Achievwin
★    

US,
2021-05-14 19:20
(73 d 04:54 ago)

Posting: # 22354
Views: 646
 

 Two-stage replicate design studies for RSABE [Design Issues]

Does anyone have knowledge or experience in conducting two stage adaptive study for a four period full replicate design study for RSABE candidate?
  1. Has anyone conducted this kind of study (due to Covid or other reasons)
  2. What kind of statistical analysis is best for two stage design. Stage 1 or Stage 1+2 data presented separately what penalty we need to incorporate in Stage 1+2 pooled data for evaluating RSABE?
Thanks for all suggestions


Edit: Category changed; see also this post #1[Helmut]
Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2021-05-14 20:14
(73 d 04:00 ago)

@ Achievwin
Posting: # 22355
Views: 588
 

 Two-stage design ❎ RSABE

Hi Achievwin,

sorry. See there.

If you are – very – courageous, you can opt for Bonferroni (α = 0.025). All methods I know (for 2×2×2 crossover and parallel designs) require less adjustments, i.e., a higher α. No idea whether that’s acceptable. Ask the OGD.

library(PowerTOST)
theta0 <- 0.90
target <- 0.80
design <- "2x2x4"
CV     <- seq(0.3, 0.8, 0.025)
res    <- data.frame(CV = sprintf("%.1f%%", 100*CV))
for (j in 1:nrow(res)) {
  # sample size for α = 0.05
  res$n1[j]  <- sampleN.RSABE(alpha = 0.05, CV = CV[j],
                              theta0 = theta0, targetpower = target,
                              design = design, details = FALSE,
                              print = FALSE)[["Sample size"]]
  # sample size for α = 0.025
  res$n2[j] <- sampleN.RSABE(alpha = 0.025, CV = CV[j],
                             theta0 = theta0, targetpower = target,
                             design = design, details = FALSE,
                             print = FALSE)[["Sample size"]]
}
res$penalty <- sprintf("%+.1f%%", 100*(res$n2-res$n1)/res$n1)
names(res)[2:3] <- c("0.05", "0.025")
print(res, row.names = FALSE)

    CV 0.05 0.025 penalty
 30.0%   32    40  +25.0%
 32.5%   30    38  +26.7%
 35.0%   28    34  +21.4%
 37.5%   26    32  +23.1%
 40.0%   24    30  +25.0%
 42.5%   24    30  +25.0%
 45.0%   24    28  +16.7%
 47.5%   22    28  +27.3%
 50.0%   22    28  +27.3%
 52.5%   22    26  +18.2%
 55.0%   22    26  +18.2%
 57.5%   22    26  +18.2%
 60.0%   24    26   +8.3%
 62.5%   24    26   +8.3%
 65.0%   24    28  +16.7%
 67.5%   24    28  +16.7%
 70.0%   26    28   +7.7%
 72.5%   26    28   +7.7%
 75.0%   26    28   +7.7%
 77.5%   28    30   +7.1%
 80.0%   28    30   +7.1%


Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

US,
2021-05-19 19:08
(68 d 05:06 ago)

@ Helmut
Posting: # 22356
Views: 432
 

 Two-stage design ❎ RSABE

Thanks Helmut:

My questions is two-fold -

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

and

2) what kind of penalty we can factor in?

Regards,
Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2021-05-19 20:40
(68 d 03:34 ago)

@ Achievwin
Posting: # 22357
Views: 408
 

 Two-stage design & RSABE: Forget it!

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 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Activity
 Admin contact
21,589 posts in 4,512 threads, 1,530 registered users;
online 21 (0 registered, 21 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: Tuesday 00:14 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The great tragedy of Science – the slaying
of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.    Thomas Henry Huxley

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