You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 292 No. 16, October 27, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (1)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related articles
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •HIV/AIDS
 •Statistics and Research Methods
 •Randomized Controlled Trial
 •Infectious Diseases
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Tenofovir, Equivalence, and Noninferiority

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: Dr Gallant and colleagues1 compared the proportion of patients with HIV RNA levels less than 400 copies/mL at week 48 in antiretroviral-naive patients who randomly received either tenofovir or stavudine, in combination with efavirenz and lamivudine. The authors stated in their methods that "the study was designed as a noninferiority trial (ie, equivalence)." However, noninferiority and equivalence hypotheses are not identical.

In the intent-to-treat analysis, the lower 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) weighted difference exceeded their predefined 10% limit. However, in a 1-sided statistical context such as noninferiority, the 1-sided lower limit may be preferred. Of note, the 1-sided lower bound of the nonweighted 95% CI difference of the primary end point is –9.3, which would indicate noninferiority of the tenofovir-based regimen. Although the authors could not demonstrate equivalence, tenofovir is certainly not virologically inferior to stavudine by more than 10% at week 48.

The choice of . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Jean-Jacques Parienti, MD
parienti-jj@chu-caen.fr
Côte de Nacre University Hospital
Caen, France



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLES

Tenofovir, Equivalence, and Noninferiority—Reply
Joel E. Gallant, Schlomo Staszewski, Anton L. Pozniak, Edwin DeJesus, Jamal M. A. H. Suleiman, Biao Lu, John J. Toole, and Andrew K. Cheng
JAMA. 2004;292(16):1951-1952.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Efficacy and Safety of Tenofovir DF vs Stavudine in Combination Therapy in Antiretroviral-Naive Patients: A 3-Year Randomized Trial
Joel E. Gallant, Schlomo Staszewski, Anton L. Pozniak, Edwin DeJesus, Jamal M. A. H. Suleiman, Michael D. Miller, Dion F. Coakley, Biao Lu, John J. Toole, Andrew K. Cheng, and for the 903 Study Group
JAMA. 2004;292(2):191-201.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2004 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.