Proposed changes [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2020-02-17 14:16 (221 d 03:48 ago) – Posting: # 21178
Views: 2,744

Hi Mauricio,

» Instead of: "Type I error must be preserved and adjusted, and to demonstrate bioequivalence the level of confidence is 94.12%;"
» I will only propose that: It must be demonstrated that the type I error of the study is controlled.

OK in principle. It’s always a good idea not only to propose a change but give a justification. Maybe refer to the EMA’s and the WHO’s guidelines stating that the adjusted α has to be specified in the protocol and the choice is at the company’s discretion. α 0.0294 (i.e., the 94.12% CI) is definitely not the only possible one.

» Instead of: "This second group must have at least 50% of the previous group"
» I will propose that: The number of participants in the second stage must be calculated based on the data extracted from the first stage. The calculation must be justified considering possible losses and / or dropouts observed in the first stage.

OK. Do me a favor: Use estimated/estimation instead of calculated/calculation. ;-)
Of course, n2 is always based on the eligible subjects in the interim (n1), not on the subjects randomized.
Justification: A minimum stage 2 sample size is not covered by the published methods; any minimum n2 might inflate the Type I Error. If that sounds too statistical write “the patient’s risk” instead.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz

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

Complete thread:

 Admin contact
21,075 posts in 4,394 threads, 1,468 registered users;
online 2 (0 registered, 2 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: Friday 19:05 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

If you think it’s simple,
then you have misunderstood the problem.    Bjarne Stroustrup

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