Literature DB >> 32572825

Surrogate Endpoints in Health Technology Assessment: An International Review of Methodological Guidelines.

Bogdan Grigore1, Oriana Ciani2,3, Florian Dams4, Carlo Federici3, Saskia de Groot5, Meilin Möllenkamp6, Stefan Rabbe6, Kosta Shatrov4, Antal Zemplenyi7,8, Rod S Taylor2,9.   

Abstract

In the drive towards faster patient access to treatments, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are increasingly faced with reliance on evidence from surrogate endpoints, leading to increased decision uncertainty. This study undertook an updated survey of methodological guidance for using surrogate endpoints across international HTA agencies. We reviewed HTA and economic evaluation methods guidance from European, Australian and Canadian HTA agencies. We considered how guidelines addressed the methods for handling surrogate endpoints, including (1) level of evidence, (2) methods of validation, and (3) thresholds of acceptability. Across the 73 HTA agencies surveyed, 29 (40%) had methodological guidelines that made specific reference to consideration of surrogate outcomes. Of the 45 methods documents analysed, the majority [27 (60%)] were non-technology specific, 15 (33%) focused on pharmaceuticals and three (7%) on medical devices. The principles of the European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) guidelines published in 2015 on the handling of surrogate endpoints appear to have been adopted by many European HTA agencies, i.e. preference for final patient-relevant outcomes and reliance on surrogate endpoints with biological plausibility and epidemiological evidence of the association between the surrogate and final endpoint. Only a small number of HTA agencies (UK National Institute for Care and Excellence; the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information and Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care; the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee; and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health) have developed more detailed prescriptive criteria for the acceptance of surrogate endpoints, e.g. meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials showing strong association between the treatment effect on the surrogate and final outcomes. As the decision uncertainty associated with reliance on surrogate endpoints carries a risk to patients and society, there is a need for HTA agencies to develop more detailed methodological guidance for consistent selection and evaluation of health technologies that lack definitive final patient-relevant outcome evidence at the time of the assessment.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32572825     DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00935-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  4 in total

Review 1.  How to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis with surrogate endpoint: renal denervation in patients with resistant hypertension (DENERHTN) trial as an example.

Authors:  Julie Bulsei; Meryl Darlington; Isabelle Durand-Zaleski; Michel Azizi
Journal:  Blood Press       Date:  2017-10-26       Impact factor: 2.835

Review 2.  A 25-Year Experience of US Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval of Malignant Hematology and Oncology Drugs and Biologics: A Review.

Authors:  Julia A Beaver; Lynn J Howie; Lorraine Pelosof; Tamy Kim; Jinzhong Liu; Kirsten B Goldberg; Rajeshwari Sridhara; Gideon M Blumenthal; Ann T Farrell; Patricia Keegan; Richard Pazdur; Paul G Kluetz
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 31.777

Review 3.  Glycemic Control for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Our Evolving Faith in the Face of Evidence.

Authors:  René Rodríguez-Gutiérrez; Victor M Montori
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2016-08-23

4.  Assessment of Clinical Trials Supporting US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Novel Therapeutic Agents, 1995-2017.

Authors:  Audrey D Zhang; Jeremy Puthumana; Nicholas S Downing; Nilay D Shah; Harlan M Krumholz; Joseph S Ross
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-04-01
  4 in total
  13 in total

1.  Validity of Surrogate Endpoints and Their Impact on Coverage Recommendations: A Retrospective Analysis across International Health Technology Assessment Agencies.

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

2.  Correlation Between Early Time-to-Event Outcomes and Overall Survival in Patients With Locally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Receiving Definitive Chemoradiation Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Christopher M Black; Sam Keeping; Ali Mojebi; Karthik Ramakrishnan; Diana Chirovsky; Navneet Upadhyay; Dylan Maciel; Dieter Ayers
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-04-28       Impact factor: 5.738

3.  Common Problems, Common Data Model Solutions: Evidence Generation for Health Technology Assessment.

Authors:  Seamus Kent; Edward Burn; Dalia Dawoud; Pall Jonsson; Jens Torup Østby; Nigel Hughes; Peter Rijnbeek; Jacoline C Bouvy
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-12-18       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Quo Vadis HTA for Medical Devices in Central and Eastern Europe? Recommendations to Address Methodological Challenges.

Authors:  Rita Daubner-Bendes; Sándor Kovács; Maciej Niewada; Mirjana Huic; Michael Drummond; Oriana Ciani; Carl Rudolf Blankart; Olena Mandrik; Aleksandra Torbica; John Yfantopoulos; Guenka Petrova; Malwina Holownia-Voloskova; Rod S Taylor; Maiwenn Al; Oresta Piniazhko; László Lorenzovici; Rosanna Tarricone; Antal Zemplényi; Zoltán Kaló
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2021-01-08

Review 5.  Current landscape of clinical development and approval of advanced therapies.

Authors:  Carolina Iglesias-Lopez; Antonia Agustí; Antoni Vallano; Merce Obach
Journal:  Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev       Date:  2021-11-11       Impact factor: 6.698

Review 6.  Gene Therapy Evidence Generation and Economic Analysis: Pragmatic Considerations to Facilitate Fit-for-Purpose Health Technology Assessment.

Authors:  Tingting Qiu; Michal Pochopien; Shuyao Liang; Gauri Saal; Ewelina Paterak; Justyna Janik; Mondher Toumi
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-02-09

7.  Response rates and minimal residual disease outcomes as potential surrogates for progression-free survival in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Patrick Daniele; Carla Mamolo; Joseph C Cappelleri; Timothy Bell; Alexander Neuhof; Gabriel Tremblay; Mihaela Musat; Anna Forsythe
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-05-12       Impact factor: 3.752

Review 8.  Implications of Oncology Trial Design and Uncertainties in Efficacy-Safety Data on Health Technology Assessments.

Authors:  Dario Trapani; Kiu Tay-Teo; Megan E Tesch; Felipe Roitberg; Manju Sengar; Sara C Altuna; Michael J Hassett; Armando A Genazzani; Aaron S Kesselheim; Giuseppe Curigliano
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-08-16       Impact factor: 3.109

9.  Development of a framework and decision tool for the evaluation of health technologies based on surrogate endpoint evidence.

Authors:  Oriana Ciani; Bogdan Grigore; Rod S Taylor
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 2.395

10.  Should Hungary Pay More for a QALY Gain than Higher-Income Western European Countries?

Authors:  Sándor Kovács; Bertalan Németh; Dalma Erdősi; Valentin Brodszky; Imre Boncz; Zoltán Kaló; Antal Zemplényi
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2022-01-18       Impact factor: 3.686

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.