Cited by 10Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsProbability and Statistical Research

Statistical rules for safety monitoring in clinical trials

Open access
Martens, Michael J, Logan, Brent R·2024·Clinical Trials

Abstract

Background/Aims: Protecting patient safety is an essential component of the conduct of clinical trials. Rigorous safety monitoring schemes are implemented for these studies to guard against excess toxicity risk from study therapies. They often include protocol-specified stopping rules dictating that an excessive number of safety events will trigger a halt of the study. Statistical methods are useful for constructing rules that protect patients from exposure to excessive toxicity while also maintaining the chance of a false safety signal at a low level. Several statistical techniques have been proposed for this purpose, but the current literature lacks a rigorous comparison to determine which method may be best suitable for a given trial design. The aims of this article are (1) to describe a general framework for repeated monitoring of safety events in clinical trials; (2) to survey common statistical techniques for creating safety stopping criteria; and (3) to provide investigators with a software tool for constructing and assessing these stopping rules. Methods: The properties and operating characteristics of stopping rules produced by Pocock and O’Brien-Fleming tests, Bayesian Beta-Binomial models, and sequential probability ratio tests (SPRTs) are studied and compared for common scenarios that may arise in phase II and III trials. We developed the R package “stoppingrule” for constructing and evaluating stopping rules from these methods. Its usage is demonstrated through a redesign of a stopping rule for BMT CTN 0601 (registered at Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00745420), a phase II, single-arm clinical trial that evaluated outcomes in pediatric sickle cell disease patients treated by bone marrow transplant. Results: Methods with aggressive stopping criteria early in the trial, such as the Pocock test and Bayesian Beta-Binomial models with weak priors, have permissive stopping criteria at late stages. This results in a trade-off where rules with aggressive early monitoring generally will have a smaller number of expected toxicities but also lower power than rules with more conservative early stopping, such as the O-Brien-Fleming test and Beta-Binomial models with strong priors. The modified SPRT method is sensitive to the choice of alternative toxicity rate. The maximized SPRT generally has a higher number of expected toxicities and/or worse power than other methods. Conclusions: Because the goal is to minimize the number of patients exposed to and experiencing toxicities from an unsafe therapy, we recommend using the Pocock or Beta-Binomial, weak prior methods for constructing safety stopping rules. At the design stage, the operating characteristics of candidate rules should be evaluated under various possible toxicity rates in order to guide the choice of rule(s) for a given trial; our R package facilitates this evaluation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/17407745231203391

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martens, M. J., & Logan, B. R.
Affiliations
Medical College of Wisconsin (US)
Corresponding author
Martens, Michael J
Venue
Clinical Trials
Published
2023-10-25
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
152-161
ISSN
  • 1740-7745 (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-7753
OpenAlex
W4387930956
Cited by
10
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1
FWCI
2.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Trials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U10HL069294, U24HL138660)
  • National Cancer Institute
  • National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities
  • National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Probability and Statistical Research
Keywords
trial safety monitoring, stopping rules, sequential probability ratio test, operating characteristics, sickle cell disease, bone marrow transplantation, pediatric clinical trials
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Child, Humans, Probability, Research Design, Models, Statistical, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review