Hypothesis testing in the "gold standard" design for proving the efficacy of an experimental treatment relative to placebo and a reference.

This article reviews the most important reasons to include a placebo and a reference treatment group in a study to investigate the efficacy of a new experimental treatment. We argue that as a general rule the regulatory requirement is the proven superiority of the experimental treatment over placebo and the proven noninferiority of the experimental treatment as compared to the reference treatment. Whether or not the reference treatment can be shown to be superior to placebo may impact the formulation of the indication but should not, per se, question the usefulness of the experimental treatment or the credibility of the principal proof of efficacy. We argue that a mandatory requirement for the reference treatment to be superior to placebo is ill founded and especially difficult to justify in the situation where the experimental treatment can also prove its superiority over the reference treatment. For this latter situation, it is shown that no adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing is needed, if at the same time superiority of the reference over placebo and superiority of the experimental treatment over the reference are investigated.