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

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-05-19 22:40 (1061 d 17:04 ago) – Posting: # 22357
Views: 1,660

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
22,983 posts in 4,822 threads, 1,648 registered users;
34 visitors (0 registered, 34 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: 15:45 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature
more difficult to explain than
simple, statistically probable things.    Richard Dawkins

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