A unified framework for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in mental-health clinical trials

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 205-236

  Molenberghs, Geert ^a,b   Burzykowski, Tomasz ^a   Alonso, Ariel ^a   Assam, Pryseley ^a   Tilahun, Abel ^a   Buyse, Marc ^a,c  

^a HASSELT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b KU LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^c INTERNATIONAL DRUG DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NEUROLEPTIC AGENT; RISPERIDONE; BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; HUMAN; MENTAL HEALTH; META ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; REVIEW; SCHIZOPHRENIA; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; BIOASSAY; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DRUG DEVELOPMENT; INFORMATION SCIENCE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DRUG DISCOVERY; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; INFORMATION THEORY; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MENTAL HEALTH; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); SCHIZOPHRENIA;

EID: 77954397181     PISSN: 09622802     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0962280209105015     Document Type: Review

References (57)

1. Prentice RL Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definitions and operational criteria. Statistics in Medicine 1989; 8: 431-440.
2. Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Schatzkin A. Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Statistics in Medicine 1992; 11: 167-178.
3. Buyse M., Molenberghs G., Burzykowski T., Renard D., Geys H. The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomised experiments. Biostatistics 2000; 1: 49-68.
4. Burzykowski T., Molenberghs G., Buyse M. The evaluation of surrogate endpoints. Springer, New York; 2005.
5. Ellenberg SS, Hamilton JM Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: cancer. Statistics in Medicine 1989; 8: 405-413.
6. Biomarkers Definition Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clinical Pharmacological Therapy 2001; 69: 89-95.
7. Fleming TR, DeMets DL Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Annals of Internal Medicine 1996; 125: 605-613.
8. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) Investigators. Preliminary Report: effect of encainide and flecainide on mortality in a randomised trial of arrhythmia suppression after myocardial infraction. New England Journal of Medicine 1989; 321: 406-412.
9. DeGruttola V., Tu XM Modelling progression of CD-4 lymphocyte count and its relationship to survival time. Biometrics 1994; 50, 1003-1014.
10. Lagakos SW, Hoth DF Surrogate markers in AIDS: Where are we? Where are we going? Annals of Internal Medicine 1992; 116: 599-601.
11. DeGruttola V., Fleming TR, Lin DY, Coombs R. Validating surrogate markers-are we being naive? Journal of Infectious Diseases 1997; 175: 237-246.
12. Fleming TR Surrogate markers in AIDS and cancer trials. Statistics in Medicine 1994; 13: 1423-1435.
13. Ferentz AE Integrating pharmacogenomics into drug development. Pharmacogenomics 2002; 3: 453-467.
14. Lesko LJ, Atkinson AJ Use of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in drug development and regulatory decision making: criteria, validation, strategies. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 2001; 41: 347-366.
15. Dunn N., Mann RD Prescription-event and other forms of epidemiological monitoring of side-effects in the UK. Clinical and Experimental Allergy 1999; 29: 217-239.
16. Verbeke, G., Molenberghs G. Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. Springer, New York; 2000.
17. Jones TC Call for a new approach to the process of clinical trials and drug registration. British Medical Journal 2001; 322: 920-923.
18. Heise C., Sampson-Johannes A., Williams A., McCormick F., Von Hoff DD, Kirn DH ONYX-015, an E1B gene-attenuated adenovirus, causes tumor-specific cytolysis and antitumoral efficacy that can be augmented by standard chemo-therapeutic agents. Nature Medicine 1997, 3: 639-645.
19. Schatzkin A., Gail M. The promise and peril of surrogate end points in cancer research. Nature Reviews Cancer 2002; 2: 19-27.
20. International Conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Statistical principles for clinical trials (http://www.ich.org/ pdfICH/e9.pdf). Federal Register 1998, 63, No. 179, 49583.
21. Kay SR, Fiszbein A., Opler LA The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin 1987; 13: 261-276.
22. Kay SR, Opler LA, Lindenmayer JP Reliability and validity of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale for schizophrenics. Psychiatric Research 1988; 23: 99-110
23. Joffe MM, Greene T. Related causal frameworks for surrogate outcomes. Biometrics 2008; 64; 1-10.
24. Buyse M., Molenberghs G. Criteria for the validation of surrogate end-points in randomised experiments. Biometrics 1998; 54: 1014-1029.
25. Daniels MJ, Hughes MD Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. Statistics in Medicine 1997; 16: 1515-1527.
