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

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-05-19 22:40 (1245 d 08:47 ago) – Posting: # 22357
Views: 2,279

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
23,258 posts in 4,886 threads, 1,661 registered users;
62 visitors (0 registered, 62 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: 07:27 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

I’m not a pessimist,
I’m just a well informed optimist.    José Saramago

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