Unauthorized Use of Content on this Site: The responses, guidance, and advisories provided by the Pharmaceutical Advertising Advisory Board (PAAB)—including, but not limited to, those available through the PAAB Forum, the PAAB website, and any PAAB correspondence—are specifically intended to assist individuals navigating the PAAB preclearance system. Repurposing or reproducing this content, or using it for model training or any related purposes, is strictly prohibited without the express prior written consent of PAAB. This includes, but is not limited to, the use of such materials in automated systems, machine learning models, or artificial intelligence applications.
581 - For an efficacy claim, comparing head-to-head results of the study drug vs. the standard treatment, what support is required to justify the claim "significant"?
-
For “statistically significant” you need a statistically significant p-value or CI. On occasion, multiplicity adjustments are required to control for type I error.
For “clinically significant” you’d need the study to have predefined a threshold difference that is deemed to be “clinically significant”. The message “significant” on it’s own is ambiguous, “statistically” or “clinically” should be added as supported.
