[The importance of equivalence trials in showing the usefulness of treatments].

There are different kinds of randomised controlled trials: trials in which the superiority of a treatment can be demonstrated (superiority trials) and trials in which the equal efficacy of two treatments can be shown (equivalence trials). The main reason for performing an equivalence trial is that for many diseases and disorders an effective treatment already exists. Equivalence trials are appropriate when a new treatment offers some advantages over an existing treatment (less cost, greater safety, improved convenience or freedom of choice for the patient), in addition to the expected equal therapeutic effectiveness. The design of equivalence trials is to a large extent comparable to that of superiority trials, but there are some methodological differences. In equivalence trials, the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis are interchanged, compared to superiority trials. In equivalence trials, an equivalence margin is defined for the different treatments. Clinical professionals decide on the equivalence margin beforehand on the basis of the clinical relevance. To demonstrate equivalence, the confidence interval of the difference between two treatments must lie completely within the equivalence margin. In equivalence trials, there are usually more patients needed: the smaller the equivalence margin, the more patients are needed. In equivalence trials, both per-protocol analyses and intention-to-treat analyses should be used to prove the equal therapeutic effectiveness of the treatments under study.