Alex ☆ Austria, 2023-12-22 11:08 (395 d 21:46 ago) Posting: # 23800 Views: 8,037 |
|
Hi all, I am wondering whether the following publication made it to your attention: Wynne et al. (2022): A randomized, adaptive design, doubleblind, 3-arm, parallel study assessing the pharmacokinetics and safety of AVT02, a high-concentration (100 mg/mL) Adalimumab biosimilar, in healthy adult subjects (ALVOPAD FIRST). I would love to get your opinion on it. I was the opinion that only simulation-based methods (Fuglsang 2014 - Sequential Bioequivalence Approaches for Parallel Designs) are currently available/acceptable for parallel group designs due to the complexity of contructing repeated confidence intervals allowing for unequal variances between groups (a requirement for parallel designs according to FDA guidelines). However, in the publication repeated confidence intervals were constructed using the Fisher combination test assuming equal variances (3 parallel treatment arms were analysed using ANOVA). What do you think about it? I also have another question (likely a stupid one but it is in my head since some time). As there seems to be no solution currently avaiable for adaptive parallel group designs that analytically controls the type-I-error using the confidence interval inclusion approach and allows for unequal variances, wouldn't it be acceptable to use a hypothesis test like in (Maurer 2016 - Controlling the type I error rate in two-stage sequential adaptive designs when testing for average bioequivalence) only? In that case, we cannot construct confidence intervals consistent with the hypothesis test but the decision for BE=Y/N can be answered, right? I know that FDA guidelines state that it needs to be done by the confidence interval but is this less preferable than using Potvin's algorithm (not strictly controlling type-I-error)? Thanks in advance, any opinion is highly recommended! Alex |
Helmut ★★★ Vienna, Austria, 2023-12-22 13:01 (395 d 19:53 ago) @ Alex Posting: # 23801 Views: 7,252 |
|
Hi Alex, ❝ I am wondering whether the following publication made it to your attention: … No. ❝ I was the opinion that only simulation-based methods (Fuglsang 2014) are currently available/acceptable for parallel group designs due to the complexity of contructing repeated confidence intervals allowing for unequal variances between groups (a requirement for parallel designs according to FDA guidelines). Right. I had serious problems convincing European regulators even with extensive simulations (unequal variances and/or group sizes due to dropouts). Note that the FDA is fine with simulation-based methods (5th GBHI workshop*). ❝ However, in the publication repeated confidence intervals were constructed using the Fisher combination test assuming equal variances (3 parallel treatment arms were analysed using ANOVA). What do you think about it? Equal variances are a rather strong assumption, right? Very – very! – unlikely in practice. The t-test is sensitive (i.e., liberal) to unequal variances and – to a minor extent – to unequal group sizes. Not by any chance the Welch-test is the default in R and SAS. Was in the paper an ANOVA (with all arms) used? A pooled variance is just crap. Follow the “Two-at-a-Time” approach, i.e., two analyses with pairwise comparisons. That’s recommended in the latest guidelines (FDA, EMA, ICH M13A). ❝ As there seems to be no solution currently avaiable for adaptive parallel group designs that analytically controls the type-I-error using the confidence interval inclusion approach and allows for unequal variances, … Right. ❝ … wouldn't it be acceptable to use a hypothesis test like in (Maurer 2016) only? Unlikely, though that’s a Radio Yerewan question. ❝ In that case, we cannot construct confidence intervals consistent with the hypothesis test but the decision for BE=Y/N can be answered, right? When we had a poster about this stuff (doi:10.1186/1745-6215-16-S2-P218), Franz said “it’s doable in principle”. Well roared, lion. It’s on the todo-list of Benjamin Lang (main author of the inverse normal method in the package Power2Stage ). Difficult… ❝ I know that FDA guidelines state that it needs to be done by the confidence interval but is this less preferable than using Potvin's algorithm (not strictly controlling type-I-error)? I don’t think that any agency will accept a study without a CI. BTW, the EMA ❤️ a stage-term in the final analysis. Calls for an ANOVA, right? That’s like deciding between Skylla (ANOVA ignoring unequal variances to make regulators happy) and Charybdis (Welch-test given regulators headaches). Michael Tomashevskiy suggested some code a while ago but it’s not implemented in the function power.tsd.p() yet.
— Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! Helmut Schütz The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮 Science Quotes |
Alex ☆ Austria, 2024-01-08 17:22 (378 d 15:32 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 23822 Views: 7,019 |
|
Hi Helmut, thanks for confirming my understanding. Yes, as far as I understood, the paper uses ANOVA, which caused confusion at my side and was the reason for my post. I thought that I may have missed something. But I totally agree with you, the “Two-at-a-Time” approach with unequal variances would have been the better choice (but again leading to the problem of contructing RCIs for the inverse normal combination test and the need to use Potvin's algorithms). Hope to see you again in person soon. Alex |
Helmut ★★★ Vienna, Austria, 2024-01-09 10:48 (377 d 22:06 ago) @ Alex Posting: # 23825 Views: 7,002 |
|
Hi Alex, ❝ Yes, as far as I understood, the paper uses ANOVA,… ❝ […] the “Two-at-a-Time” approach with unequal variances would have been the better choice (but again leading to the problem of contructing RCIs for the inverse normal combination test and the need to use Potvin's algorithms). ❝ Hope to see you again in person soon. — Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! Helmut Schütz The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮 Science Quotes |
roman_max ☆ Russia, 2024-04-04 17:18 (291 d 16:36 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 23938 Views: 6,132 |
|
Hi Helmut, hope you are doing fine and my post here fits to the subject. I`m wondering how to show a power achieved after completion of the first stage in parallel design using Power2Stage functions, according to Potvin C algo? When I do it for crossover study using interim.tsd.in function I can extract the value of Power Stage 1 component, but how about parallel study? |
Helmut ★★★ Vienna, Austria, 2024-04-04 22:16 (291 d 11:38 ago) @ roman_max Posting: # 23940 Views: 6,141 |
|
Hi roman_max, ❝ hope you are doing fine and my post here fits to the subject. ❝ I`m wondering how to show a power achieved after completion of the first stage in parallel design using Power2Stage functions, according to Potvin C algo? power.TOST() with the respective alpha (0.0294 for Method B, 0.05 for Method C). Examples with the -script at the end:
The second example shows why Method C can be more powerful than Method B. Whereas in Method B we fail with the 94.12% CI and therefore, have to initiate stage 2, in Method C we pass already in stage 1 with the 90% CI. ❝ When I do it for crossover study using interim.tsd.in function I can extract the value of Power Stage 1 component, but how about parallel study? Power2Stage .
— Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! Helmut Schütz The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮 Science Quotes |
roman_max ☆ Russia, 2024-04-15 23:46 (280 d 10:08 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 23954 Views: 5,734 |
|
Hi Helmut, sorry for my late reply and thanks a lot for very useful information and examples. I succesfully reproduced the code provided and implemented it to my study. Hope the Ministry will be happy as well :) |
Achievwin ★★ US, 2024-01-05 12:53 (381 d 20:02 ago) @ Alex Posting: # 23819 Views: 7,114 |
|
I am thinking of using two stage approach for a parallel BE study (in patients) is there an accepted procedure for sample size calculations? at stage 1 and stage 2? Any instances where FDA accepted a two stage design methodology for calculating samples size for stage 2 after reviewing stage 1 results? |
Helmut ★★★ Vienna, Austria, 2024-01-05 13:40 (381 d 19:14 ago) @ Achievwin Posting: # 23820 Views: 7,117 |
|
Hi Achievwin, ❝ I am thinking of using two stage approach for a parallel BE study (in patients) is there an accepted procedure for sample size calculations? at stage 1 and stage 2? ❝ Any instances where FDA accepted a two stage design methodology for calculating samples size for stage 2 after reviewing stage 1 results? The relevant points:
If you give me your current email address, I will send you the presentation. Practically for parallel designs simulations are mandatory because:
