Lan K K Gordon, Lachin John M, Bautista Oliver
Pfizer Global Research and Development, 50 Pequot Avenue, New London, CT 06320, USA.
Stat Med. 2003 Nov 15;22(21):3347-55. doi: 10.1002/sim.1636.
We evaluate the properties of group sequential procedures where the trial is continued even though the boundary for statistical significance (stopping) to demonstrate effectiveness has been crossed. In this case, one may buy-back the previously spent alpha probability to be re-spent or re-distributed at future looks. We show that such plans using an O'Brien-Fleming-like spending function have a negligible effect on the final type I error probability and on the ultimate power of the study. With a Pocock-like bound, however, there is a small additional loss in power. We also show that this approach can be simplified by using a fixed-sample size Z critical value for future looks after buying-back previously spent alpha, such as using a critical Z value of 1.96 for alpha=0.025. We show that this procedure preserves the type I error probability while incurring a minimal loss in power. In this sense, one still has a stopping boundary rather than simply a guideline. This concept is discussed relative to monitoring procedures for inferiority or futility, and cases where both an upper and lower boundary are employed.
我们评估了序贯试验程序的性质,即在越过用于证明有效性的统计学显著性(停止)边界后,试验仍继续进行的情况。在这种情况下,可以“回购”先前消耗的α概率,以便在未来的观察中重新消耗或重新分配。我们表明,使用类似奥布赖恩 - 弗莱明消耗函数的此类计划,对最终的I型错误概率和研究的最终效能影响可忽略不计。然而,对于类似波科克边界的情况,效能会有少量额外损失。我们还表明,通过在“回购”先前消耗的α之后,对未来的观察使用固定样本量的Z临界值,如对于α = 0.025使用临界Z值1.96,这种方法可以简化。我们表明,该程序在保持I型错误概率的同时,仅产生极小的效能损失。从这个意义上说,人们仍然有一个停止边界,而不仅仅是一个指导原则。相对于劣势或无效性的监测程序以及同时使用上下边界的情况,讨论了这一概念。