Proportion of treatment effect (PTE) explained by a surrogate marker

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 22, Issue 22, 2003, Pages 3449-3459

  Chen, Cong ^a   Wang, Hongwei ^a   Snapin, Steven M ^a  

^a MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

Causal effect; Decomposition; Information separation; Surrogate endpoint

Indexed keywords

ATENOLOL; LOSARTAN; URIC ACID;

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COVARIANCE; DATA ANALYSIS; DISEASE MARKER; ELECTROCARDIOGRAM; ESSENTIAL HYPERTENSION; HEART LEFT VENTRICLE HYPERTROPHY; HUMAN; LINEAR SYSTEM; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; SURVIVAL RATE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENTS; ATENOLOL; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; HYPERTENSION; LOSARTAN; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URIC ACID;

EID: 0242607935     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.1575     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Dahlöf B et al. For the LIFE study group. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomized trial against atenolol. Lancet 2002; 359: 995-1003.
2. Wong KYK et al. Urate predicts subsequent cardiac death in stroke survivors. European Heart Journal 2002; 23:788-793.
3. Brunner HR, Gavras H. Commentary (to main publication of LIFE). Lancet 2002; 359:990-992.
4. Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Schatzkin A. Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Statistics in Medicine 1992; 11:167-178.
5. Lin DY, Fleming TR, De Gruttola V. Estimating the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Statistics in Medicine 1997; 16:1515-1527.
6. Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoint in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Statistics in Medicine 1989; 8:431-440.
7. De Gruttola V, Fleming TR, Lin DY, Coombs R. Validating surrogate markers - are we being naive? Journal of Infectious Disease 1997; 175:237-246.
8. Molenberghs G, Buyse M, Geys H, Renard D, Burzykowski T, Alonso A. Statistical challenges in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in randomized trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 2002; 23:607-625.
9. Anderson PK. Repeated assessment of risk factors in survival analysis. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 1992; 1:297-315.
10. Anderson PK, Gill RD. Cox's regression model for counting processes: a large sample study. Annals of Statistics 1982; 4:1100-1120.
11. Zografos K. On a measure of dependence based on Fisher's information matrix. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods 1998; 27:1715-1728.
12. Struthers CA, Kalbfleisch JD. Misspecified proportional hazard models. Biometrika 1986; 73:363-369.
13. Fieller EC. The biological standardization of insulin. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1940; 7:Supplement 1-15.
14. Troxel AB. Techniques for incorporating longitudinal measurements into analyses of survival data from clinical trials. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2002; 11:237-245.
15. Freeman LS. Confidence intervals and statistical power of the 'validation' ratio for surrogate or intermediate endpoint. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 2001; 96:143-153.
16. Fisher LD, Lin DY. Time-dependent covariates in the Cox proportional-hazards regression model. Annual Review of Public Health 1999; 20:145-157.
17. Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Annals of Internal Medicine 1996; 125:605-613.
18. Xu J, Zeger SL. The evaluation of multiple surrogate endpoints. Biometrics 2001; 57:81-87.
19. Li Z, Meredith MP, Hoseyni MS. A method to assess the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate endpoint. Statistics in Medicine 2001; 20:3175-3188.