Statistical validation of surrogate endpoints: is bone density a valid surrogate for fracture?

In the treatment of osteoporosis using anti-resorptive agents there has been increasing interest in quantifying the relationship between fracture endpoints and surrogates such as bone mineral density (BMD) or bone turnover markers. Statistical methodology constitutes a critical component of assessing surrogate validity. Depending on study designs, data resources, and statistical methods used for analyses, one has to use caution when interpreting results from different analyses, especially when results are disparate. For example, analyses based on individual patient data reported that only a limited proportion of the anti-fracture efficacy was explained by BMD increases for agents such as alendronate, risedronate and raloxifene. Analyses employing meta-regression based on summary statistics, however, indicated that most of the anti-fracture benefits were due to improvements in BMD. In this paper, we review definitions of surrogate endpoints and requirements for their statistical validation. We evaluate whether BMD meets these requirements as a possible surrogate for fracture. Our review indicates that the actual BMD value is correlated with fracture risk and thus BMD is useful in identifying patients that might need treatment. There is limited evidence to support BMD increase with anti-resorptive agents as a reliable substitute for fracture risk reduction. Strengths and limitations for various statistical methods are discussed.