U as a futility criterion [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2018-06-08 14:00  – Posting: # 18874
Views: 2,232

Hi Mikalai,

» 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.



Cheers,
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
20,135 posts in 4,245 threads, 1,385 registered users;
online 10 (1 registered, 9 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time (Europe/Vienna): 05:15 CET

In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities.
In the expert’s mind there are few.    Shunryu Suzuki

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