Surrogate outcomes in health technology assessment: An international comparison

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 315-322

  Garrido, Marcial Velasco ^a   Mangiapane, Sandra ^b  

^a TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

^b Central Research Institute of Ambulatory Health Care in Germany   (Germany)

Author keywords

Biological Markers; Intermediate outcomes; Outcome assessment; Surrogate outcomes

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON; INTERNATIONAL NETWORKS; METHODOLOGICAL GUIDELINES; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PARAMETER CHOICE; SCREENING TECHNOLOGY; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS;

HEALTH; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING;

TECHNOLOGY;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DATA BASE; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PARAMETER; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW; SAMPLE; SCREENING; ARTICLE; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION;

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; INTERNATIONALITY; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 70350459560     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462309990213     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Antes G, Jöckel KH, Kohlmann T, Raspe H, Wasem J. Kommentierende Synopse der Fachpositionen zur Kosten-Nutzenbewertung für Arzneimittel. Erstellt im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Gesundheit. Freiburg, Essen: Greifswald, Kiel; 2007.
2. Australian Government - Department of Health and Aging. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 4.1). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2006.
3. Biomarkers Definition Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate end points: Preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001;69:89-95.
4. 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-BasedMedicine Working Group. JAMA. 1999;282:771-778.
5. Canadian Agency forDrugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006.
6. Cleemput I, Crott R, Vrijens F, Huybrechts M, Van Wilder P, Ramaekers D. Recommandations provisoires pour les ́evaluations pharmacó economiques en Belgique. Bruxelles: Centre f́ed́eral d'expertise des soins de sant́e (KCE); 2006.
7. Committee of Principal Investigators. A co-operative trial in the primary prevention of ischaemic heart disease using clofibrate: Report from the Committee of Principal Investigators. Br Heart J. 1978;40:1069-1118.
8. Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D, Poulsen PB, Horder M. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:89-95.
9. Dretzke J, Cummins C, Sandercock J, Fry-Smith A, Barrett T, BurlsA.Autoantibody testing in childrenwith newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes mellitus. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1-204.
10. Elston J, Taylor RS. Use of surrogate outcomes in costeffectiveness models: A review of United Kingdom health technology assessment reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:6-13.
11. Fleming TR, de Mets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: Are we being misled? Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:605-613.
12. Food and Drug Administration. New drug, antibiotic and biological drug product regulations: Accelerated approval. Proposal Rule. 57 Federal Register 13234-13242. Washington; 1992.
13. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making. 1991;11:88-94.
14. Health Care Insurance Board. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research, updated version. Diemen: College voor zorgverzekeringen; 2006.
15. Heidenreich PA, Lee TT, Massie BM. Effect of beta-blockade on mortality in patients with heart failure: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA. 1997;30:27-34.
16. HTAi Policy Forum Working Group on Surrogate Outcomes (2008). Call for expressions of interest and comments. September 2008. http://www.htai.org/index. php?id = 265.
17. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaflichkeit im Gesundheitswesen. Allgemeine Methoden. Version 3.0 vom 27.05.2008. Cologne: Institut für Qualität undWirtschaflichkeit im Gesundheitswesen; 2008.
18. Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Grimshaw J, et al. Towards optimally packaged and relevance assessed health technology assessments. Report submitted to the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Therapeutics in Healthcare. Hamilton: McMaster University; 2007.
19. Makni H, St-Hilaire C, Robb L, Larouche K, Blancquaert I. Tandem mass spectrometry and neonatal blood screening in Quebec. Montreal: AETMIS; 2007.
20. Mangiapane S, Velasco Garrido M. Surrogate endpoints for the assessment of the benefit of health technologies. Cologne: DIMDI; 2009 (in press).
21. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Funding for new medical technologies and procedures: Application and assessment guidelines. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2005.
22. MERIT-HF Study Group. Effect of metoprolol CR/XL in chronic heart failure: Metoprolol CR/XL randomized intervention trial in congestive heart failure. (MERIT-HF). Lancet. 1999;353:2001-2007.
23. Mundy L, Merlin T. Ultrafast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patients undergoing conventional MRI. Horizon scanning prioritising summary - Volume2. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2003.
24. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. Guidance for manufacturers and sponsors. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2001.
25. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Peginterferon alfa and ribavirin for the treatment of mild chronic hepatitis C. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2006.
26. NorwegianMedicines Agency. Norwegian guidelines for pharmacoeconomic analysis in connection with applications for reimbursement. Oslo: Statens legemiddelverk; 2005.
27. Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. General guidelines for economic evaluations from the pharmaceutical benefits board. Stockholm: TLV; 2003.
28. Pharmaceutical Management Agency. Recommended methods to derive clinical inputs for proposals to PHARMAC. Christchurch; Pharmaceutical Management Agency Ltd; 2005.
29. Psaty BM, Weiss NS, Furberg CD, et al. Surrogate end points, health outcomes and the drug-approval process for the treatment of risk factors for cardiovascular disease. JAMA. 1999;282:786-790.
30. Sarria-Santamera A, Timoner-Aguilera J. Assessment of the effectiveness of health promotion and disease prevention technologies. Madrid: Agencia de Evaluacíon de Tecnoloǵias Sanitarias; 2002.
31. Shepherd J, Jones J, Hartwell D, et al. Interferon alfa (pegylated and nonpegylated) and ribavirin for the treatment of mild chronic hepatitis C - a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:1-224.
32. Stürzlinger H, Fröschl B, Genser D. Evaluation of optical coherence tomography in the diagnosis of age related macular degeneration compared with fluorescence angiography. Cologne: DIMDI; 2007.
33. Surrogate to Final Outcome Working Group. Report of the Surrogate to Final Outcome Working Group to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: A framework for evaluating proposed surrogate measures and their use in submissions to PBAC. Canberra: 2008. www.health.gov.au/internet/main/ publishing.nsf/Content/B11E8EF19B358E39CA25754B000A 9C07/$File/ STFOWG%20paper%20FINAL.pdf