[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.197.90.95. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Citations 0
Letters
October 27, 2004

Tenofovir, Equivalence, and Noninferiority—Reply

Author Affiliations
 

Letters Section Editor: Robert M. Golub, MD, Senior Editor.

JAMA. 2004;292(16):1951-1952. doi:10.1001/jama.292.16.1951-b

In Reply: Although the terms “equivalence” and “noninferiority” are not strictly the same, we did use them interchangeably, as is commonly done.1 This study was designed as a noninferiority study with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 10% chosen as in the “Methods” section.

The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between 2 trial arms is an appropriate and traditional method for assessing equivalence of 2 treatments.1,2 The same procedure is often advocated for assessing noninferiority of a new drug (or regimen) compared with a reference drug,1 even though in noninferiority studies emphasis is on the lower bound of the 95% CI. Indeed, the use of a 2-sided 95% CI (equivalent to a 1-sided 97.5% CI) is advocated by US and European regulatory agencies36 for noninferiority studies. While academic statisticians often use 1-sided 95% CIs to assess noninferiority, we chose the more conservative 2-sided approach, as suggested by these regulatory authorities.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×