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

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-05-19 22:40 (559 d 21:21 ago) – Posting: # 22357
Views: 1,150

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.”

Oops!

❝ 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
[image]

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

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,418 posts in 4,693 threads, 1,598 registered users;
9 visitors (0 registered, 9 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: 19:01 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Intellect distinguishes between the possible and the impossible;
reason distinguishes between the sensible and the senseless.
Even the possible can be senseless.    Max Born

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