Power2Stage , function power.tsd.p() .Start with a reasonably narrow grid of n1 / CV1 combinations to find a – preliminary – adjusted α which controls the Type I Error. Repeat with some scenarios based on the worst case expected dropout rate (same for T and R, all under T – none under R and vice versa), different CVs (CVT < CVR, CVT > CVR). If the Type I Error is still controlled in all scenarios, fine. If not (likely), adjust more. One of mine. αadj 0.0274, validated for n1 124–250, homoscedastic CV 50% (our best guess), heteroscedastic (variance ratios 1:4 to 4:1). Maximum empirical Type I Error 0.04987: 32 pages report with justification, methods, all results, scripts to reproduce them. Not accepted by the EMA because “we don’t like (‼) simulations”… — Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! Helmut Schütz The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮 Science Quotes |
Achievwin ★★ US, 2024-01-08 17:55 (378 d 14:59 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 23823 Views: 6,997 |
|
Thank you for your nice reply. |
Helmut ★★★ Vienna, Austria, 2024-01-09 10:31 (377 d 22:23 ago) @ Achievwin Posting: # 23824 Views: 6,973 |
|
Hi Achievwin, ❝ Thank you for your nice reply. Just to be clear: Some authors (right now I’m reviewing a manuscript submitted to Stat Med…) believe (‼) that Pocock’s \(\small{\color{Blue}{\alpha_\text{adj}=0.0294}}\) (94.12% CI) is ‘universally’ valid – even for reference-scaling of HVDs. This is a gross misunderstanding and not even wrong. It was derived for superiority testing in a GSD (fixed sample size N) with one interim at – exactly – N/2 and known variances. The fact that it controlled the Type I Error in Potvin’s Method B (TSD in a 2×2×2 design) was a mere lucky punch. In my example I needed \(\small{\color{Red}{\alpha_\text{adj}=0.0274}}\) (94.52% CI) to control the Type I Error. — Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! Helmut Schütz The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮 Science Quotes |
Achievwin ★★ US, 2024-01-09 22:11 (377 d 10:43 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 23826 Views: 6,892 |
|
Hi Helmut: ❝ Just to be clear: Some authors (right now I’m reviewing a manuscript submitted to Stat Med…)" I and everyone absolutely interested to know essence of that article you are reviewing. |
Helmut ★★★ Vienna, Austria, 2024-01-09 23:10 (377 d 09:44 ago) @ Achievwin Posting: # 23827 Views: 6,938 |
|
Hi Achievwin, ❝ I and everyone absolutely interested to know essence of that article you are reviewing. — Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! Helmut Schütz The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮 Science Quotes |
Achievwin ★★ US, 2024-01-19 16:11 (367 d 16:43 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 23833 Views: 6,803 |
|
❝ Sorry, as long as the review process is ongoing I cannot say anything about it. understood and respect that |
Helmut ★★★ Vienna, Austria, 2024-04-04 22:22 (291 d 11:32 ago) @ Achievwin Posting: # 23941 Views: 6,154 |
|
Hi Achievwin, the manuscript was not accepted on March 12, 2024. The authors failed to demonstrate that the Type I Error is controlled (see this article why). — Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! Helmut Schütz The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮 Science Quotes |
mittyri ★★ Russia, 2024-04-05 22:33 (290 d 11:22 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 23942 Views: 6,087 |
|
Hi Helmut, ❝ the manuscript was not accepted on March 12, 2024. The authors failed to demonstrate that the Type I Error is controlled (see this article why). Didn't they mention this as a magic bullet argument? — Kind regards, Mittyri |
Helmut ★★★ Vienna, Austria, 2024-04-05 23:50 (290 d 10:04 ago) @ mittyri Posting: # 23943 Views: 6,034 |
|
Hi mittyri, ❝ Didn't they mention this as a magic bullet argument? — Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! Helmut Schütz The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮 Science Quotes |
mittyri ★★ Russia, 2024-04-06 00:21 (290 d 09:33 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 23944 Views: 6,081 |
|
Hi Helmut, ❝ That’s crap and the -package is terrible. I tried it. See this rather lengthy thread. But as being said: A spoken word takes its flight. Anyone can point to that paper published or point to the conclusion on FDA site - would be difficult to fight against. I suspect that the probability to have an erratum letter for that paper is near 0. — Kind regards, Mittyri |
Helmut ★★★ Vienna, Austria, 2024-04-06 09:21 (290 d 00:33 ago) @ mittyri Posting: # 23945 Views: 5,997 |
|
Hi mittyri, ❝ I suspect that the probability to have an erratum letter for that paper is near 0. — Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! Helmut Schütz The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮 Science Quotes |