610 likes | 754 Views
NIDDK Workshop:. Surrogate Endpoints: The Challenges are Greater than they Seem March 7, 2005 Thomas R. Fleming, Ph.D. Professor and Chair of Biostatistics University of Washington. Surrogate Endpoints. Criteria for Study Endpoints A Correlate does not a Surrogate Make
E N D
NIDDK Workshop: Surrogate Endpoints: The Challenges are Greater than they Seem March 7, 2005 Thomas R. Fleming, Ph.D. Professor and Chair of Biostatistics University of Washington
Surrogate Endpoints • Criteria for Study Endpoints • A Correlate does not a Surrogate Make • Validation of Surrogates • Controversial Issues with AA
Criteria for Study Endpointsin Clinical Trials •Measurable/Interpretable •Sensitive •Clinically relevant ~Retinopathy, Nephropathy ~Major hypoglycemic events: Coma/Seizure
Use of Surrogate Endpoints Treatment Effects on Surrogate Endpoints eg:~Oncology:Tumor Burden Outcomes ~HIV/AIDS: CD4, Viral Load ~ Cardiovascular Dis: B.P., Cholesterol ~ Type 1 Diabetes: HbA1c , C-Peptide • Establishes Biological Activity • But Not Necessarily Clinical Efficacy
Surrogate Endpoints • Criteria for Study Endpoints • A Correlate does not a Surrogate Make • Validation of Surrogates • Controversial Issues with AA
Surrogate Endpoint: Not in Causal Pathway of Disease Process SurrogateTrue Clinical EndpointEndpoint Causal Pathway Disease
The Surrogate Endpoint is not in the Causal Pathway of the Disease Process. • BiomarkerMother-to-Child • e.g.,CD4 Trans of HIV • HIV Viral Load • Anti-Islet End-Organ Autoantibodies Diabetic • Complications • β-Cell Function • “Correlates”: Useful for Disease Diagnosis, or Assessing Prognosis and Effect Modification • “Valid Surrogates”: Replacement Endpoints Disease Disease
Multiple Pathways of the Disease Process Intervention Surrogate True Clinical Endpoint Endpoint Disease Intervention True Clinical Endpoint Disease Surrogate Endpoint
Multiple Pathways of the Disease Process Intervention Surrogate True Clinical Endpoint Endpoint Disease Intervention End-Organ Diabetic Complications Disease HbA1c Glycemic Control
Time IL-2 CD4 Cell AIDS Events Count & Death Disease • IL-2: known > 200 CD4 cell count increase • Unknown whether IL-2 is increasing the level • of functional CD4 cells • NIH is sponsoring the evaluation of 6000 patients, • followed for >5 years, in SILCAAT and ESPRIT
Interventions having Mechanisms of Action Independent of the Disease Process Intervention Surrogate True Clinical Endpoint Endpoint Disease
Interventions having Mechanisms of Action Independent of the Disease Process Intervention Arrhythmia Overall Suppression Survival Disease
Surrogate Endpoints • Criteria for Study Endpoints • A Correlate does not a Surrogate Make • Validation of Surrogates • Controversial Issues with AA
End Stage Renal Disease Goal: Normalize Hematocrit Values and reduce Death and MI
Patient Distribution & Percent Deaths by Hematocrit % STANDARD DOSE EPOGEN 60% 45% 30% 15% 0% 27-30 30-33 33-36 36-39 39-42
End Stage Renal Disease Goal: Normalize Hematocrit Values and reduce Death and MI
End Stage Renal Disease High Dose Epogen Standard Dose Epogen R Goal: Normalize Hematocrit Values and reduce Death and MI
Patient Distribution & Percent Deaths by Hematocrit % STANDARD DOSE EPOGEN 60% 45% 30% 15% 0% 27-30 30-33 33-36 36-39 39-42
Patient Distribution & Percent Deaths by Hematocrit % STANDARD DOSE EPOGEN • 30% death RR for 10 pt in hem. 60% 45% 30% 15% 0% 27-30 30-33 33-36 36-39 39-42 60% 45% 30% 15% 0% HIGH DOSE EPOGEN 27-30 30-33 33-36 36-39 39-42
Patient Distribution & Percent Deaths by Hematocrit % STANDARD DOSE EPOGEN • 30% death RR for 10 pt in hem. 60% 45% 30% 15% 0% 27-30 30-33 33-36 36-39 39-42 60% 45% 30% 15% 0% HIGH DOSE EPOGEN 27-30 30-33 33-36 36-39 39-42
Patient Distribution & Percent Deaths by Hematocrit % STANDARD DOSE EPOGEN • 30% death RR for 10 pt in hem. • in hematocrit 60% 45% 30% 15% 0% 27-30 30-33 33-36 36-39 39-42 60% 45% 30% 15% 0% HIGH DOSE EPOGEN 27-30 30-33 33-36 36-39 39-42
Patient Distribution & Percent Deaths by Hematocrit % STANDARD DOSE EPOGEN • 30% death RR for 10 pt in hem. • in hematocrit • 30% in death RR 60% 45% 30% 15% 0% 27-30 30-33 33-36 36-39 39-42 60% 45% 30% 15% 0% HIGH DOSE EPOGEN 27-30 30-33 33-36 36-39 39-42
End Stage Renal Disease High Dose Epogen Standard Dose Epogen R Goal: Normalize Hematocrit Values and reduce Death and MI Besarab et al, NEJM 339:584-590, 1998: “ in incidence of thrombosis of vascular access sites”
How does one validate a surrogate endpoint?
