Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum 01:38 CEST

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log in |  Register |  Search

Now what? w & w* examples [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Ben - 2018-06-12 19:14  - Posting: # 18892
Views: 1,018

Hi Helmut,

» Not necessarily good but a “guesstimate”.
Got it. Well... whatever a guesstimate is ;-)

» » … but in case we observe some unforeseen value we have the possibility to add some extra subjects.
» » However, in such a case we could just go with a fixed design and adapt the Power.
»
» I’m not sure what you mean here. In a fixed sample design I would rather work with the upper CL of the CV or – if not available – assume a reasonably higher CV than my original guess rather than fiddling around with power.
I try to explain. In case the argument is that a TSD approach should be performed not because of an uncertain CV per se (e.g. quite a big range observed so far) but because it is desired to safeguard against an unfavorable outcome of the CV (i.e. an extreme realization / random deviate of the CV), then: stop right there. To protect against such an outcome is exactly the definition of Power (type II error) and I would question whether a TSD is really the right tool - maybe a fixed design already suffices (with a proper Power).

» » In a TSD setting we typically have no good understanding about the CV... Do I miss something here?
» (1) Yep and (2) no.
:ok:


» » Based on what assumptions would we select n1 (= fixed design sample size)? We typically have some range of possible values and we don't know where we will be.
» I was just quoting a regulatory statistician (don’t want to out him). Others didn’t contradict him. So likely he wasn’t alone with his point of view.
:cool:

» Very interesting. I expected that the sample size penalty (n2) will be higher if we use a low n1.
Me too.

» If we base n1 on the lower end and the CV is close to the guesstimate that’s the winner. One the other hand there is a ~56% chance of proceeding to the second stage which is not desirable – and contradicts the concept of a “safety net”. ;-) A compromise would be 75% of the fixed sample design.
» The pessimistic approach would be crazy.
I agree to all of it. :-D

Best regards,
Ben.

Complete thread:

Back to the forum Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
18,698 posts in 3,983 threads, 1,234 registered users;
online 8 (0 registered, 8 guests [including 7 identified bots]).

When puzzled, it never hurts to read the primary documents –
a rather simple and self-evident principle that has, nonetheless,
completely disappeared from large sectors
of the American experience.    Stephen Jay Gould

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5 RSS Feed