Does unequal alpha distribution make sense? [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Dr_Dan  – Germany, 2015-05-29 10:33 (3691 d 17:23 ago) – Posting: # 14879
Views: 20,693

Dear Helmut
For a non-statistician the whole problem is very complicated. The method according to Haybittle/Peto

Stage I:  0.001 leading to 99.8% CI
Stage II: 0.049 leading to 90.2% CI

may lead to unacceptable inflation of the TIE, so far I understood. As you explained in your pile of half-baked manuscripts you explored adjusted alphas which maintain the TIE. For a “type 1” TSD, GMR 0.95, target power 80%, α1 0.001 you found an adjusted α2 of 0.0413 suitable to maintain the patient’s risk. Using this method which kind of CI do you have for the second stage?

Stage I:  0.001 leading to 99.8% CI
Stage II: 0.0413 leading to 9?.?% CI ???

For the sample size calculation for the second stage you use the GMR 0.95 or the GMR as calculated from stage I results?

Kind regards
Dr_Dan

Kind regards and have a nice day
Dr_Dan

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,427 posts in 4,929 threads, 1,678 registered users;
25 visitors (0 registered, 25 guests [including 9 identified bots]).
Forum time: 03:56 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

No matter what side of the argument you are on,
you always find people on your side
that you wish were on the other.    Thomas Berger

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5