Literature DB >> 20577652

Evaluating the Proportion of Treatment Effect Explained by a Continuous Surrogate Marker in Logistic or Probit Regression Models.

Jie Huang1, Bin Huang.   

Abstract

Using surrogate endpoints in clinical trials is desirable for drug development because the trials can be shortened and therefore more cost-effective. Validating a surrogate for the clinical endpoint is critical in this context. One of the key steps in statistical validation of a surrogate for a single trial is to estimate the proportion of treatment effect explained (PTE or PE) by a surrogate. Often the measure for PTE is estimated from the difference in coefficients of treatment from two models with or without adjusting for the surrogate for clinical endpoint. Inherent problems with the method are: the two models may not be valid simultaneously; and the estimate can often lie outside the interval [0, 1]. In this article, we provide alternative measures for evaluating the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate in logistic or probit regression models. Our measures can be estimated easily with any statistical programs capable of binary linear regression modeling, and the interpretation of the measures can be illustrated using Ordinal Dominance (OD) curves. The concept can be visually understood by any practical user. Simulation shows our alternative measures yield more accurate estimates which are less biased, less variable, and with narrower confidence intervals. A clinical trial example is provided.

Entities:  

Year:  2010        PMID: 20577652      PMCID: PMC2890300          DOI: 10.1198/sbr.2009.0070

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Biopharm Res        ISSN: 1946-6315            Impact factor:   1.452


  14 in total

Review 1.  Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework.

Authors: 
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 6.875

2.  The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments.

Authors:  M Buyse; G Molenberghs; T Burzykowski; D Renard; H Geys
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 5.899

3.  A measure of the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker.

Authors:  Yue Wang; Jeremy M G Taylor
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Surrogate marker evaluation from an information theory perspective.

Authors:  Ariel Alonso; Geert Molenberghs
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 5.  Perspective: validating surrogate markers--are we being naive?

Authors:  V De Gruttola; T Fleming; D Y Lin; R Coombs
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 5.226

6.  Estimating the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker.

Authors:  D Y Lin; T R Fleming; V De Gruttola
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1997-07-15       Impact factor: 2.373

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

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

8.  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

9.  Association of posttherapy positron emission tomography with tumor response and survival in cervical carcinoma.

Authors:  Julie K Schwarz; Barry A Siegel; Farrokh Dehdashti; Perry W Grigsby
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-11-21       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Statistical issues for HIV surrogate endpoints: point/counterpoint. An NIAID workshop.

Authors:  J M Albert; J P Ioannidis; P Reichelderfer; B Conway; R W Coombs; L Crane; R Demasi; D O Dixon; P Flandre; M D Hughes; L A Kalish; K Larntz; D Lin; I C Marschner; A Muñoz; J Murray; J Neaton; C Pettinelli; W Rida; J M Taylor; S L Welles
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-11-15       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  4 in total

1.  Are hemodynamics surrogate end points in pulmonary arterial hypertension?

Authors:  Corey E Ventetuolo; Nicole B Gabler; Jason S Fritz; K Akaya Smith; Harold I Palevsky; James R Klinger; Scott D Halpern; Steven M Kawut
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2014-06-20       Impact factor: 29.690

2.  Validation of 6-minute walk distance as a surrogate end point in pulmonary arterial hypertension trials.

Authors:  Nicole B Gabler; Benjamin French; Brian L Strom; Harold I Palevsky; Darren B Taichman; Steven M Kawut; Scott D Halpern
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 29.690

3.  Defining Surrogate Endpoints for Clinical Trials in Severe Falciparum Malaria.

Authors:  Atthanee Jeeyapant; Hugh W Kingston; Katherine Plewes; Richard J Maude; Josh Hanson; M Trent Herdman; Stije J Leopold; Thatsanun Ngernseng; Prakaykaew Charunwatthana; Nguyen Hoan Phu; Aniruddha Ghose; M Mahtab Uddin Hasan; Caterina I Fanello; Md Abul Faiz; Tran Tinh Hien; Nicholas P J Day; Nicholas J White; Arjen M Dondorp
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-01-04       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Dart to the target: an alternative bull's eye parametric display for European Society of Cardiology / European Respiratory Society goal-orientated risk reduction strategy in pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Authors:  Cihangir Kaymaz; Ozgur Yasar Akbal; Aykun Hakgor; Hacer Ceren Tokgoz; Seda Tanyeri
Journal:  Pulm Circ       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 3.017

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.