Abstract:In clinical development, an independent data safety monitoring committee (IDMC) is often established to ensure the test treatment's integrity, quality, safety, and efficacy under investigation. In clinical trials, IDMC may recommend stopping the trial early due to safety, futility/efficacy, or both after reviewing observed data in the interim based on pre-specified stopping boundaries. In practice, the interim data is often too small to reach clinically meaningful differences with statistical significance (i.e., the observed clinically meaningful difference is reproducible and not purely by chance alone). To provide an overall assessment (or complete clinical picture) of the performance of the test treatment under investigation, the FDA (2023) published guidance on the benefit-risk assessment (BRA) framework to facilitate IDMC decision-making. Several methods have been studied in the literature following the FDA's recommended framework. However, these methods did not consider the uncertainties and heterogeneities. Alternatively, a BRA approach is proposed based on a confidence ellipse of primary safety and efficacy endpoints. The proposed confidence ellipse approach was evaluated both theoretically and via a clinical trial simulation. The results indicate that the proposed confidence ellipse provides consistent and stable metrics, particularly as sample sizes increase. The derived metrics of Benefit-Risk Difference (BRD) and Benefit-Risk Ratio (BRR) showed favorable performance across different scenarios and thresholds. Applied to the TESTING trial data, our method confirmed and extended the original finding that a reduced methylprednisolone dose offered a more favorable benefit-risk profile. Specifically, the confidence ellipse method highlighted that the reduced dose consistently provided a better balance between efficacy and safety, particularly under stricter criteria for clinical significance. This method validated the original conclusions and provided additional insights into how different dosing regimens perform across various clinical scenarios, potentially offering a more refined tool for optimizing treatment decisions in complex therapeutic contexts.

Bridging Continual Reassessment Method for Phase I Clinical Trials in Different Ethnic Populations

Incorporating Historical Information to Improve Phase I Clinical Trials

Robust EM Continual Reassessment Method in Oncology Dose Finding

Innovation drug approvals based on a bridging study: from concept to practice

Bayesian hybrid dose-finding design in phase I oncology clinical trials.

A Default Method to Specify Skeletons for Bayesian Model Averaging Continual Reassessment Method for Phase I Clinical Trials

PA-CRM: A Continuous Reassessment Method for Pediatric Phase I Oncology Trials with Concurrent Adult Trials.

Precision Dose-finding Cancer Clinical Trials in the Setting of Broadened Eligibility

The Randomized CRM: An Approach to Overcoming the Long-Memory Property of the CRM

Dose Individualization for Phase I Cancer Trials With Broadened Eligibility

Adaptive Dose Modification for Phase I Clinical Trials

Phase I Trial Design for Drug Combinations with Bayesian Model Averaging.

BAYESIAN HIERARCHICAL RANDOM-EFFECTS META-ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PHASE I CLINICAL TRIALS

Sequential Continual Reassessment Method for Two-Dimensional Dose Finding.

Borrowing historical information to improve phase I clinical trials using meta-analytic-predictive priors

Comparative Review of Novel Model‐assisted Designs for Phase I Clinical Trials

A Bayesian Dose Finding Design for Oncology Clinical Trials of Combinational Biological Agents

A Proposed Confidence Ellipse Approach for Benefit-Risk Assessment in Clinical Trials

BASIC: A Bayesian Adaptive Synthetic-Control Design for Phase II Clinical Trials.

A Design For Survival Studies: A Multi-regional Trial With Unrecognized Heterogeneity

A Bayesian Platform Trial Design to Simultaneously Evaluate Multiple Drugs in Multiple Indications with Mixed Endpoints.