Binding / Nonbinding futility rule - alpha control [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Ben – 2019-03-30 09:52  – Posting: # 20105
Views: 4,117

Dear Detlew,

Sorry, totally forgot about this post.

» Avoiding the conditional sample size re-estimation, i.e. using the conventional sample size re-estimation via
» interim.tsd.in(GMR1=0.89, CV1=0.2575165, n1=38, ssr.conditional = "no")
» gives n2=4. Ooops? Wow!

Ok, again: the recommendation here is to stop due to futility because the power of stage 1 is greater than the target power 80%. The result of n2 = 4 is correct in this situation. The reason is (i) we calculate n2 based on GMR which is 95% and (ii) we are not using conditional error rates, i.e. we ignore the magnitude of the p-values from stage 1.

» » » Binding, nonbinding - does it have an impact on the alpha control? I think not, but are not totally sure.
» » Non-binding: Type 1 error is protected, even if the futility criterion is ignored.
»
» Was also my thought because I didn't find any relationship to a futility rule in the proof of alpha control in the paper of Maurer et al. Or do I err here?

You are correct.

» » Binding: Type 1 error is protected only if the futility criterion will be adhered to. ('Binding' is not common practice, authorities don't want this).
»
» Are you sure for the binding case?

I believe so, yes.

» Of course the power may be compromized.

Agreed!

» I think that your statement for the binding case is only valid if you make a further adaption of the local alpha / critical values taking the futility rule into consideration.

No, I don't think that a further adaptation needs to be made. Should be mentioned in e.g. the book of Wassmer and Brannath. I will check this when I have more time.

» Do you have any experinces for your statement 'Binding' is not common practice, authorities don't want this'.
» If yes, what is/are the reason(s) given by authorities to abandon binding futility rule(s) or not to 'like' them?

Should also be mentioned in the book, but I haven't checked. I learned that in a workshop. I think the problem is that people may not believe you that you will always adhere to the stopping rule.

Best regards,
Ben.

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
20,470 posts in 4,300 threads, 1,415 registered users;
online 12 (1 registered, 11 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time (Europe/Vienna): 11:54 CEST

We should not speak so that it is possible
for the audience to understand us,
but so that it is impossible
for them to misunderstand us.    Quintilian

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