Abstract
Background: Surrogate endpoints (i.e., intermediate endpoints intended to predict for patient-centered outcomes) are increasingly common. However, little is known about how surrogate evidence is handled in the context of health technology assessment (HTA). Objectives: 1) To map methodologies for the validation of surrogate endpoints and 2) to determine their impact on acceptability of surrogates and coverage decisions made by HTA agencies. Methods: We sought HTA reports where evaluation relied on a surrogate from 8 HTA agencies. We extracted data on the methods applied for surrogate validation. We assessed the level of agreement between agencies and fitted mixed-effects logistic regression models to test the impact of validation approaches on the agency’s acceptability of the surrogate endpoint and their coverage recommendation. Results: Of the 124 included reports, 61 (49%) discussed the level of evidence to support the relationship between the surrogate and the patient-centered endpoint, 27 (22%) reported a correlation coefficient/association measure, and 40 (32%) quantified the expected effect on the patient-centered outcome. Overall, the surrogate endpoint was deemed acceptable in 49 (40%) reports (k-coefficient 0.10, P = 0.004). Any consideration of the level of evidence was associated with accepting the surrogate endpoint as valid (odds ratio [OR], 4.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60–13.18, P = 0.005). However, we did not find strong evidence of an association between accepting the surrogate endpoint and agency coverage recommendation (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.23–2.20; P = 0.55). Conclusions: Handling of surrogate endpoint evidence in reports varied greatly across HTA agencies, with inconsistent consideration of the level of evidence and statistical validation. Our findings call for careful reconsideration of the issue of surrogacy and the need for harmonization of practices across international HTA agencies.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 439-452 |
| Number of pages | 14 |
| Journal | Medical Decision Making |
| Volume | 41 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 10 Mar 2021 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Financial support for this study was provided entirely by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant 779306 (COMED—Pushing the Boundaries of Cost and Outcome Analysis of Medical Technologies). The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. The results only reflect the authors’ views, and the European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. None of the authors are employed by the health technology assessment agencies included in this study or were involved as appraisal committee members in the included evaluations. OC completed this manuscript during her Fulbright Visiting Scholarship at Yale School of Public Health.
Funding Information:
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Financial support for this study was provided entirely by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant 779306 (COMED—Pushing the Boundaries of Cost and Outcome Analysis of Medical Technologies). The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. The results only reflect the authors’ views, and the European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. None of the authors are employed by the health technology assessment agencies included in this study or were involved as appraisal committee members in the included evaluations. OC completed this manuscript during her Fulbright Visiting Scholarship at Yale School of Public Health.
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2021.
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
Research programs
- EMC NIHES-05-63-02 Quality
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Validity of Surrogate Endpoints and Their Impact on Coverage Recommendations: A Retrospective Analysis across International Health Technology Assessment Agencies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Datasets
-
Validity of Surrogate Endpoints and Their Impact on Coverage Recommendations: A Retrospective Analysis across International Health Technology Assessment Agencies
Ciani, O. (Creator), Grigore, B. (Creator), Blommestein, H. (Creator), de Groot, S. (Contributor), Möllenkamp, M. (Contributor), Rabbe, S. (Creator), Daubner-Bendes, R. (Creator) & Taylor, R. S. (Creator), 2021
DOI: 10.25384/sage.c.5337866.v1, https://sage.figshare.com/collections/Validity_of_Surrogate_Endpoints_and_Their_Impact_on_Coverage_Recommendations_A_Retrospective_Analysis_across_International_Health_Technology_Assessment_Agencies/5337866/1
Dataset
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver