Two PK metrics: Inflation of the Type I Error? [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2017-11-12 16:46 (1278 d 23:18 ago) – Posting: # 17972
Views: 7,278

Dear Helmut!

Very good question.
Next question :-D.

My gut feeling says: Don't worry, be happy :cool:.
What we had to do if we take two or more metrics into consideration is to combine the results of both metrics, i.e. some sort of inter-section-union test (IUT).
The IUT is known to be conservativ up to very conservative.
For illustration let's look at the results in a single stage design using Ben's function power.2TOST():
We don't know rho, the correlation berween both PK metrics, so lets look at the extremes.

library(PowerTOST)
power.2TOST(CV=c(0.3,0.2), n=28, theta0=c(1., 1.25), rho=0)
[1] 0.03784
power.2TOST(CV=c(0.3,0.2), n=28, theta0=c(1.25, 1), rho=0)
[1] 0.04958
power.2TOST(CV=c(0.3,0.2), n=28, theta0=c(1.25, 1.25), rho=0)
[1] 0.00244

power.2TOST(CV=c(0.3,0.2), n=28, theta0=c(1., 1.25), rho=1)
[1] 0.00416
power.2TOST(CV=c(0.3,0.2), n=28, theta0=c(1.25, 1), rho=1)
[1] 0.04282
power.2TOST(CV=c(0.3,0.2), n=28, theta0=c(1.25, 1.25), rho=1)
[1] 0.04977

green: conservative
red: very conservative

This behavior should protect against an additional alpha inflation due to combining the results of both metrics if you control the TIE (alpha) of each.

Ok. All this is only analogy and gut feeling.
We only know exactly what's going on, if we simulate.
But I doubt if time spent and effort of doing this pays off.


Edit: Values corrected after a bug-fix in PowerTOST v1.4-7 (see the “Details” section of the man-page. [Helmut]

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,460 posts in 4,486 threads, 1,514 registered users;
online 16 (0 registered, 16 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: Friday 16:05 UTC (Europe/Vienna)

Art is “I”; science is “we”.    Claude Bernard

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