Use of surrogate outcomes in cost-effectiveness models: A review of United Kingdom health technology assessment reports

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 6-13

  Elston, Julian ^a   Taylor, Rod S ^b  

^a Devon Primary Care Trust   (United Kingdom)

^b PENINSULA MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biomarkers; Intermediate outcomes; Surrogate outcomes

Indexed keywords

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; HISTORY DATA; INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES; LEVEL 2; LEVEL-1; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SURROGATE OUTCOMES; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM;

TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING;

COST EFFECTIVENESS;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SELECTION; UNCERTAINTY; UNITED KINGDOM; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; PILOT STUDY;

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PILOT PROJECTS;

EID: 60749091746     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462309090023     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: Preferred and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001;22:485-502.
2. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Holbrook A, McAlister FA. Users' guides to the medical literature: XIX. Applying clinical trial results. A. How to use an article measuring the effect of an intervention on surrogate end points. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1999;282:771-778. (Pubitemid 29404385)
3. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2:1-7. (Pubitemid 28510217)
4. Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: Are we being misled? Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:605-613.
5. Gotzsche PC, Liberati A, Torri V, Rossetti L. Beware of surrogate outcome measures. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996;12:238-246.
6. International conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use. ICH harmonised tripartite guideline. Statistical principles for clinical trials E9. February 1998. http://www.ich.org/LOB/media/MEDIA485.pdf. Accessed October 17, 2008.
7. Lassere MN, Johnson KR, Boers M, et al. Definitions and validation criteria for biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: Development and testing of a quantitative hierarchical levels of evidence schema. J Rheumatol. 2007;34:607-615. (Pubitemid 46364019)
8. Loveman E, Green C, Kirby J, et al. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine for Alzheimer's disease. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10:1-160. (Pubitemid 43322990)
9. NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; April 2008. http://www.nice.org. uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf. Accessed October 17, 2008.
10. Ridker PM, Torres J. Reported outcomes in major cardiovascular clinical trials funded by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations: 2000-2005. JAMA. 2006;295:2270-2274.
11. Shepherd J, Jones J, Takeda A, Davidson P, Price A. Adefovir dipivoxil and pegylated interferon alfa-2a for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(28):1-183. (Pubitemid 44548800)
12. Taylor RS, Elston J. The use of surrogate outcomes in model-based cost-effectiveness analyses: A review of UK health technology assessment reports. Health Technol Assess. In press.
13. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims: Draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006;4:79.
14. Woodroffe R, Yao GL, Meads C, et al. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of newer immunosuppressive regimens in renal transplantation: A systematic review and modelling study. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9:1-179. (Pubitemid 43731344)
15. Yao G, Albon E, Adi Y, et al. A systematic review and economic model of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of immunosuppressive therapy for renal transplantation in children. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10: iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-157. (Pubitemid 46187458)