Comparison of treatment effect sizes associated with surrogate and final patient relevant outcomes in randomised controlled trials: Meta-epidemiological study

BMJ (Online)

Volumn 346, Issue 7898, 2013, Pages

  Ciani, Oriana ^a   Buyse, Marc ^b,c   Garside, Ruth ^a   Pavey, Toby ^d   Stein, Ken ^a   Jonathan, A C ^e   Taylor, Rod S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b INTERNATIONAL DRUG DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE   (Belgium)

^c HASSELT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^d UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRUG;

ARTICLE; EFFECT SIZE; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK ASSESSMENT; SAMPLE SIZE; SECONDARY ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA COLLECTION; EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH DESIGN; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84874839883     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f457     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Pocock SJ. Clinical trials: a practical approach . Wiley, 1996.
2. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001;285:1987-91.
3. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408-12.
4. Herbison P, Hay-Smith J, Gillespie WJ. Different methods of allocation to groups in randomized trials are associated with different levels of bias. A meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1070-5.
5. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998;352:609-13.
6. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Jüni P, Altman DG, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2008;336:601-5.
7. Dechartres A, Boutron I, Trinquart L, Charles P, Ravaud P. Single-center trials show larger treatment effects than multicenter trials: evidence from a meta-epidemiologic study. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:39-51.
8. Bafeta A, Dechartres A, Trinquart L, Yavchitz A, Boutron I, Ravaud P. Impact of single centre status on estimates of intervention effects in trials with continuous outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2012;344:e813.
9. Ferreira-Gonzalez I, Busse JW, Heels-Ansdell D, Montori VM, Akl EA, Bryant DM, et al. Problems with use of composite end points in cardiovascular trials: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2007;334:786.
10. Lassere MN. The Biomarker-Surrogacy Evaluation Schema: a review of the biomarker-surrogate literature and a proposal for a criterion-based, quantitative, multidimensional hierarchical levels of evidence schema for evaluating the status of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints. Stat Methods Med Res 2008;17:303-40.
11. Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med 1996;125:605-13.
12. Biomarkers Definition Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001;69:89-95.
13. Elston J, Taylor RS. Use of surrogate outcomes in cost-effectiveness models: a review of United Kingdom health technology assessment reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25:6-13.
14. Burzykowski T, Buyse M. An alternative measure for meta-analytic surrogate endpoint validation. In: Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Buyse M, eds. The evaluation of surrogate endpoints . Springer, 2005:323-40.
15. Johnson KR, Ringland C, Stokes BJ, Anthony DM, Freemantle N, Irs A, et al. Response rate or time to progression as predictors of survival in trials of metastatic colorectal cancer or non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2006;7:741-6.
16. Chakravarty A. Regulatory aspects in using surrogate markers in clinical trials. In: Burzykowsi T, Molenberghs G, Buyse M, eds. The evaluation of surrogate endpoints . Springer, 2005.
17. Moynihan R. Surrogates under scrutiny: fallible correlations, fatal consequences. BMJ 2011;343:d5160.
18. Yudkin JS, Lipska KJ, Montori VM. The idolatry of the surrogate. BMJ 2011;343:d7995.
19. US Food and Drug Administration. Label and approval history Iressa. 2003. www. accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/index.cfm?fuseaction=Search. DrugDetails.
20. US Food and Drug Administration. Gefitinib (marketed as Iressa) information. 2005. www. fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ ucm110473.htm.
21. Preliminary report: effect of encainide and flecainide on mortality in a randomized trial of arrhythmia suppression after myocardial infarction. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) Investigators. N Engl JMed 1989;321:406-12.
22. Barter PJ, Caulfield M, Eriksson M, Grundy SM, Kastelein JJ, Komajda M, et al. Effects of torcetrapib in patients at high risk for coronary events. N Engl JMed 2007;357:2109-22.
23. Giaccone G, Herbst RS, Manegold C, Scagliotti G, Rosell R, Miller V, et al. Gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial - INTACT 1. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:777-84.
24. Czoski-Murray C, Warren E, Chilcott J, Beverley C, Psyllaki MA, Cowan J. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2004;8:iii, ix-x, 1-91.
25. Pavey T, Hoyle M, Ciani O, Crathorne L, Jones-Hughes T, Cooper C, et al. Dasatinib, nilotinib and standard-dose imatinib for the first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia: systematic reviews and economic analyses. Health Technol Assess, 2012;16:iii-iv, 1-277, doi:10.3310/hta16420.
26. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 2011/12 review of the guide to the methods of technology appraisal. TA methods guide review: supporting documents. 2012. www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/devnicetech/ TAMethodsGuideReview.jsp? domedia=1&mid=C673A1A2-19B9-E0B5-D4C41B8F1C064D54.
27. La Cour JL, Brok J, Gotzsche PC. Inconsistent reporting of surrogate outcomes in randomised clinical trials: cohort study. BMJ 2010;341:c3653.
28. Alexander JH, Hafley G, Harrington RA, Peterson ED, Ferguson TB Jr, Lorenz TJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of edifoligide, an E2F transcription factor decoy, for prevention of vein graft failure following coronary artery bypass graft surgery: PREVENT IV: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005;294:2446-54.
29. Hou FF, Zhang X, Zhang GH, Xie D, Chen PY, Zhang WR, et al. Efficacy and safety of benazepril for advanced chronic renal insufficiency. N Engl JMed 2006;354:131-40.
30. Temple RJ. A regulatory authority's opinion about surrogate endpoints. In: Nimmo WS, Tucker GT, eds. Clinical measurement in drug evaluation . Wiley, 1995.
31. Ciani O, Taylor RS. Surrogate, friend or foe? the need for case studies of the use of surrogate outcomes in cost-effectiveness analyses. Health Econ 2013;22:251-2. Published online 24 May 2012.
32. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal . NICE, 2008.
33. Ridker PM, Torres J. Reported outcomes in major cardiovascular clinical trials funded by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations: 2000-2005. JAMA 2006;295:2270-4.
34. 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;282:771-8.
35. Sterne JA, Juni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Bartlett C, Egger M. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research. Stat Med 2002;21:1513-24.
36. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Available from www.cochrane-handbook. org. Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
37. Chinn S. A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Stat Med 2000;19:3127-31.
38. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:683-91.
39. Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA. A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med 2006;25:3443-57.
40. Nobre MR, da Costa FM. Surrogate outcomes are associated with low methodological quality of studies of rheumatoid arthritis treated with antitumour necrosis factor agents: a systematic review. Evid Based Med 2011;17:3-7.
41. Sterne JA, Gavaghan D, Egger M. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:1119-29.
42. Lassere MN, Johnson KR, Boers M, Tugwell P, Brooks P, Simon L, 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;34:607-15.
43. Chan AW, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet 2005;365:1159-62.
44. Callaham M, Wears RL, Weber E. Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. JAMA 2002;287:2847-50.
45. Naylor CD. Meta-analysis and the meta-epidemiology of clinical research. BMJ 1997;315:617-9.
46. Sargent DJ, Wieand HS, Haller DG, Gray R, Benedetti JK, Buyse M, et al. Disease-free survival versus overall survival as a primary end point for adjuvant colon cancer studies: individual patient data from 20,898 patients on 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8664-70.
47. Johnson KR, Freemantle N, Anthony DM, Lassere MN. LDL-cholesterol differences predicted survival benefit in statin trials by the surrogate threshold effect (STE). J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:328-36.
48. Hughes MD, Daniels MJ, Fischl MA, Kim S, Schooley RT. CD4 cell count as a surrogate endpoint in HIV clinical trials: a meta-analysis of studies of the AIDS Clinical Trials Group. AIDS 1998;12:1823-32.
49. Buyse M, Burzykowski T, Carroll K, Michiels S, Sargent DJ, Miller LL, et al. Progression-free survival is a surrogate for survival in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:5218-24.
50. Poustie VJ, Russell JE, Watling RM, Ashby D, Smyth RL. Oral protein energy supplements for children with cystic fibrosis: CALICO multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2006;332:632-6.
51. Tonstad S, Tonnesen P, Hajek P, Williams KE, Billing CB, Reeves KR. Effect of maintenance therapy with varenicline on smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2006;296:64-71.
52. Mangiapane S, Velasco Garrido M. Use of surrogate end points in HTA. GMS Health Technol Assess . 2009;5:Doc12.
53. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Leukaemia (chronic myeloid, first line) - dasatinib, nilotinib and standard-dose imatinib: final appraisal determination document. 2012. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA/Wave24/ 15/FAD/ FinalAppraisalDetermination/pdf/English.
54. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Renal transplantation - immuno-suppressive regimens (adults). 2004. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ TA85.
55. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Hepatitis B (chronic) - adefovir dipivoxil and pegylated interferon alpha-2a (TA96). 2006. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/ TA96.
56. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Review of the guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2012. www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/ howwework/devnicetech/ TAMethodsGuideReview.jsp?domedia=1&mid=CB13DD0D-19B9- E0B5- D4AB0011AEE2B0E7.
57. Renfro LA, Carlin BP, Sargent DJ. Bayesian adaptive trial design for a newly validated surrogate endpoint. Biometrics 2012;68:258-67.