PAR not yet [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2011-10-27 15:25 (4559 d 00:57 ago) – Posting: # 7554
Views: 13,493

Hi tOT,

“Method C” as proposed in this publication is not acceptable, as type I error is not controlled on the 5% level and alternative methods securing type I error control are available.


❝ They go on to suggest method B because "The authors demonstrate by simulations that the power of this method is only slightly lower than for “Method C”, resulting in comparable mean total number of subjects."


❝ Any comments?


Difficult.
It's their call, really. To distinguish between the methods in practice I think one needs:
  1. To decide which T/R is realistic. 0.95 is a guess but do you have any idea really apart from dissolution?
  2. You proposed number of subjects in stage 1 (n1).
  3. Futility vs. power at the given T/R and n1 for the entire range of CVs.
All in all that's just not straightforward. Especially not if the true T/R differs from the expectation. That blows the entire approach. Wouldn't it be wonderful to use some kinda meffud that takes te observed T/R from stage 1 into account *cough*cough*?

Sounds to me like you should use method B if you wish to avoid discussion and if in vivo T/R really is 0.95.

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,988 posts in 4,825 threads, 1,654 registered users;
107 visitors (0 registered, 107 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: 16:23 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The whole purpose of education is
to turn mirrors into windows.    Sydney J. Harris

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