The use of surrogate endpoints in regulating medicines for cardio-renal disease: Opinions of stakeholders

PLoS ONE

Volumn 9, Issue 9, 2014, Pages

  Schievink, Bauke ^a   Heerspink, Hiddo Lambers ^a   Leufkens, Hubert ^b,c   De Zeeuw, Dick ^a   Hoekman, Jarno ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c MEDICINES EVALUATION BOARD   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; C REACTIVE PROTEIN; HEMOGLOBIN A1C; GLYCOSYLATED HEMOGLOBIN; HEMOGLOBIN A1C PROTEIN, HUMAN; NEW DRUG;

ADULT; ALBUMINURIA; BLOOD PRESSURE; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; DISEASE MARKER; END STAGE RENAL DISEASE; FEMALE; HUMAN; LIKERT SCALE; MALE; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; MISCELLANEOUS NAMED GROUPS; REVIEW; STAKEHOLDER; VALIDITY; AGED; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; KIDNEY DISEASES; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METABOLISM; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROCEDURES; QUESTIONNAIRE;

ADULT; AGED; ALBUMINURIA; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; BLOOD PRESSURE; C-REACTIVE PROTEIN; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUGS, INVESTIGATIONAL; FEMALE; HEALTH SYSTEMS AGENCIES; HEMOGLOBIN A, GLYCOSYLATED; HUMANS; KIDNEY DISEASES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PUBLIC SECTOR; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84907487799     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108722     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Lonn E (2001) The use of surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: focus on clinical trials in cardiovascular diseases. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 10: 497-508.
2. Aronson JK (2005) Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints. Br J Clin Pharmacol 59: 491-494.
3. Aronson JK (2012) An agenda for UK clinical pharmacology: Research priorities in biomarkers and surrogate end-points. Br J Clin Pharmacol 73: 900-907.
4. Domanski M, Pocock S, Bernaud C, Borer J, Geller N, et al (2011) Surrogate endpoints in randomized cardiovascular clinical trials. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 25: 411 -413.
5. Fleming TRDD (1996) Surrogate End Points in Clinical Trials: Are We Being Misled? Ann Intern Med 125: 605-613.
6. Temple R (1999) Are surrogate markers adequate to assess cardiovascular disease drugs? JAMA 282: 790-795.
7. Psaty BM, Weiss NS, Furberg CD, Koepsell TD, Siscovick DS, et al (1999) Surrogate end points, health outcomes, and the drug-approval process for the treatment of risk factors for cardiovascular disease. JAMA 282: 786-790.
8. D'Agostino R (2000) Debate: The slippery slope of surrogate outcomes. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 1: 76-78.
9. Moynihan R (2011) Surrogates under scrutiny: fallible correlations, fatal consequences. BMJ 343: d5160.
10. Halimi J, Sautenet B, Gatault P, Roland M, Giraudeau B (2012) Renal endpoints in renal and cardiovascular randomized clinical trials: time for a consensus? Fundam Clin Pharmacol 26: 771 -782.
11. Messerli FH, Staessen JA, Zannad F (2010) Of fads, fashion, surrogate endpoints and dual RAS blockade. Eur Heart J 31: 2205-2208.
12. Nissen SE, Wolski K (2007) Effect of Rosiglitazone on the Risk of Myocardial Infarction and Death from Cardiovascular Causes. N Engl J Med 356: 2457-2471.
13. Psaty BM, Furberg CD (2007) The Record on Rosiglitazone and the Risk of Myocardial Infarction. N Engl J Med 357: 67-69.
14. Parving H, Brenner BM, McMurray JJV, de Zeeuw D, Haffner SM, et al (2012) Cardiorenal End Points in a Trial of Aliskiren for Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med 367: 2204-2213.
15. Messerli FH, Bangalore S (2013) ALTITUDE Trial and Dual RAS Blockade: The Alluring but Soft Science of the Surrogate End Point. Am J Med 126: el-e3.
16. James WP, Caterson ID, Coutinho W, Finer N, Van Gaal LF, et al Effect of Sibutramine on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Overweight and Obese Subjects (2010) N Engl J Med 363: 905-917.
17. Svensson S, Menkes DB, Lexchin J (2013) Surrogate outcomes in clinical trials: A cautionary tale. JAMA Intern Med 173: 611-612.
18. Joffe HV, Parks MH, Temple R (2010) Impact of cardiovascular outcomes on the development and approval of medications for the treatment of diabetes mellitus. Rev Endocr Metab Disord 11: 21-30.
