Science fiction [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2015-04-06 14:20 (2358 d 13:36 ago) – Posting: # 14662
Views: 14,899

Hi Mauricio,

» Are there any problem if, in the same protocol, replicated 4x2 and two-stage-design are considered?

A lot of problems. I agree with ElMaestro.

» For example, in first group were used 96 subjects on replicated (4x2) design with IC 95%. The result wasn't bioequivalent and the power was less than 80%.

Wow. I guess by “IC” you mean the GMR or T/R-ratio, right?* For FDA’s RSABE that would imply a CV of >361% and for EMA’s ABEL still a CV of >166%. What a nasty drug/formulation! BTW, for HVDs / HVDPs assuming a GMR of 95% is not a good idea. The two Lászlós recommend 90% – even if a “better” one was observed in a previous study.
You cannot simply assess the study for BE (α 0.05 or 90% CI) – that’s an add-on design, which was shown to inflate the TIE.1,2 In TSDs you have to use an adjusted α (at least if you proceed to the second stage).

» Therefore, a second group was added with 48 subjects, on replicated (4x2) design with the same IC 95%. In the end, first and second stage were combined and the result was bioequivalent …

… with a completely unknown type I error. If you used 0.05 already in the first stage you are dead.

» I am to consider this strategy because I don't know how much variability of drug is that!

Reference-scaling was developed to deal with the CV. If the CV turns out to be higher than expected you are allowed to scale more – and don’t loose too much power:



Problems arise not from the CV but from the GMR! BTW, most TSDs assume a fixed GMR. Full adaptive ones (i.e., adjusting for the observed GMR in the first stage) require a futility criterion and quite often are lacking power.2,3,4

» Is it possible?

Not yet – unless you have access to a massively parallel supercomputer. You would have to find a suit­able adjusted α and demonstrate beforehand that the overall type I error is maintained. Unlike in con­ventional (crossovers, parallel) designs due to the mixed-strategy (GMR-restriction of 0.80–1.25, no scaling at CV <30%; CVs >50% treated as if CV=50% for EMA) the power/sample-size estimation needs 105 simu­la­tions. Combine that with the 106 (slow convergence) needed to simulate the TIE in an entire grid of possible n1/CV-combinations. You’ll end up with 1013–1014 simulations…

Recently I faced an example where the sponsor (despite serious warnings of the CRO) insisted in a similar design. The sponsor is always right. :crying: A regulator asked for justification of the chosen α. I made a quick estimation (I have a very fast workstation): ~60 years running 24/7…
You don’t want to go there.

  1. Wonnemann M, Frömke C, Koch A. Inflation of the Type I Error: Investigations on Regulatory Recommendations for Bioequivalence of Highly Variable Drugs. Pharm Res. 2015;32(1):135–43. doi:10.1007/s11095-014-1450-z
  2. Schütz H. Two-stage designs in bioequivalence trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;71(3):271-81. doi:10.1007/s00228-015-1806-2
  3. Fuglsang A. Futility rules in bioequivalence trials with sequential designs. AAPS J. 2014;16(1):79–82. doi:10.1208/s12248-013-9540-0
  4. Kieser M, Rauch G. Two-stage designs for cross-over bioequivalence trials. Stat Med. 2015;34(16):2403–16. doi:10.1002/sim.6487

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

 Admin contact
21,691 posts in 4,534 threads, 1,541 registered users;
online 3 (0 registered, 3 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 03:57 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

They were “so intent of making everything numerical”
that they frequently missed seeing
what was there to be seen.    Barbara McClintock

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