A common standard for the demonstration of efficacy in a clinical submission is a statistically significant outcome in at least two pivotal trials (“two-trials convention”). When the data structures in different trials are sufficiently similar to allow pooling of the data across trials for a combined analysis, we argue here that such an analysis is a more logical and efficient basis for a judgment regarding efficacy. Criteria for combined analyses may be established, which ensure the same false positive rate protection as the two-trials convention. A combined analysis will generally have much more power than the corresponding application of the two-trials approach that has the same false positive rate protection. In addition, we describe the behavior of modified versions of pure combined analysis, which incorporate a formal standard for reproducibility of trial results by limiting the larger of the individual trial p-values. These modifications are shown to maintain the desirable behavior of the pure combined analysis, namely, higher power compared to the two-trials convention.
[1]
Stephen Senn,et al.
Statistical Issues in Drug Development
,
1997
.
[2]
P. Bauer,et al.
Evaluation of experiments with adaptive interim analyses.
,
1994,
Biometrics.
[3]
Mohammad F. Huque,et al.
Understanding on the Pooled Test for Controlled Clinical Trialsn
,
2001
.
[4]
L. Fisher.
One Large, Well-Designed, Multicenter Study as an Alternative to the Usual Fda Paradigm
,
1999
.
[5]
Guidance for Industry Providing Clinical Evidence of Effectiveness for Human Drug and Biological Products
,
1998
.
[6]
R T O'Neill,et al.
The behavior of the P-value when the alternative hypothesis is true.
,
1997,
Biometrics.
[7]
W. Lehmacher,et al.
Adaptive Sample Size Calculations in Group Sequential Trials
,
1999,
Biometrics.