Issues in the assessment of non‐inferiority: perspectives drawn from case studies

Abstract

Superiority claims for improved efficacy are the backbone of clinical development of new therapies. However, not every new therapy in development allows for such a claim. Some therapies per se do not try to improve efficacy further but concentrate on important aspects in safety or convenience. Such improvements can be equally important to patients, and development strategies should be available for such compounds. A three-arm design with placebo, active control and experimental treatment may be viewed as the golden standard for such compounds; however, it may be difficult if not impossible to add a placebo arm in certain diseases. In such situations, non-inferiority designs are the only development option left. This paper will highlight some of the key issues with such designs in practice and will report experience from two studies from different therapeutic areas intended for regulatory submission.