Literature DB >> 22394448

A unified procedure for meta-analytic evaluation of surrogate end points in randomized clinical trials.

James Y Dai1, James P Hughes.   

Abstract

The meta-analytic approach to evaluating surrogate end points assesses the predictiveness of treatment effect on the surrogate toward treatment effect on the clinical end point based on multiple clinical trials. Definition and estimation of the correlation of treatment effects were developed in linear mixed models and later extended to binary or failure time outcomes on a case-by-case basis. In a general regression setting that covers nonnormal outcomes, we discuss in this paper several metrics that are useful in the meta-analytic evaluation of surrogacy. We propose a unified 3-step procedure to assess these metrics in settings with binary end points, time-to-event outcomes, or repeated measures. First, the joint distribution of estimated treatment effects is ascertained by an estimating equation approach; second, the restricted maximum likelihood method is used to estimate the means and the variance components of the random treatment effects; finally, confidence intervals are constructed by a parametric bootstrap procedure. The proposed method is evaluated by simulations and applications to 2 clinical trials.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22394448      PMCID: PMC3616754          DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxs003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biostatistics        ISSN: 1465-4644            Impact factor:   5.899


  23 in total

Review 1.  Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression.

Authors:  Hans C van Houwelingen; Lidia R Arends; Theo Stijnen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-02-28       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Principal stratification in causal inference.

Authors:  Constantine E Frangakis; Donald B Rubin
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  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

4.  On meta-analytic assessment of surrogate outcomes.

Authors:  M H Gail; R Pfeiffer; H C Van Houwelingen; R J Carroll
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 5.899

5.  Surrogate marker evaluation from an information theory perspective.

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

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

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

7.  Predicting treatment effects using biomarker data in a meta-analysis of clinical trials.

Authors:  Y Li; J M G Taylor
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-08-15       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Random-effects models for longitudinal data.

Authors:  N M Laird; J H Ware
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1982-12       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Links between analysis of surrogate endpoints and endogeneity.

Authors:  Debashis Ghosh; Michael R Elliott; Jeremy M G Taylor
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-12-10       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  A unifying approach for surrogate marker validation based on Prentice's criteria.

Authors:  Ariel Alonso; Geert Molenberghs; Helena Geys; Marc Buyse; Tony Vangeneugden
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2006-01-30       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  4 in total

1.  Surrogate endpoint analysis: an exercise in extrapolation.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-12-21       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Prostate-specific antigen changes as surrogate for overall survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with second-line chemotherapy.

Authors:  Susan Halabi; Andrew J Armstrong; Oliver Sartor; Johann de Bono; Ellen Kaplan; Chen-Yen Lin; Nicole C Solomon; Eric J Small
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-10-07       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Comparing biomarkers as trial level general surrogates.

Authors:  Erin E Gabriel; Michael J Daniels; M Elizabeth Halloran
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Optimizing and evaluating biomarker combinations as trial-level general surrogates.

Authors:  Erin E Gabriel; Michael C Sachs; Michael J Daniels; M Elizabeth Halloran
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2018-10-10       Impact factor: 2.373

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.