19. Amgen (2013) Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk (FOURIER). Available:
20. Pfizer (2013) The Evaluation Of PF-04950615 (RN316), In Reducing The Occurrence Of Major Cardiovascular Events In High Risk Subjects (SPIRE-1). Available: . Accessed 2014, April 7.
21. Pfizer (2013) The Evaluation Of PF-04950615 (RN316) In Reducing The Occurrence Of Major Cardiovascular Events In High Risk Subjects (SPIRE-2). Available: . Accessed 2014, April 7.
22. Mullard A (2012) Cholesterol-lowering blockbuster candidates speed into Phase III trials. Nat. Rev Drug Discov 11: 817-819.
23. Lesko LJ, Atkinson AJ (2001) Use of Biomarkers and Surrogate Endpoints in Drug Development and Regulatory Decision Making: Criteria, Validation, Strategies. Annu Rev Toxicol 41: 347-366.
24. Prentice RL (1989) Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med 8: 431-440.
25. O'Quigley J (2006) Quantification of the Prentice Criteria for Surrogate Endpoints. Biometrics 62: 297-300.
26. Domanski M, Pocock S, Bernaud C, Borer J, Geller N, et al (2011) Surrogate endpoints in randomized cardiovascular clinical trials. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 25: 411 -413.
27. Boessen R (2012) Methods to improve the efficiency of confirmatory clinical trials. PhD thesis. Utrecht University. Available: . Accessed 2014, September 5.
28. Eichler HG, Abadie E, Breckenridge A, Leufkens H, Rasi G (2012) Open Clinical Trial Data for All? A View from Regulators. PLOS Med DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001202.
29. Doshi P, Dickersin K, Healy D, Vedula S, Jefferson T (2013) Restoring invisible and abandoned trials: a call for people to publish the findings. BMJ 346: 12865.
30. Tzoulaki I, Siontis KC, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JA (2013) Bias in associations of emerging biomarkers with cardiovascular disease. JAMA Intern Med 173: 664-671.
31. European Medicines Agency (2008) EMA/CHMP/SAWP/72894/2008: Qualification of novel methodologies for drug development: guidance to applicants. Available: Accessed 2014, January 27.
32. Food and Drug Administration (2013) Biomarker Qualification Program. Available: DrugDevelopmentToolsQualificationProgram/ucm284076.htm. Accessed 2014, January 27.
33. Goldman M, Compton C, Mittleman B (2013) Public-private partnerships as driving forces in the quest for innovative medicines. Clin Trans Med 2: 1-3.
34. Sistare FD, Dieterle F, Troth S, Holder DJ, Gerhold D, et al (2010). Towards consensus practices to qualify safety biomarkers for use in early drug development. Nat Biotechnol 28: 446-454.
35. Dieterle F, Sistare F, Goodsaid F, Papaluca M, Ozer JS (2010) Renal biomarker qualification submission: a dialog between the FDA-EMEA and Predictive Safety Testing Consortium. Nat Biotechnol 28: 455-462.
36. Mattes WB, Walker EG (2009) Translational Toxicology and the Work of the Predictive Safety Testing Consortium. Clin Pharmacol Ther 85: 327-330.
37. Goldman M (2012) The Innovative Medicines Initiative: A European Response to the Innovation Challenge. Clin Pharmacol Ther 91: 418-425.
38. Smink PA, Miao Y, Eijkemans MJC, Bakker SJL, Raz I, et al (2014) The Importance of Short-Term Off-Target Effects in Estimating the Long-Term Renal and Cardiovascular Protection of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers. Clin Pharmacol Ther 95: 208-215.
39. Smink P, Hoekman J, Grobbee D, Eijkemans M, Parving HH, et al (2013) A prediction of the renal and cardiovascular efficacy of aliskiren in ALTITUDE using short-term changes in multiple risk markers. Eur J Prev Cardiol DOI:10.1177/2047487313481754.
40. Krishna R (2009) Model-Based Benefit-Risk Assessment: Can Archimedes Help? Clin Pharmacol Ther 85: 239-240.
41. Kroth PJ, McPherson L, Leverence R, Pace W, Daniels E, et al (2009) Combining Web-Based and Mail Surveys Improves Response Rates: A PBRN Study From PRIME Net. Ann Fam Med 7: 245-248.
42. Yarger JB, James TA, Ashikaga T, Hayanga AJ, Takyi V, et al (2013) Characteristics in response rates for surveys administered to surgery residents. Surgery 154: 38-45.
43. Leece P, Bhandari M, Sprague S, Swiontkowski M, Schemitsch E, et al (2004) Internet Versus Mailed Questionnaires: A Controlled Comparison. J Med Internet Res 6: e39.