Choice of Delta in Equivalence Testing

Abstract

A valid interpretation of an active control equivalence study without a concurrent placebo control depends on the assumptions that 1. The active control is effective in the current trial (ie, assay sensitivity), and 2. The effect size is the same across the studies (ie, constancy assumption). The equivalence margin 8 should be a small fraction (eg, 0.2) of the therapeutic effect of the active control as compared to placebo. However, a larger 8 can be justified if the objective is to establish the efficacy of the experimental treatment as compared to placebo through its comparison to the standard therapy without claiming equivalence.

The proposed 8 may be interpreted as preserving a percentage of the active control effect as compared to placebo. The assumption that the active control effect is constant across studies may be discounted by using a smaller 8. Preservation and discounting are two distinct concepts, although they are indistinguishable mathematically.

Placebo controls are not necessarily unethical when known effective therapy exists for a condition. When a placebo control is ethical, it is a clear choice if the study objective is to establish the efficacy of the test treatment. A three-arm trial (test treatment, active control, and placebo) would be an ideal design if the study objective is to establish the efficacy of the test treatment relative to an active control.

When a placebo control is unethical and there can be no concurrent placebo, an evaluation of the efficacy of the test treatment depends on the discount factor to be used. The discount factor is often difficult to justify. In such a situation, an evaluation of the efficacy of the test treatment may be supplemented by other designs such as an “add on” design or an early escape design. In fact, a hybrid of the active control design with the “add on” design (test treatment, active control, and combination) is an ideal design when the test treatment and the active control possess different pharmacologic mechanisms. On the other hand, the discounting factor plays a less important role in an evaluation of the relative efficacy of the test treatment.

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

References

  1. 1.

    International Conference on Harmonization E10 Guideline. Choice of Control Groups in Clinical Trials. International Conference on Harmonization; 2000. http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Schuirmann DJ. A Comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokinetics Biopharmaceutics. 1987;15:657–680.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Chow S-C, Liu J-P. Individual equivalence. In: Chow, S-C. ed. Encyclopedia ofBiopharmaceutical Statistics. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2000:259–266.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    International Conference on Harmonization E9 Guideline. Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials. International Conference on Harmonization; 1998. http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Blackwelder CW. Equivalence Trials. In: Armitage P and Colton T, eds. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. New York: John Wiley; 1998:1367–1372.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Hauschke D, Schall R, Luus HG. Statistical significance. In: Chow, S-C. ed. Encyclopedia ofBiopharmaceutical Statistics. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2000:493–497.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Dunnett CW, Gent M. Significance testing to establish equivalence between treatments, with special reference to data in the form of 2 × 2 tables. Biometrics. 1977;33:593–602.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Blackwelder CW. Proving the Null Hypothesis’ in Clinical Trials. Control Clin Trials. 1982;3:345–353.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Makuch R, Johnson M. Active control equivalence studies: Planning and interpretation. In: Statistical Issues in Drug Research and Development. K. Peace, ed., New York: Marcel Dekker; 1990, 238–246.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Windeler J, Trampisch H-J. Recommendations concerning studies on therapeutic equivalence. Drug Inf J. 1996;30:195–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Hauck WW, Anderson S. Some issues in the design and analysis of equivalence trials. Drug Inf J. 1999;33:109–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Simon R. Bayesian design and analysis of active control clinical trials. Biometrics. 1999;55:484–487.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Hwang IK, Morikawa T. Design issues in non-inferiority/equivalence trials. Drug Inf J. 1999;33:1205–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Simon R. Therapeutic equivalence trials. In: Crowley J, ed. Handbook of Statistics in Cancer Trials. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2001 (In press).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Liu J-P. Equivalence trials. In: Chow S-C, ed. Encyclopedia ofBiopharmaceutical Statistics. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2000:188–194.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Liu J-P. Therapeutic equivalence. In: Chow S-C, ed. Encyclopedia of Biopharmaceutical Statistics. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2000:515–520.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Ng T-H. A Specification of treatment difference in the design of clinical trials with active controls. Drug Inf J. 1993;27:705–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Ng T-H. Active control equivalence studies. Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section, American Statistical Association. 1997;124–128.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Ng T-H. Statistical issues in equivalence testing— FDA reviewer’s perspectives. Proceedings of the Bi-opharmaceutical Section, American Statistical Association. 1999;209–213.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Gupta G, Hsu H, Ng T-H, Tiwari T, Wang C. Statistical review experiences in equivalence testing at FDA/CBER. Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section, American Statistical Association. 1999;220–223.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Code of Federal Regulations. 21 CFR 314.126. Adequate and Well-controlled Studies, 1985.

  22. 22.

    Code of Federal Regulations. 21 CFR 314.126. Adequate and Well-controlled Studies, 2000.

  23. 23.

    Fleming TR. Treatment evaluation in active control studies. Cancer Treatment Reports. 1987;71:1061–1065.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Snapinn SM. Alternatives for discounting historical data in the analysis of non-inferiority trials. Int Chinese Stat Assoc Bulletin. January 2001;29–33.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Temple R, Ellenberg S. Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments. Part 1: Ethical and scientific issues. Ann Int Med. 2000;133 (6) 455–463.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Temple R. Problems in interpreting active control equivalence trials. Accountability Research. 1996;4:267–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tie-Hua Ng PhD.

Additional information

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect policies of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ng, TH. Choice of Delta in Equivalence Testing. Ther Innov Regul Sci 35, 1517–1527 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150103500446

Download citation

Key Words

  • Active control
  • Equivalence margin
  • Equivalence testing
  • Discounting
  • Preservation