Validation of Surrogate Endpoints Property of a Valid Surrogate ·Effect of the Intervention on the Clinical Endpoint is reliably predicted by the Effect of the Intervention on the Surrogate Endpoint
Prentice’s Sufficient Conditions 1.The surrogate endpoint must be correlated with the clinical outcome 2.The surrogate endpoint must fully capture the net effect of the intervention on the clinical outcome
Z = 1 : Control ; Z = 0 : Intervention S(t) : Surrogate Endpoint at t (1) (t | Z) = 0(t) eZ (2) (t | Z,S(t) ) = 0(t) eZ + S(t) Proportion of net intervention effect explained by the surrogate endpoint: DeGruttola et al, J Infectious Diseases 175:237-246, 1997 p = 1 -
Meta-analyses are required to explore the validity of surrogate endpoints
Z = 1 : Control ; Z = 0 : Intervention S(t) : Surrogate Endpoint at t (1) (t | Z) = 0(t) eZ (2) (t | Z,S(t) ) = 0(t) eZ + S(t) Proportion of net intervention effect explained by the surrogate endpoint: DeGruttola et al, J Infectious Diseases 175:237-246, 1997 p = 1 -
Time Intervention • HbA1c Major Clinical • Glycemic Control Events • Unintended negative effects • Alternative beneficial effects Disease
Validation of Surrogate Endpoints Statistical ·Meta-analyses of clinical trials data Clinical ·Comprehensive understanding of the ~Causal pathways of the disease process ~Intervention’s intended and unintended mechanisms of action
Endpoint Hierarchy • True Clinical Efficacy Measure • Validated Surrogate Endpoint (Rare) • Non-validated Surrogate Endpoint that is • “reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit” • Correlate that is • solely a measure of Biological Activity
Illustrations of Valid Surrogates Preventing Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV when using short course antiretrovirals ~Prevention of AIDS and Death often occurring within two years Substantial Sustained Reduction in Blood Pressure when using β-blockers or low dose diuretics ~Prevention of Fatal and Non-fatal Stroke
Hierarchy for Outcome Measures • True Clinical Efficacy Measure • Validated Surrogate Endpoint (Rare) • Non-validated Surrogate Endpoint that is • “reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit” • Correlate that is • solely a measure of Biological Activity
Establishing a Level #3 Outcome Measure • Accurately representing the treatment’s effect • on the predominant mechanism through which • the disease process induces clinical risks • Lack of large adverse effects on clinical endpoint • not captured by the outcome measure • Net effect on the clinical endpoint is consistent • with what would be predicted by • level of effect on the outcome measure • Targeted effect on outcome measure sufficiently • strong and durable to predict meaningful benefit
Hierarchy for Outcome Measures • True Clinical Efficacy Measure • Validated Surrogate Endpoint (Rare) • Non-validated Surrogate Endpoint that is • “reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit” • Correlate that is • solely a measure of Biological Activity
Surrogate Endpoints • Criteria for Study Endpoints • A Correlate does not a Surrogate Make • Validation of Surrogates • Controversial Issues with AA
FDA Oncology Drugs AC: 3/12-13/03 • ’95-’00: 12 Accelerated Approvals • Facts presented to ODAC: • Of 12 AA, 8 remain unresolved: • Average time from AA to Completion of Validation Trial projected to be 10 years • In one case, sponsor enrolled 8 pts/year • In 3 cases, Validation Trial indicated minimal treatment benefit
FDA Oncology Drugs AC: 3/12-13/03 • ’95-’00: 12 Accelerated Approvals • Disturbing Issues re Validation Trials: • Enrollment difficulties into validation trials • Cross-ins on the control arm • Loss of “sense of urgency” by sponsor • Lack of clear vision for proper process • when the validation trial • is not conclusively positive
FDA Oncology Drugs AC: 3/12-13/03 • ’95-’00: 12 Accelerated Approvals • Facts presented to ODAC: • Of 12 AA, 8 remain unresolved: • Average time from AA to Completion of Validation Trial projected to be 10 years • In one case, sponsor enrolled 8 pts/year • In 3 cases, Validation Trial indicated minimal treatment benefit
FDA Oncology Drugs AC: 3/12-13/03 • ’95-’00: 12 Accelerated Approvals • Disturbing Issues re Validation Trials: • Enrollment difficulties into validation trials • Cross-ins on the control arm • Loss of “sense of urgency” by sponsor • Lack of clear vision for proper process • when the validation trial • is not conclusively positive
Hierarchy for Outcome Measures • True Clinical Efficacy Measure • Validated Surrogate Endpoint (Rare) • Surrogate Endpoint that is • “reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit” • None of the Above: A Correlate that is • solely a measure of Biological Activity
Use of Biological Markers • As “Correlates”… • Disease Diagnosis, or assessing • Prognosis or Effect Modification • In Screening or Proof of Concept Trials… • Primary Endpoint • In Definitive Trials… • Supportive Data • on Mechanism of Action
NIDDK Workshop • Surrogate Endpoints • The Next Step • after the Phase 1 Trial
Development Strategies After Phase 1: What should be the next step? ~Phase 2 ~Phase 2B (Intermediate Trial) ~ Phase 3
Why Conduct a Phase 2 Trial? Obtain improved insights: • Biological Activity: Proof of Concept • Refinements in dose/schedule • Safety • Improving adherence to interventions • Improving quality of trial conduct - Timely accrual - High quality study implementation - High quality data, including retention
Development Strategies After Phase 1: What should be the next step? ~Phase 2 ~Phase 2B (Screening Trial) ~ Phase 3
The Randomized Phase 2B “Screening Trial” Illustration: Type 1 Diabetes Primary Endpoint: Time to Hypoglycemic Events or End-Organ Diabetic Complications Targeted Treatment Effect: 33% reduction in progression rate
Screening Trial Design -33% 0% 33% 44% 67% Further Studies Positive Phase 3 Trial Design -17% 0% 17% 33% 50% Positive