
TL;DR
This paper explores alternative statistical methods for drug approval beyond the traditional two-trials rule, focusing on controlling error rates when considering up to three studies, and recommends Edgington's method for its balance of power and simplicity.
Contribution
It introduces and evaluates less-known p-value combination methods for up to three studies, extending the two-trials rule to improve power while maintaining error control.
Findings
Edgington's method offers a good balance of power and error control.
Compared methods differ in partial Type-I error rate and efficiency.
Sequential assessment strategies can be effectively implemented.
Abstract
The two-trials rule for drug approval requires "at least two adequate and well-controlled studies, each convincing on its own, to establish effectiveness". This is usually implemented by requiring two significant pivotal trials and is the standard regulatory requirement to provide evidence for a new drug's efficacy. However, there is need to develop suitable alternatives to this rule for a number of reasons, including the possible availability of data from more than two trials. I consider the case of up to 3 studies and stress the importance to control the partial Type-I error rate, where only some studies have a true null effect, while maintaining the overall Type-I error rate of the two-trials rule, where all studies have a null effect. Some less-known -value combination methods are useful to achieve this: Pearson's method, Edgington's method and the recently proposed harmonic mean…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials · Computational Drug Discovery Methods · Optimal Experimental Design Methods
