Two-stage design & RSABE: Forget it! [Design Issues]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-05-19 22:40 (1153 d 07:32 ago) – Posting: # 22357
Views: 2,004

Hi Achievwin,

❝ 1) is there a precedence of conducting two stage study for 4-period full replicate design? (four periods in stage 1 and stage 2)

I have seen one since 2010. Not for RSABE but for the EMA’s ABEL. Asymmetric alphas – don’t remember which approach: Haybittle-Peto (0.001/0.049) or O’Brien/Fleming (0.005/0.048). Even in a 2×2×2 crossover TSD there is an inflated Type I Error. This study ended in a – vested – deficiency letter of the MHRA.

“The applicant has to demonstrate that the patient’s risk is controlled.”


❝ 2) what kind of penalty we can factor in?

That’s not the point and should be the least of your worries. Unless you have a magic wand providing you with a suitable adjusted α, no way.
Did you bother to read that (already linked in my previous post)?

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz

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

Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
23,101 posts in 4,857 threads, 1,644 registered users;
79 visitors (0 registered, 79 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: 06:13 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

One can show the following: given any rule, however “fundamental”
or “necessary” for science, there are always circumstances
when it is advisable not only to ignore the rule,
but to adopt its opposite.    Paul Feyerabend

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