Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 11, 2026

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Using historical control information for the design and analysis of clinical trials with overdispersed count data
Sandro Gsteiger1, Beat Neuenschwander, Francois Mercier
1Novartis Pharma AG, CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland. sandro.gsteiger@a3.epfl.ch
Abstract:
Results from clinical trials are never interpreted in isolation. Previous studies in a similar setting provide valuable information for designing a new trial. For the analysis, however, the use of trial-external information is challenging and therefore controversial, although it seems attractive from an ethical or efficiency perspective. Here, we consider the formal use of historical control data on lesion counts in a multiple sclerosis trial. The approach to incorporating historical data is Bayesian, in that historical information is captured in a prior that accounts for between-trial variability and hence leads to discounting of historical data. We extend the meta-analytic-predictive approach, a random-effects meta-analysis of historical data combined with the prediction of the parameter in the new trial, from normal to overdispersed count data of individual-patient or aggregate-trial format. We discuss the prior derivation for the lesion mean count in the control group of the new trial for two populations. For the general population (without baseline enrichment), with 1936 control patients from nine historical trials, between-trial variability was moderate to substantial, leading to a prior effective sample size of about 45 control patients. For the more homogenous population (with enrichment), with 412 control patients from five historical trials, the prior effective sample size was approximately 63 patients. Although these numbers are small relative to the historical data, they are fairly typical in settings where between-trial heterogeneity is moderate. For phase II, reducing the number of control patients by 45 or by 63 may be an attractive option in many multiple sclerosis trials.
More Related Videos
08:36The Adjuvant Efficacy of Angong Niuhuang Pill in the Treatment of Viral Encephalitis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Published on: April 19, 2024
11:38High Content Screening Analysis to Evaluate the Toxicological Effects of Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents (HPHC)
Published on: May 10, 2016
Related Concept Videos
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Crossover Experiments
Crossover designs are performed even with smaller sample sizes since the samples can act as their controls. These are better than simple randomized trials since patients are exposed to all the treatments.
Analysis of Population Pharmacokinetic Data
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Study Design in Statistics
Does aspirin reduce the risk of heart attacks? Is one brand of fertilizer more effective at growing roses than another? Is fatigue as dangerous to a driver as the influence of alcohol? Questions like these are answered using randomized experiments with proper...