26. Volberding PA, Lagakos SW, Koch, MA et al. Zidovudine in asymptomtic human immunodeficiency virus infection: a controlled trial in persons with fewer than 500 CD4-positive cells per cubic millimeter. New England Journal of Medicine 1990; 322: 941-949.
27. Choi S., Lagakos S., Schooley RT, Volberding PA CD4+ lymphocytes are an incomplete surrogate marker for clinical progression in persons with asymptomatic HIV infection taking zidovudine. Annals of Internal Med 1993; 118: 674-680.
28. Lin DY, Fleming TR, DeGruttola V. Estimating the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Statistics in Medicine 1997; 16: 1515-1527.
29. Flandre P., Saidi Y. Letter to the editor: estimating the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Statistics in Medicine 1999; 18: 107-115.
30. Begg C., Leung D. On the use of surrogate endpoints in randomised trials. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 2000; 163: 26-27.
31. Gail MH, Pfeiffer R., van Houwelingen HC, Carroll RJ On meta-analytic assessment of surrogate outcomes. Biostatistics 2000; 1: 231-246.
32. Tibaldi FS, Cortiñas Abrahantes J., Molenberghs G. et al. Simplified hierarchical linear models for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 2003; 73: 643-658.
33. Cortiñas Abrahantes J., Molenberghs G., Burzykowski T., Shkedy Z., Renard D. Choice of units of analysis and modelling strategies in multilevel hierarchical models. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 2004; 47: 537-563.
34. Renard D., Geys H., Molenberghs G., Burzykowski T., Buyse M. Validation of surrogate endpoints in multiple randomised clinical trials with discrete outcomes. Biometrical Journal 2002; 44: 1-15.
35. Tilahun A., Assam P., Alonso A., Molenberghs G. Information theory-based surrogate marker evaluation from several randomised clinical trials with binary endpoints, using SAS. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 2008; 18: 326-341.
36. Clayton DG A model for association in bivariate life tables and its application in epidemiological studies of familial tendency in chronic disease incidence. Biometrika 1978; 65: 141-151.
37. Hougaard P. Survival models for heterogeneous populations derived from stable distributions. Biometrika 1986; 73, 387-396.
38. Shih JH, Louis TA Inferences on association parameter in copula models for bivariate survival data. Biometrics 1995; 51: 1384-1399.
39. Genest C., McKay J. The joy of copulas: bivariate distributions with uniform marginals. American Statistician 1986; 40, 280-283.
40. Burzykowski T., Molenberghs G., Buyse M. The validation of surrogate endpoints using data from randomised clinical trials: a case-study in advanced colorectal cancer. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 2004; 167: 103-124.
41. Molenberghs G., Geys H., Buyse M. Evaluation of surrogate end-points in randomised experiments with mixed discrete and continuous outcomes. Statistics in Medicine 2001; 20: 3023-3038.
42. Dale JR Global cross ratio models for bivariate, discrete, ordered responses. Biometrics 1986; 42: 909-917.
43. Molenberghs G., Verbeke, G. Models for discrete longitudinal data. Springer, New York; 2005.
44. Assam P., Tilahun A., Alonso A., Molenberghs G. Information-theory based surrogate marker evaluation from several randomised clinical trials with continuous true and binary surrogate endpoints. Clinical Trials 2007; 4: 587-597.
45. Alonso A., Geys H., Molenberghs G., Vangeneugden T. Validation of surrogate markers in multiple randomised clinical trials with repeated measurements. Biometrical Journal 2003; 45: 931-945.
46. Galecki A. General class of covariance structures for two or more repeated factors in longitudinal data analysis. Communications in Statistics: Theory and Methods 1994; 23: 3105-3119.
47. Alonso A., Molenberghs G., Geys H., Buyse M. A unifying approach for surrogate marker validation based on Prentice's criteria. Statistics in Medicine 2005; 25: 205-211.
48. Alonso A., Molenberghs G. Surrogate marker evaluation from an information theoretic perspective. Biometrics 2007; 63: 180-186.
49. Shannon C. A mathematical theory of communication, Bell System Technical Journal 1948; 27: 379-423, 623-656.
50. Cover, T., Tomas, J. Elements of information theory. Wiley, New York; 1991.
51. Schemper M., Stare J. Explained variation in survival analysis. Statistics in Medicine 1996; 15: 1999-2012.
52. Kent, J. Information gain and a general measure of correlation. Biometrika 1983, 70: 163-173.
53. Frangakis CE, Rubin DB Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics 2004; 58: 21-29.
54. Robins JM, Greenland S. Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology 1992; 3,: 143-155.
55. Pearl, J. Causality: models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 2001.
56. Taylor JMG, Wang Y., Thiébaut R. Counterfactual links to the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Biometrics 2005; 61: 1102-1111.
57. Burzykowski T., Buyse M. Surrogate threshold effect: an alternative measure for meta-analytic surrogate endpoint validation. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2006; 5: 173-186.