Objective To quantify and compare the treatment effect and risk of bias of trials reporting biomarkers or intermediate outcomes (surrogate outcomes) versus trials using final patient relevant primary outcomes.Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources Study selection Two independent reviewers selected trials.Data extraction Trial characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes were recorded according to a predefined form. Two reviewers independently checked data extraction. The ratio of odds ratios was used to quantify the degree of difference in treatment effects between the trials using surrogate outcomes and those using patient relevant outcomes, also adjusted for trial characteristics. A ratio of odds ratios >1.0 implies that trials with surrogate outcomes report larger intervention effects than trials with patient relevant outcomes.Results 84 trials using surrogate outcomes and 101 using patient relevant outcomes were considered for analyses. Study characteristics of trials using surrogate outcomes and those using patient relevant outcomes were well balanced, except for median sample size (371 v 741) and single centre status (23% v 9%). Their risk of bias did not differ. Primary analysis showed trials reporting surrogate endpoints to have larger treatment effects (odds ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.60) than trials reporting patient relevant outcomes (0.76, 0.70 to 0.82), with an unadjusted ratio of odds ratios of 1.47 (1.07 to 2.01) and adjusted ratio of odds ratios of 1.46 (1.05 to 2.04). This result was consistent across sensitivity and secondary analyses.Conclusions Trials reporting surrogate primary outcomes are more likely to report larger treatment effects than trials reporting final patient relevant primary outcomes. This finding was not explained by differences in the risk of bias or characteristics of the two groups of trials.

No abstract

None of the end points in this study were found to achieve the level of evidence (ie, mean R(2)trial > 0.60) that has been set to select high or excellent correlation levels by common surrogate evaluation tools. Previous surrogacy relationships observed between PFS and TTP vs. OS in selected settings may not apply across other classes or lines of therapy.

BackgroundDocumented age, gender, race and socio-economic disparities in total joint arthroplasty (TJA), suggest that those who need the surgery may not receive it, and present a challenge to explain the causes of unmet need. It is not clear whether doctors limit treatment opportunities to patients, nor is it known the effect that patient beliefs and expectations about the operation, including their paid work status and retirement plans, have on the decision to undergo TJA. Identifying socio-economic and other determinants of demand would inform the design of effective and efficient health policy. This review was conducted to identify the factors that lead patients in need to undergo TJA.MethodsAn electronic search of the Embase and Medline (Ovid) bibliographic databases conducted in September 2011 identified studies in the English language that reported on factors driving patients in need of hip or knee replacement to undergo surgery. The review included reports of elective surgery rates in eligible patients or, controlling for disease severity, in general subjects, and stated clinical experts’ and patients’ opinions on suitability for or willingness to undergo TJA. Quantitative and qualitative studies were reviewed, but quantitative studies involving fewer than 20 subjects were excluded. The quality of individual studies was assessed on the basis of study design (i.e., prospective versus retrospective), reporting of attrition, adjustment for and report of confounding effects, and reported measures of need (self-reported versus doctor-assessed). Reported estimates of effect on the probability of surgery from analyses adjusting for confounders were summarised in narrative form and synthesised in odds ratio (OR) forest plots for individual determinants.ResultsThe review included 26 quantitative studies−23 on individuals’ decisions or views on having the operation and three about health professionals’ opinions-and 10 qualitative studies. Ethnic and racial disparities in TJA use are associated with socio-economic access factors and expectations about the process and outcomes of surgery. In the United States, health insurance coverage affects demand, including that from the Medicare population, for whom having supplemental Medicaid coverage increases the likelihood of undergoing TJA. Patients with post-secondary education are more likely to demand hip or knee surgery than those without it (range of OR 0.87-2.38). Women are as willing to undergo surgery as men, but they are less likely to be offered surgery by specialists than men with the same need. There is considerable variation in patient demand with age, with distinct patterns for hip and knee. Paid employment appears to increase the chances of undergoing surgery, but no study was found that investigated the relationship between retirement plans and demand for TJA. There is evidence of substantial geographical variation in access to joint replacement within the territory covered by a public national health system, which is unlikely to be explained by differences ...

