U as a futility criterion [Two-Stage / GS Designs]
❝ Are there any rules or recommendations for setting up the pre-specified limit (U) as a futility criterion?
Not really. You have to find a balance between the maximum study costs you are accepting to spend and the potential loss in power. Xu et al.* recommend a futility of 42 on ntotal for CV ≤30% and 180 for CV >30%. Generally a small stage 1 sample size is not a good idea.
library(Power2Stage)
power.tsd.fC(method="B", alpha=c(0.0249, 0.0357), CV=0.25, n1=24,
fCrit="CI", fClower=0.9374, max.n=42) # fixed GMR 0.95
TSD with 2x2 crossover
Method B: alpha (s1/s2) = 0.0249 0.0357
Interim power monitoring step included
Target power in power monitoring and sample size est. = 0.8
Power calculation via non-central t approx.
CV1 and GMR = 0.95 in sample size est. used
Maximum sample size max.n = 42
Futility criterion 90% CI outside 0.9374 ... 1.06678
BE acceptance range = 0.8 ... 1.25
CV = 0.25; n(stage 1) = 24; GMR = 0.95
1e+05 sims at theta0 = 0.95 (p(BE) = 'power').
p(BE) = 0.83087
p(BE) s1 = 0.6057
Studies in stage 2 = 33.2%
Distribution of n(total)
- mean (range) = 27.9 (24 ... 42)
- percentiles
5% 50% 95%
24 24 42
power.tsd.fC(method="B", alpha=c(0.0249, 0.0357), CV=0.25, n1=24,
fCrit="CI", fClower=0.9374, max.n=42, usePE=TRUE)
# fully adaptive
TSD with 2x2 crossover
Method B: alpha (s1/s2) = 0.0249 0.0357
Interim power monitoring step included
Target power in power monitoring and sample size est. = 0.8
Power calculation via non-central t approx.
CV1 and PE1 in sample size est. used
Maximum sample size max.n = 42
Futility criterion 90% CI outside 0.9374 ... 1.06678
BE acceptance range = 0.8 ... 1.25
CV = 0.25; n(stage 1) = 24
1e+05 sims at theta0 = 0.95 (p(BE) = 'power').
p(BE) = 0.87839
p(BE) s1 = 0.6057
Studies in stage 2 = 33.2%
Distribution of n(total)
- mean (range) = 30 (24 ... 42)
- percentiles
5% 50% 95%
24 24 42
Remember that if you deviate from one of the published methods (except by adding a futility which leads to early stopping) you have to assess the Type I Error. Fine with the setting above:
power.tsd.fC(method="B", alpha=c(0.0249, 0.0357), CV=0.25, n1=24,
fCrit="CI", fClower=0.9374, max.n=42, usePE=TRUE,
theta0=1.25)
TSD with 2x2 crossover
Method B: alpha (s1/s2) = 0.0249 0.0357
Interim power monitoring step included
Target power in power monitoring and sample size est. = 0.8
Power calculation via non-central t approx.
CV1 and PE1 in sample size est. used
Maximum sample size max.n = 42
Futility criterion 90% CI outside 0.9374 ... 1.06678
BE acceptance range = 0.8 ... 1.25
CV = 0.25; n(stage 1) = 24
1e+06 sims at theta0 = 1.25 (p(BE) = TIE 'alpha').
p(BE) = 0.045069
The maximum inflation of the TIE is often observed at combinations of small n1 and low CV. The minimum n1 for Xu’s method is 18. With CV 10% we get a TIE of 0.035744.
- Xu J, Audet C, DiLiberti CE, Hauck WW, Montague TH, Parr AF, Potvin D, Schuirmann DJ. Optimal adaptive sequential designs for crossover bioequivalence studies. Pharm Stat. 2016;15(1):15–27. doi:10.1002/pst.1721.
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!
![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/pics/Blue_and_yellow_ribbon_UA.png)
Helmut Schütz
![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/img/CC by.png)
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Complete thread:
- Two-stage design and 'forced bioequivalence' Mikalai 2018-06-06 08:28 [Two-Stage / GS Designs]
- Two-stage design and 'forced bioequivalence' ElMaestro 2018-06-06 10:53
- Two-stage design and 'forced bioequivalence' Yura 2018-06-07 10:24
- But what is the real problem? ElMaestro 2018-06-07 13:53
- But what is the real problem? Yura 2018-06-07 14:59
- But what is the real problem? Mikalai 2018-06-07 15:47
- But what is the real problem? Helmut 2018-06-07 17:33
- But what is the real problem? Mikalai 2018-06-08 12:24
- U as a futility criterionHelmut 2018-06-08 14:00
- But what is the real problem? Mikalai 2018-06-08 12:24
- But what is the real problem? Helmut 2018-06-07 17:33
- But what is the real problem? Mikalai 2018-06-07 15:47
- But what is the real problem? Yura 2018-06-07 14:59
- But what is the real problem? ElMaestro 2018-06-07 13:53
- Two-stage design and 'forced bioequivalence' Yura 2018-06-07 10:24
- Two-stage design and 'forced bioequivalence' ElMaestro 2018-06-06 10:53