Surrogate end points in secondary analyses of cardiovascular trials

Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases

Volumn 54, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 343-350

  Buhr, Kevin A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALPHA INTERFERON; ATORVASTATIN; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; CHOLESTEROL; EZETIMIBE; LOW DENSITY LIPOPROTEIN CHOLESTEROL; PLACEBO; PRAVASTATIN; SIMVASTATIN; TORCETRAPIB;

ARTERIAL WALL THICKNESS; ARTICLE; BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CHOLESTEROL BLOOD LEVEL; CORONARY ARTERY ATHEROSCLEROSIS; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DATA ANALYSIS; DISEASE COURSE; FAMILIAL HYPERCHOLESTEROLEMIA; HUMAN; INTRAVASCULAR ULTRASOUND; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NONHUMAN; VALIDATION PROCESS;

BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; STATISTICS AS TOPIC; VALIDATION STUDIES AS TOPIC;

EID: 84855388901     PISSN: 00330620     EISSN: 18731740     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pcad.2011.09.007     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Fleming T.R., DeMets D.L. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: Are we being misled?. Ann Intern Med 1996, 125:605.
2. Fleming T.R. Surrogate endpoints and FDA's accelerated approval process. Health Affair 2005, 24:67-78.
3. Wittes J., Lakatos E., Probstfield J. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Cardiovascular diseases. Stat Med 1989, 8:415-425.
4. Prentice R.L. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Definition and operational criteria. Stat Med 1989, 8:431-440.
5. Temple R.J. A regulatory authority's opinion about surrogate endpoints. Clinical Measurement in Drug Evaluation 1995, 3-22. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. W. Nimmo, G. Tucker (Eds.).
6. Atkinson A.J., Colburn W.A., DeGruttola V.G., et al. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: Preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001, 69:89-95.
7. Weir C.J., Walley R.J. Statistical evaluation of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints: A literature review. Stat Med 2006, 25:183-203.
8. Begg C.B., Leung D.H.Y. On the use of surrogate end points in randomized trials. J R Stat Soc A Stat 2000, 163:15-28.
9. Freedman L.S., Graubard B.I., Schatzkin A. Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Stat Med 1992, 11:167-178.
10. Buyse M., Molenberghs G., Burzykowski T., et al. The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics 2000, 1:49-67.
11. Cook T.D., DeMets D.L. Introduction to Statistical Methods for Clinical Trials 2008, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
12. Cohn J., Cleland J.G.F., Lubsen J., et al. Unconventional end points in cardiovascular clinical trials: Should we be moving away from morbidity and mortality?. J Card Fail 2009, 15:199-205.
13. Duivenvoorden R., de Groot E., Stroes E.S.G., et al. Surrogate markers in clinical trials-challenges and opportunities. Atherosclerosis 2009, 206:8-16.
14. DeMets D.L., Furberg C., Friedman L.M. Data Monitoring in Clinical Trials: A Case Studies Approach 2006, Springer Verlag, New York, NY.
15. Barter P.J., Caulfield M., Eriksson M., et al. Effects of torcetrapib in patients at high risk for coronary events. N Engl J Med 2007, 357:2109-2122.
16. Cannon C.P., Giugliano R.P., Blazing M.A., et al. Rationale and design of IMPROVE-IT (IMProved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial): Comparison of ezetimbe/simvastatin versus simvastatin monotherapy on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Am Heart J 2008, 156:826-832.
17. Nawrocki J.W., Weiss S.R., Davidson M.H., et al. Reduction of LDL cholesterol by 25% to 60% in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia by atorvastatin, a new HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1995, 15:678.
18. Denke M., Pearson T., McBride P., et al. Ezetimibe added to ongoing statin therapy improves LDL-C goal attainment and lipid profile in patients with diabetes or metabolic syndrome. Diab Vasc Dis Res 2006, 3:93.
19. Bots M.L., Visseren F.L., Evans G.W., et al. Torcetrapib and carotid intima-media thickness in mixed dyslipidaemia (RADIANCE 2 study): A randomised, double-blind trial. Lancet 2007, 370:153-160.
20. Vita J.A. JFK: Endothelial function: A barometer for cardiovascular risk?. Circulation 2002, 106:640.
21. Deanfield J.E., Halcox J.P., Rabelink T.J. Endothelial function and dysfunction: Testing and clinical relevance. Circulation 2007, 115:1285.
22. Psaty B.M., Lumley T. Surrogate end points and FDA approval: A tale of 2 lipid-altering drugs. J Am Med Assoc 2008, 299:1474-1476.
23. Rasnake C.M., Trumbo P.R., Heinonen T.M. Surrogate endpoints and emerging surrogate endpoints for risk reduction of cardiovascular disease. Nutr Rev 2008, 66:76-81.
24. Temple R. Are surrogate markers adequate to assess cardiovascular disease drugs?. J Am Med Assoc 1999, 282:790.
25. Pauriah M., Struthers A.D., Lang C.C. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in cardiovascular therapeutics research: Under scrutiny following results of the ENHANCE study. Cardiovasc Ther 2008, 26:85-88.
26. Wierzbicki A.S. Surrogate markers, atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease prevention. Int J Clin Pract 2008, 62:981-987.
27. Frick M., Weidinger F. Endothelial function: A surrogate endpoint in cardiovascular studies?. Curr Pharm Des 2007, 13.
28. Ellenberg S.S., Fleming T.R., DeMets D.L. Data Monitoring Committees in Clinical Trials: A Practical Perspective 2002, Wiley, West Sussex, England.
