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

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2018-06-08 12:00 (792 d 14:10 ago) – Posting: # 18874
Views: 2,909

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.



Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
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
20,984 posts in 4,374 threads, 1,460 registered users;
online 15 (0 registered, 15 guests [including 13 identified bots]).
Forum time: Sunday 02:10 UTC (Europe/Vienna)

The interpretation of facts in a certain way
stimulates other scientists’ thoughts.    Róbert Bárány

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