Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:52:08.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Surrogate outcomes in health technology assessment: An international comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

Marcial Velasco Garrido  and
Sandra Mangiapane
Marcial Velasco Garrido
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Berlin
Sandra Mangiapane
Affiliation:
Central Research Institute of Ambulatory Health Care in Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Our aim was to review the recommendations given by health technology assessment (HTA) institutions in their methodological guidelines concerning the use of surrogate outcomes in their assessments. In a second step, we aimed at quantifying the role surrogate parameters take in assessment reports.

Methods: We analyzed methodological papers and guidelines from HTA agencies with International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment membership as well as from institutions related to pharmaceutical regulation (i.e., reimbursement, pricing). We analyzed the use of surrogate outcomes in a sample of HTA reports randomly drawn from the HTA database. We checked methods, results (including evidence tables), and conclusions sections and extracted the outcomes reported. We report descriptive statistics on the presence of surrogate outcomes in the reports.

Results: We identified thirty-four methodological guidelines, twenty of them addressing the issue of outcome parameter choice and the problematic of surrogate outcomes. Overall HTA agencies call on caution regarding the reliance on surrogate outcomes. None of the agencies has provided a list or catalog of acceptable and validated surrogate outcomes. We extracted the outcome parameter of 140 HTA reports. Only around half of the reports determined the outcomes for the assessment prospectively. Surrogate outcomes had been used in 62 percent of the reports. However, only 3.6 percent were based upon surrogate outcomes exclusively. All of them assessed diagnostic or screening technologies and the surrogate outcomes were predominantly test characteristics.

Conclusions: HTA institutions seem to agree on a cautious approach to the use of surrogate outcomes in technology assessment. Thorough assessment of health technologies should not rely exclusively on surrogate outcomes.

Keywords

Surrogate outcomesBiological MarkersIntermediate outcomesOutcome assessment
Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , July 2009 , pp. 315 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Antes, G, Jöckel, KH, Kohlmann, T, Raspe, H, Wasem, J. Kommentierende Synopse der Fachpositionen zur Kosten-Nutzenbewertung für Arzneimittel. Erstellt im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Gesundheit. Freiburg, Essen: Greifswald, Kiel; 2007.Google Scholar
2. Australian Government – Department of Health and Aging. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 4.1). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2006.Google Scholar
3. Biomarkers Definition Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate end points: Preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001;69:89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Bucher, HC, Guyatt, GH, Cook, DJ, Holbrook, A, McAlister, FA. Users' guides to the medical literature: XIX. Applying clinical trial results. A. How to use an article measuring the effect of an intervention on surrogate end points. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1999;282:771–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006.Google Scholar
6. Cleemput, I, Crott, R, Vrijens, F, Huybrechts, M, Van Wilder, P, Ramaekers, D. Recommandations provisoires pour les évaluations pharmacoéconomiques en Belgique. Bruxelles: Centre fédéral d'expertise des soins de santé (KCE); 2006.Google Scholar
7. Committee of Principal Investigators. A co-operative trial in the primary prevention of ischaemic heart disease using clofibrate: Report from the Committee of Principal Investigators. Br Heart J. 1978;40:1069–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Draborg, E, Gyrd-Hansen, D, Poulsen, PB, Horder, M. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:89–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Dretzke, J, Cummins, C, Sandercock, J, Fry-Smith, A, Barrett T, Burls A. Autoantibody testing in children with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes mellitus. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Elston, J, Taylor, RS. Use of surrogate outcomes in cost-effectiveness models: A review of United Kingdom health technology assessment reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:6–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Fleming, TR, de Mets, DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: Are we being misled? Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:605–613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Food and Drug Administration. New drug, antibiotic and biological drug product regulations: Accelerated approval. Proposal Rule. 57 Federal Register 13234-13242. Washington; 1992.Google Scholar
13. Fryback, DG, Thornbury, JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making. 1991;11:88–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Health Care Insurance Board. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research, updated version. Diemen: College voor zorgverzekeringen; 2006.Google Scholar
15. Heidenreich, PA, Lee, TT, Massie, BM. Effect of beta-blockade on mortality in patients with heart failure: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA. 1997;30:27–34.Google ScholarPubMed
16. HTAi Policy Forum Working Group on Surrogate Outcomes (2008). Call for expressions of interest and comments. September 2008. http://www.htai.org/index.php?id=265.Google Scholar
17. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaflichkeit im Gesundheitswesen. Allgemeine Methoden. Version 3.0 vom 27.05.2008. Cologne: Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaflichkeit im Gesundheitswesen; 2008.Google Scholar
18. Lavis, JN, Wilson, MG, Grimshaw, J, et al. Towards optimally packaged and relevance assessed health technology assessments. Report submitted to the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Therapeutics in Healthcare. Hamilton: McMaster University; 2007.Google Scholar
19. Makni, H, St-Hilaire, C, Robb, L, Larouche, K, Blancquaert, I. Tandem mass spectrometry and neonatal blood screening in Quebec. Montreal: AETMIS; 2007.Google Scholar
20. Mangiapane, S, Velasco Garrido, M. Surrogate endpoints for the assessment of the benefit of health technologies. Cologne: DIMDI; 2009 (in press).Google Scholar
21. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Funding for new medical technologies and procedures: Application and assessment guidelines. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2005.Google Scholar
22. MERIT-HF Study Group. Effect of metoprolol CR/XL in chronic heart failure: Metoprolol CR/XL randomized intervention trial in congestive heart failure. (MERIT-HF). Lancet. 1999;353:2001–2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Mundy, L, Merlin, T. Ultrafast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patients undergoing conventional MRI. Horizon scanning prioritising summary – Volume 2. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2003.Google Scholar
24. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. Guidance for manufacturers and sponsors. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2001.Google Scholar
25. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Peginterferon alfa and ribavirin for the treatment of mild chronic hepatitis C. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2006.Google Scholar
26. Norwegian Medicines Agency. Norwegian guidelines for pharmacoeconomic analysis in connection with applications for reimbursement. Oslo: Statens legemiddelverk; 2005.Google Scholar
27. Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. General guidelines for economic evaluations from the pharmaceutical benefits board. Stockholm: TLV; 2003.Google Scholar
28. Pharmaceutical Management Agency. Recommended methods to derive clinical inputs for proposals to PHARMAC. Christchurch; Pharmaceutical Management Agency Ltd; 2005.Google Scholar
29. Psaty, BM, Weiss, NS, Furberg, CD, et al. Surrogate end points, health outcomes and the drug-approval process for the treatment of risk factors for cardiovascular disease. JAMA. 1999;282:786–790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Sarria-Santamera, A, Timoner-Aguilera, J. Assessment of the effectiveness of health promotion and disease prevention technologies. Madrid: Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias; 2002.Google Scholar
31. Shepherd, J, Jones, J, Hartwell, D, et al. Interferon alfa (pegylated and nonpegylated) and ribavirin for the treatment of mild chronic hepatitis C – a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:1–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Stürzlinger, H, Fröschl, B, Genser, D. Evaluation of optical coherence tomography in the diagnosis of age related macular degeneration compared with fluorescence angiography. Cologne: DIMDI; 2007.Google ScholarPubMed
33. Surrogate to Final Outcome Working Group. Report of the Surrogate to Final Outcome Working Group to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: A framework for evaluating proposed surrogate measures and their use in submissions to PBAC. Canberra: 2008. www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/B11E8EF19B358E39CA25754B000A9C07/$File/STFOWG%20paper%20FINAL.pdfGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Velasco Supplementary Material

Tables.doc

Download Velasco Supplementary Material(File)
File 182.8 KB