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

posted by Dr_Dan  – Germany, 2015-05-29 10:33 (3677 d 15:06 ago) – Posting: # 14879
Views: 20,604

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
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,674 registered users;
18 visitors (0 registered, 18 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: 01:39 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Medical researches can be divided into two sorts:
those who think that meta is better and those
who believe that pooling is fooling.    Stephen Senn

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