This large, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, clinical trial showed no effect of the traditional Chinese medicine herbal compound FYTF-919 on functional recovery, survival, and health-related quality of life in patients with moderate to severe intracerebral haemorrhage. The results reaffirm the need for methodologically rigorous, randomised controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of existing therapies, including traditional Chinese medicines that are already in widespread use throughout the world.

Opportunities to decrease the toxicity and cost of approved treatment regimens with lower dose, less frequent, or shorter duration alternative regimens have been limited by the perception that alternatives must be non-inferior to approved regimens. Non-inferiority trials are large and expensive to do, because they must show statistically that the alternative and approved therapies differ in a single outcome, by a margin far smaller than that required to demonstrate superiority. Non-inferiority’s flaws are manifest: it ignores variability expected to occur with repeated evaluation of the approved therapy, fails to recognise that a trial of similar design will be labelled as superiority or non-inferiority depending on whether it is done prior to or after initial registration of the approved treatment, and relegates endpoints such as toxicity and cost.