Marissa N Lassere1, Kent R Johnson, Michal Schiff, David Rees. 1. School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, NSW, Australia. marissa.lassere@sesiahs.health.nsw.gov.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood pressure is considered to be a leading example of a valid surrogate endpoint. The aims of this study were to (i) formally evaluate systolic and diastolic blood pressure reduction as a surrogate endpoint for stroke prevention and (ii) determine what blood pressure reduction would predict a stroke benefit. METHODS: We identified randomised trials of at least six months duration comparing any pharmacologic anti-hypertensive treatment to placebo or no treatment, and reporting baseline blood pressure, on-trial blood pressure, and fatal and non-fatal stroke. Trials with fewer than five strokes in at least one arm were excluded. Errors-in-variables weighted least squares regression modelled the reduction in stroke as a function of systolic blood pressure reduction and diastolic blood pressure reduction respectively. The lower 95% prediction band was used to determine the minimum systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure difference, the surrogate threshold effect (STE), below which there would be no predicted stroke benefit. The STE was used to generate the surrogate threshold effect proportion (STEP), a surrogacy metric, which with the R-squared trial-level association was used to evaluate blood pressure as a surrogate endpoint for stroke using the Biomarker-Surrogacy Evaluation Schema (BSES3). RESULTS: In 18 qualifying trials representing all pharmacologic drug classes of antihypertensives, assuming a reliability coefficient of 0.9, the surrogate threshold effect for a stroke benefit was 7.1 mmHg for systolic blood pressure and 2.4 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure. The trial-level association was 0.41 and 0.64 and the STEP was 66% and 78% for systolic and diastolic blood pressure respectively. The STE and STEP were more robust to measurement error in the independent variable than R-squared trial-level associations. Using the BSES3, assuming a reliability coefficient of 0.9, systolic blood pressure was a B + grade and diastolic blood pressure was an A grade surrogate endpoint for stroke prevention. In comparison, using the same stroke data sets, no STEs could be estimated for cardiovascular (CV) mortality or all-cause mortality reduction, although the STE for CV mortality approached 25 mmHg for systolic blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: In this report we provide the first surrogate threshold effect (STE) values for systolic and diastolic blood pressure. We suggest the STEs have face and content validity, evidenced by the inclusivity of trial populations, subject populations and pharmacologic intervention populations in their calculation. We propose that the STE and STEP metrics offer another method of evaluating the evidence supporting surrogate endpoints. We demonstrate how surrogacy evaluations are strengthened if formally evaluated within specific-context evaluation frameworks using the Biomarker- Surrogate Evaluation Schema (BSES3), and we discuss the implications of our evaluation of blood pressure on other biomarkers and patient-reported instruments in relation to surrogacy metrics and trial design.
BACKGROUND: Blood pressure is considered to be a leading example of a valid surrogate endpoint. The aims of this study were to (i) formally evaluate systolic and diastolic blood pressure reduction as a surrogate endpoint for stroke prevention and (ii) determine what blood pressure reduction would predict a stroke benefit. METHODS: We identified randomised trials of at least six months duration comparing any pharmacologic anti-hypertensive treatment to placebo or no treatment, and reporting baseline blood pressure, on-trial blood pressure, and fatal and non-fatal stroke. Trials with fewer than five strokes in at least one arm were excluded. Errors-in-variables weighted least squares regression modelled the reduction in stroke as a function of systolic blood pressure reduction and diastolic blood pressure reduction respectively. The lower 95% prediction band was used to determine the minimum systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure difference, the surrogate threshold effect (STE), below which there would be no predicted stroke benefit. The STE was used to generate the surrogate threshold effect proportion (STEP), a surrogacy metric, which with the R-squared trial-level association was used to evaluate blood pressure as a surrogate endpoint for stroke using the Biomarker-Surrogacy Evaluation Schema (BSES3). RESULTS: In 18 qualifying trials representing all pharmacologic drug classes of antihypertensives, assuming a reliability coefficient of 0.9, the surrogate threshold effect for a stroke benefit was 7.1 mmHg for systolic blood pressure and 2.4 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure. The trial-level association was 0.41 and 0.64 and the STEP was 66% and 78% for systolic and diastolic blood pressure respectively. The STE and STEP were more robust to measurement error in the independent variable than R-squared trial-level associations. Using the BSES3, assuming a reliability coefficient of 0.9, systolic blood pressure was a B + grade and diastolic blood pressure was an A grade surrogate endpoint for stroke prevention. In comparison, using the same stroke data sets, no STEs could be estimated for cardiovascular (CV) mortality or all-cause mortality reduction, although the STE for CV mortality approached 25 mmHg for systolic blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: In this report we provide the first surrogate threshold effect (STE) values for systolic and diastolic blood pressure. We suggest the STEs have face and content validity, evidenced by the inclusivity of trial populations, subject populations and pharmacologic intervention populations in their calculation. We propose that the STE and STEP metrics offer another method of evaluating the evidence supporting surrogate endpoints. We demonstrate how surrogacy evaluations are strengthened if formally evaluated within specific-context evaluation frameworks using the Biomarker- Surrogate Evaluation Schema (BSES3), and we discuss the implications of our evaluation of blood pressure on other biomarkers and patient-reported instruments in relation to surrogacy metrics and trial design.
