2493.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Mundy GR. Hypercalcemia of malignancy. Am J Med 1997;103:134–145.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Major P, Lortholary A, Hon J, et al. Zoledronic acid is superior to pamidronate in the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy: A pooled analysis of two randomized, controlled clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:558–567.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Body JJ, Lortholary A, Romieu G, et al. A dose-finding study of zoledronate in hypercalcemic cancer patients. J Bone Miner Res 1999;14:1557–1561.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Fisher LD. One large, well-designed, multicenter study as an alternative to the usual FDA paradigm. Drug Inf J 1999;33:265–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ruberg S, Cairns V. Providing evidence of efficacy for a new drug. Stat Med 1998;17:1813–1823.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP). CPMP/EWP/2330/99 Draft. Points to consider on validity and interpretation of meta-analyses, and one pivotal trial. Brussels, Belgium: Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products; October 19, 2000.

  8. 8.

    US Department of Health and Human Services, FDA CDE. and CBER. Guidance for industry: Providing clinical evidence of effectiveness for human drug and biological products. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration; May 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP). CPMP/EWP/482/99 Final. Points to consider on switching between superiority and non-inferiority. Brussels, Belgium: Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products; July 27, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Bauer P, Kieser M. A unifying approach for confidence intervals and testing of equivalence and difference. Biometrika 1996;83:934–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erhard Quebe-Fehling PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Quebe-Fehling, E. A Case Study Demonstrating Superiority of a New Compound over the Gold Standard. Ther Innov Regul Sci 35, 1173–1178 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150103500414

Download citation

Key Words

  • Evidence of efficacy
  • Calibration study
  • One pivotal study
  • Replication
  • Switching from noninferiority to superiority