OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to review the recommendations given by health technology assessment (HTA) institutions in their methodological guidelines concerning the use of surrogate outcomes in their assessments. In a second step, we aimed at quantifying the role surrogate parameters take in assessment reports. METHODS: We analyzed methodological papers and guidelines from HTA agencies with International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment membership as well as from institutions related to pharmaceutical regulation (i.e., reimbursement, pricing). We analyzed the use of surrogate outcomes in a sample of HTA reports randomly drawn from the HTA database. We checked methods, results (including evidence tables), and conclusions sections and extracted the outcomes reported. We report descriptive statistics on the presence of surrogate outcomes in the reports. RESULTS: We identified thirty-four methodological guidelines, twenty of them addressing the issue of outcome parameter choice and the problematic of surrogate outcomes. Overall HTA agencies call on caution regarding the reliance on surrogate outcomes. None of the agencies has provided a list or catalog of acceptable and validated surrogate outcomes. We extracted the outcome parameter of 140 HTA reports. Only around half of the reports determined the outcomes for the assessment prospectively. Surrogate outcomes had been used in 62 percent of the reports. However, only 3.6 percent were based upon surrogate outcomes exclusively. All of them assessed diagnostic or screening technologies and the surrogate outcomes were predominantly test characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: HTA institutions seem to agree on a cautious approach to the use of surrogate outcomes in technology assessment. Thorough assessment of health technologies should not rely exclusively on surrogate outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to review the recommendations given by health technology assessment (HTA) institutions in their methodological guidelines concerning the use of surrogate outcomes in their assessments. In a second step, we aimed at quantifying the role surrogate parameters take in assessment reports. METHODS: We analyzed methodological papers and guidelines from HTA agencies with International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment membership as well as from institutions related to pharmaceutical regulation (i.e., reimbursement, pricing). We analyzed the use of surrogate outcomes in a sample of HTA reports randomly drawn from the HTA database. We checked methods, results (including evidence tables), and conclusions sections and extracted the outcomes reported. We report descriptive statistics on the presence of surrogate outcomes in the reports. RESULTS: We identified thirty-four methodological guidelines, twenty of them addressing the issue of outcome parameter choice and the problematic of surrogate outcomes. Overall HTA agencies call on caution regarding the reliance on surrogate outcomes. None of the agencies has provided a list or catalog of acceptable and validated surrogate outcomes. We extracted the outcome parameter of 140 HTA reports. Only around half of the reports determined the outcomes for the assessment prospectively. Surrogate outcomes had been used in 62 percent of the reports. However, only 3.6 percent were based upon surrogate outcomes exclusively. All of them assessed diagnostic or screening technologies and the surrogate outcomes were predominantly test characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: HTA institutions seem to agree on a cautious approach to the use of surrogate outcomes in technology assessment. Thorough assessment of health technologies should not rely exclusively on surrogate outcomes.
Authors: Oriana Ciani; Bogdan Grigore; Hedwig Blommestein; Saskia de Groot; Meilin Möllenkamp; Stefan Rabbe; Rita Daubner-Bendes; Rod S Taylor Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Jorge Félix; Filipa Aragão; João M Almeida; Frederico J Calado; Diana Ferreira; António B S Parreira; Ricardo Rodrigues; João F R Rijo Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2013-03-16 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Michael Ermisch; Anna Bucsics; Patricia Vella Bonanno; Francis Arickx; Alexander Bybau; Tomasz Bochenek; Marc van de Casteele; Eduardo Diogene; Jurij Fürst; Kristina Garuolienė; Martin van der Graaff; Jolanta Gulbinovič; Alan Haycox; Jan Jones; Roberta Joppi; Ott Laius; Irene Langner; Antony P Martin; Vanda Markovic-Pekovic; Laura McCullagh; Einar Magnusson; Ellen Nilsen; Gisbert Selke; Catherine Sermet; Steven Simoens; Robert Sauermann; Ad Schuurman; Ricardo Ramos; Vera Vlahovic-Palcevski; Corinne Zara; Brian Godman Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Brian Godman; Alexander E Finlayson; Parneet K Cheema; Eva Zebedin-Brandl; Inaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea; Jan Jones; Rickard E Malmström; Elina Asola; Christoph Baumgärtel; Marion Bennie; Iain Bishop; Anna Bucsics; Stephen Campbell; Eduardo Diogene; Alessandra Ferrario; Jurij Fürst; Kristina Garuoliene; Miguel Gomes; Katharine Harris; Alan Haycox; Harald Herholz; Krystyna Hviding; Saira Jan; Marija Kalaba; Christina Kvalheim; Ott Laius; Sven-Ake Lööv; Kamila Malinowska; Andrew Martin; Laura McCullagh; Fredrik Nilsson; Ken Paterson; Ulrich Schwabe; Gisbert Selke; Catherine Sermet; Steven Simoens; Dominik Tomek; Vera Vlahovic-Palcevski; Luka Voncina; Magdalena Wladysiuk; Menno van Woerkom; Durhane Wong-Rieger; Corrine Zara; Raghib Ali; Lars L Gustafsson Journal: BMC Med Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 8.775