Literature DB >> 16168350

The true treatment benefit is unpredictable in clinical trials using surrogate outcome measured with diagnostic tests.

Behrouz Kassaï1, Nirav R Shah, Alain Leizorovicza, Michel Cucherat, Francois Gueyffier, Jean-Pierre Boissel.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials increasingly use results of diagnostic tests as surrogate outcomes. Our objective was to answer the following questions: (1) is the parameter measured by the reference standard a valid surrogate? (2) How does the tests accuracy influence the estimate of the treatment benefit on surrogate? (3) Is it possible to correct the measured treatment effect given by results of inaccurate tests? METHODS AND
SETTING: We reviewed the literature on asymptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT), detected by the reference standard and other imaging techniques, as surrogate for venous thromboembolism. The influence of test inaccuracy on the measurement of treatment benefit was calculated as a function of the patient baseline risk, the treatment effect model, and test performances.
RESULTS: We show that: (1) asymptomatic DVT is correlated with clinical outcomes but is yet to be established as a surrogate; (2) inaccurate diagnostic test underestimates the treatment effect on surrogate; (3) the prevalence of the disease, the treatment effect model, and the accuracy of the test and the reference standard used to evaluate it need to be known to correct this underestimation.
CONCLUSION: Even when the surrogate end point is valid, without a reliable study of the diagnostic test we cannot quantify the true treatment effect.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16168350      PMCID: PMC2670365          DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  66 in total

1.  The logistic modeling of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of a diagnostic test.

Authors:  S S Coughlin; B Trock; M H Criqui; L W Pickle; D Browner; M C Tefft
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 2.  Evaluating diagnostic tests with imperfect standards.

Authors:  P N Valenstein
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 2.493

3.  Reliability of phlebography in the assessment of venous thrombosis in a clinical trial.

Authors:  H Picolet; A Leizorovicz; D Revel; P Chirossel; M Amiel; J P Boissel
Journal:  Haemostasis       Date:  1990

4.  Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria.

Authors:  R L Prentice
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  The effect of conditional dependence on the evaluation of diagnostic tests.

Authors:  P M Vacek
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1985-12       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Extended-duration prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism after total hip or knee replacement: a meta-analysis of the randomised trials.

Authors:  J W Eikelboom; D J Quinlan; J D Douketis
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-07-07       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Considerations in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. summary of a National Institutes of Health workshop.

Authors:  V G De Gruttola; P Clax; D L DeMets; G J Downing; S S Ellenberg; L Friedman; M H Gail; R Prentice; J Wittes; S L Zeger
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  2001-10

Review 8.  Calf deep venous thrombosis. A wolf in sheep's clothing?

Authors:  J T Philbrick; D M Becker
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1988-10

9.  Factors affecting sensitivity and specificity of exercise electrocardiography. Multivariable analysis.

Authors:  M A Hlatky; D B Pryor; F E Harrell; R M Califf; D B Mark; R A Rosati
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1984-07       Impact factor: 4.965

10.  Long-term clinical observations and venous functional abnormalities after asymptomatic venous thrombosis following total hip or knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  C W Francis; J J Ricotta; C M Evarts; V J Marder
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  3 in total

1.  Evidence-based mechanistic reasoning.

Authors:  Jeremy Howick; Paul Glasziou; Jeffrey K Aronson
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 2.  The application of biomarkers in clinical trials for motor neuron disease.

Authors:  Jeban Ganesalingam; Robert Bowser
Journal:  Biomark Med       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.851

Review 3.  SOFA and mortality endpoints in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis.

Authors:  Harm-Jan de Grooth; Irma L Geenen; Armand R Girbes; Jean-Louis Vincent; Jean-Jacques Parienti; Heleen M Oudemans-van Straaten
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 9.097

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.