29. Negi S., Ballantyne C.M. Insights from recent meta-analysis: Role of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in reducing cardiovascular events and rates of atherosclerotic disease progression. J Clin Lipidol 2010, 4:365-370.
30. Silverman M.G., Blaha M.J., Blumental R.S. Adjunctive lipid lowering therapy in the era of surrogate endpoints. Cardiol Rev 2011, 19:17-21.
31. D'Agostino R.B. Debate: The slippery slope of surrogate outcomes. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 2000, 1:76.
32. Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial: Design and methods. Am J Cardiol 2007, 99:S21-S33. The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group.
33. Dluhy R.G., McMahon G.T. Intensive glycemic control in the ACCORD and ADVANCE trials. N Engl J Med 2008, 358:2630-2633.
34. Lin D.Y., Fleming T.R., Gruttola V.D. Estimating the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Stat Med 1997, 16:1515-1527.
35. LaRosa J., Shepherd J., Wenger N., et al. Intensive lipid lowering with atorvastatin in patients with stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2005, 352:1425-1435.
36. Choi S., Lagakos S.W., Schooley R.T., et al. CD4+ lymphocytes are an incomplete surrogate marker for clinical progression in persons with asymptomatic HIV infection taking zidovudine. Ann Intern Med 1993, 118:674.
37. Bycott P.W., Taylor J.M.G. An evaluation of a measure of the proportion of the treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Control Clin Trials 1998, 19:555-568.
38. Day N.E., Duffy S.W. Trial design based on surrogate end points: Application to comparison of different breast screening frequencies. J R Stat Soc A Stat 1996, 159:49-60.
39. O'Brien W.A., Hartigan P.M., Martin D., et al. Changes in plasma HIV-1 RNA and CD4+ lymphocyte counts and the risk of progression to AIDS. N Engl J Med 1996, 334:426.
40. Daniels M.J., Hughes M.D. Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. Stat Med 1997, 16:1965-1982.
41. Buyse M., Molenberghs G. Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics 1998, 54:1014-1029.
42. Molenberghs G., Buyse M., Geys H., et al. Statistical challenges in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in randomized trials. Control Clin Trials 2002, 23:607-625.
43. Alonso A., Molenberghs G., Burzykowski T., et al. Prentice's approach and the meta-analytic paradigm: A reflection on the role of statistics in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints. Biometrics 2004, 60:724-728.
44. Molenberghs G., Burzykowskia T., Alonsoa A., et al. The meta-analytic framework for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. J Stat Plan Inference 2008, 138:432-449.
45. Gail M.H., Pfeiffer R., Houwelingen H.C.V., et al. On meta-analytic assessment of surrogate outcomes. Biostatistics 2000, 1:231-246.
46. Alonso A., Molenberghs G. Surrogate marker evaluation from an information theory perspective. Biometrics 2007, 63:180-186.
47. Lorenz M.W., Markus H.S., Bots M.L., et al. Prediction of clinical cardiovascular events with carotid intima-media thickness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation 2007, 115:459.
48. Angelantonio E., Sarwar N., Perry P., et al. Major lipids, apolipoproteins, and risk of vascular disease. J Am Med Assoc 2009, 302:1993.
49. Briel M., Ferreira-Gonzalez I., You J.J., et al. Association between change in high density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality: Systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Br Med J 2009, 338.
50. Caterina R.D., Scarano M., Marfisi R.M., et al. Cholesterol-lowering interventions and stroke: Insights from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010, 55:198-211.
51. Frangakis C.E., Rubin D.B. Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics 2002, 58:21-29.
52. Pearl J. Principal stratification-a goal or a tool?. Int J Biostat 2011, 7:20.
53. Ridker P.M., MacFadyen J., Cressman M., et al. Efficacy of rosuvastatin among men and women with moderate chronic kidney disease and elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein: A secondary analysis from the JUPITER (Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention-an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010, 55:1266-1273.
54. Kastelein J.J.P., Sager P.T., de Groot E., et al. Comparison of ezetimibe plus simvastatin versus simvastatin monotherapy on atherosclerosis progression in familial hypercholesterolemia: Design and rationale of the Ezetimibe and Simvastatin in Hypercholesterolemia Enhances Atherosclerosis Regression (ENHANCE) trial. Am Heart J 2005, 149:234-239.
55. Kastelein J.J.P., Akdim F., Stroes E.S.G., et al. Simvastatin with or without ezetimibe in familial hypercholesterolemia. N Engl J Med 2008, 358:1431-1443.
56. Nissen S.E., Tardif J.C., Nicholls S.J., et al. Effect of torcetrapib on the progression of coronary atherosclerosis. N Engl J Med 2007, 356:1304-1316.
57. Forrest M.J., Bloomfield D., Briscoe R.J., Brown P.N., Cumiskey A., et al. Torcetrapib-induced blood pressure elevation is independent of CETP inhibition and is accompanied by increased circulating levels of aldosterone. Br J Pharmacol 2008, 154:1465-1473.
58. Hu X., Dietz J.D., Xia C., et al. Torcetrapib induces aldosterone and cortisol production by an intracellular calcium-mediated mechanism independently of cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibition. Endocrinology 2009, 150:2211.
59. Barter P. Lessons learned from the Investigation of Lipid Level Management to Understand its Impact in Atherosclerotic Events (ILLUMINATE) trial. Am J Cardiol 2009, 104:10E-15E.
60. Tardif J.C., Heinonen T., Orloff D., et al. Vascular biomarkers and surrogates in cardiovascular disease. Circulation 2006, 113:2936-2942.