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

Objective To quantify and compare the treatment effect and risk of bias of trials reporting biomarkers or intermediate outcomes (surrogate outcomes) versus trials using final patient relevant primary outcomes. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources All randomised clinical trials published in 2005 and 2006 in six high impact medical journals: Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and PLoS Medicine. Study selection Two independent reviewers selected trials. Data extraction Trial characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes were recorded according to a predefined form. Two reviewers independently checked data extraction. The ratio of odds ratios was used to quantify the degree of difference in treatment effects between the trials using surrogate outcomes and those using patient relevant outcomes, also adjusted for trial characteristics. A ratio of odds ratios >1.0 implies that trials with surrogate outcomes report larger intervention effects than trials with patient relevant outcomes. Results 84 trials using surrogate outcomes and 101 using patient relevant outcomes were considered for analyses. Study characteristics of trials using surrogate outcomes and those using patient relevant outcomes were well balanced, except for median sample size (371 v 741) and single centre status (23% v 9%). Their risk of bias did not differ. Primary analysis showed trials reporting surrogate endpoints to have larger treatment effects (odds ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.60) than trials reporting patient relevant outcomes (0.76, 0.70 to 0.82), with an unadjusted ratio of odds ratios of 1.47 (1.07 to 2.01) and adjusted ratio of odds ratios of 1.46 (1.05 to 2.04). This result was consistent across sensitivity and secondary analyses. Conclusions Trials reporting surrogate primary outcomes are more likely to report larger treatment effects than trials reporting final patient relevant primary outcomes. This finding was not explained by differences in the risk of bias or characteristics of the two groups of trials.

Complete cytogenetic response and major molecular response as surrogate outcomes for overall survival in first-line treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia: A case study for technology appraisal on the basis of surrogate outcomes evidence

Objectives In 2012, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence assessed dasatinib, nilotinib, and standard-dose imatinib as first-line treatment of chronic phase chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). Licensing of these alternative treatments was based on randomized controlled trials assessing complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) and major molecular response (MMR) at 12 months as primary end points. We use this case study to illustrate the validation of CCyR and MMR as surrogate outcomes for overall survival in CML and how this evidence was used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s recommendation on the public funding of these first-line treatments for CML. Methods We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the association between CCyR and MMR at 12 months and overall survival in patients with chronic phase CML. We estimated life expectancy by extrapolating long-term survival from the weighted overall survival stratified according to the achievement of CCyR and MMR. Results Five studies provided data on the observational association between CCyR or MMR and overall survival. Based on the pooled association between CCyR and MMR and overall survival, our modeling showed comparable predicted mean duration of survival (21–23 years) following first-line treatment with imatinib, dasatinib, or nilotinib. Conclusions This case study illustrates the consideration of surrogate outcome evidence in health technology assessment. Although it is often recommended that the acceptance of surrogate outcomes be based on randomized controlled trial data demonstrating an association between the treatment effect on both the surrogate outcome and the final outcome, this case study shows that policymakers may be willing to accept a lower level of evidence (i.e., observational association).