The efficacy of medicines, medical devices, and other health technologies should be proved in trials that assess final patient-relevant outcomes such as survival or morbidity. Market access and coverage decisions are, however, often based on surrogate end points, biomarkers, or intermediate end points, which aim to substitute and predict patient-relevant outcomes that are unavailable because of methodological, financial, or practical constraints. We provide a summary of the present use of surrogate end points in health care policy, discussing the case for and against their adoption and reviewing validation methods. We introduce a three-step framework for policymakers to handle surrogates, which involves establishing the level of evidence, assessing the strength of the association, and quantifying relations between surrogates and final outcomes. Although the use of surrogates can be problematic, they can, when selected and validated appropriately, offer important opportunities for more efficient clinical trials and faster access to new health technologies that benefit patients and health care systems.

Aims-To undertake an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis to assess the impact of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) in patients with heart failure (HF) on mortality and hospitalisation, and differential effects of ExCR according to patient characteristics: age, sex, ethnicity, New York Heart Association functional class, ischaemic aetiology, ejection fraction, and exercise capacity.Methods and results-Randomised trials of exercise training for at least 3weeks compared with no exercise control with 6-month follow-up or longer, providing IPD time to event on mortality or hospitalisation (all-cause or HF-specific). IPD were combined into a single dataset.We used Cox proportional hazards models to investigate the effect of ExCR and the interactions between ExCR and participant characteristics. We used both two-stage random effects and onestage fixed effect models. IPD were obtained from 18 trials including 3912 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Compared to control, there was no statistically significant difference in pooled time to event estimates in favour of ExCR although confidence intervals (CIs) were wide [all-cause mortality: hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.67-1.04; HF-specific mortality: HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.49-1.46; all-cause hospitalisation: HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76-1.06; and HF-specific hospitalisation: HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.72-1.35]. No strong evidence was found of differential intervention effects across patient characteristics. Conclusion-Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation did not have a significant effect on the risk of mortality and hospitalization in HF with reduced ejection fraction. However, uncertainty around effect estimates precludes drawing definitive conclusions.

Objectives: Licensing of, and coverage decisions on, new therapies should rely on evidence from patient-relevant endpoints such as overall survival (OS). Nevertheless, evidence from surrogate endpoints may also be useful, as it may not only expedite the regulatory approval of new therapies but also inform coverage decisions. It is, therefore, essential that candidate surrogate endpoints be properly validated. However, there is no consensus on statistical methods for such validation and on how the evidence thus derived should be applied by policy makers.Methods: We review current statistical approaches to surrogate-endpoint validation based on meta-analysis in various advanced-tumor settings. We assessed the suitability of two surrogates (progression-free survival [PFS] and time-to-progression [TTP]) using three current validation frameworks: Elston and Taylor's framework, the German Institute of Quality and Efficiency in Health Care's (IQWiG) framework and the Biomarker-Surrogacy Evaluation Schema (BSES3).Results: A wide variety of statistical methods have been used to assess surrogacy. The strength of the association between the two surrogates and OS was generally low. The level of evidence (observation-level versus treatment-level) available varied considerably by cancer type, by evaluation tools and was not always consistent even within one specific cancer type.Conclusions: Not in all solid tumors the treatment-level association between PFS or TTP and OS has been investigated. According to IQWiG's framework, only PFS achieved acceptable evidence of surrogacy in metastatic colorectal and ovarian cancer treated with cytotoxic agents. Our study emphasizes the challenges of surrogate-endpoint validation and the importance of building consensus on the development of evaluation frameworks.

Annual mean costs and impact on QoL caused by UTIs are not negligible. Patients resign themselves to the relief of symptoms with recurring UTIs because improvement in health benefit is minimal. Persistence of the disease and the difference in mean costs per episode in patients with recurrent UTIs versus patients with a single episode UTI, which we have called "costs of resignation", suggest that appropriate early evaluation and effective treatment measures for the disease are still difficult in clinical practice.