Authors: J A Staessen; R Fagard; L Thijs; H Celis; G G Arabidze; W H Birkenhäger; C J Bulpitt; P W de Leeuw; C T Dollery; A E Fletcher; F Forette; G Leonetti; C Nachev; E T O'Brien; J Rosenfeld; J L Rodicio; J Tuomilehto; A Zanchetti Journal: Lancet Date: 1997-09-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Hans Lithell; Lennart Hansson; Ingmar Skoog; Dag Elmfeldt; Albert Hofman; Bertil Olofsson; Peter Trenkwalder; Alberto Zanchetti Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Christopher J Bulpitt; Nigel S Beckett; Jonathan Cooke; Dan L Dumitrascu; Blas Gil-Extremera; Choudomir Nachev; Maria Nunes; Ruth Peters; Jan A Staessen; Lut Thijs Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Patricia Martínez-Ibáñez; Irene Marco-Moreno; Salvador Peiró; Lucia Martínez-Ibáñez; Ignacio Barreira-Franch; Laura Bellot-Pujalte; Eugenia Avelino-Hidalgo; Marina Escrig-Veses; María Bóveda-García; Mercedes Calleja-Del-Ser; Andreu Ferrero-Gregori; Adina A Iftimi; Isabel Hurtado; Aníbal García-Sempere; Clara L Rodríguez-Bernal; Margarita Giménez-Loreiro; Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno; José Sanfélix-Genovés Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-10-11 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Richard Eastell; Eric Vittinghoff; Li-Yung Lui; Charles E McCulloch; Imre Pavo; Arkadi Chines; Sundeep Khosla; Jane A Cauley; Bruce Mitlak; Douglas C Bauer; Mary Bouxsein; Dennis M Black Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2021-09-24 Impact factor: 6.390
Authors: Jonathan D Newman; Deepak L Bhatt; Sanjay Rajagopalan; John R Balmes; Michael Brauer; Patrick N Breysse; Alison G M Brown; Mercedes R Carnethon; Wayne E Cascio; Gwen W Collman; Lawrence J Fine; Nadia N Hansel; Adrian Hernandez; Judith S Hochman; Michael Jerrett; Bonnie R Joubert; Joel D Kaufman; Ali O Malik; George A Mensah; David E Newby; Jennifer L Peel; Jeffrey Siegel; David Siscovick; Betsy L Thompson; Junfeng Zhang; Robert D Brook Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-12-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Melanie B Morillon; Lisa Stamp; William Taylor; Jaap Fransen; Nicola Dalbeth; Jasvinder A Singh; Robin Christensen; Marissa Lassere Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-09-20 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Marion Savina; Saskia Litière; Antoine Italiano; Tomasz Burzykowski; Franck Bonnetain; Sophie Gourgou; Virginie Rondeau; Jean-Yves Blay; Sophie Cousin; Florence Duffaud; Hans Gelderblom; Alessandro Gronchi; Ian Judson; Axel Le Cesne; Paul Lorigan; Joan Maurel; Winette van der Graaf; Jaap Verweij; Simone Mathoulin-Pélissier; Carine Bellera Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2018-10-02
Authors: Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari; Bruno Vellas; René Rizzoli; Reto W Kressig; José A P da Silva; Michael Blauth; David T Felson; Eugene V McCloskey; Bernhard Watzl; Lorenz C Hofbauer; Dieter Felsenberg; Walter C Willett; Bess Dawson-Hughes; JoAnn E Manson; Uwe Siebert; Robert Theiler; Hannes B Staehelin; Caroline de Godoi Rezende Costa Molino; Patricia O Chocano-Bedoya; Lauren A Abderhalden; Andreas Egli; John A Kanis; Endel J Orav Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 56.272