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

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.

A systematic literature review of revealed preferences of decision-makers for recommendations of cancer drugs in health technology assessment

“…The regulatory (FDA or EMA) statements are usually used as a reference for the validation of surrogate end points by HTA agencies. However, regulators are more focused on safety and shorter-term efficacy while HTA agencies should focus more on a longer-term perspective to assess clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, where the considerations on the acceptance of surrogate end points may be different between them (40). HTA agencies are suggested to develop more detailed methodological guidance for the selection of end points and validation of surrogate end points for the cancer diseases (39).…”

Current Issues in Health Technology Assessment of Cancer Therapies: A Survey of Stakeholders and Opinion Leaders in Australia

“…For example, there are still issues with respect to surrogate to final outcomes which is recognized by the majority of the respondents in this survey. Previous recommendations surrounding transparency and quantification of exploration of uncertainty have been published both in general (22,23) and for several tumors types like breast cancer (24) and colorectal cancer (25). While extensive guidance is available from different HTA organizations (26,27), the issue of extrapolation is still perceived by public sector respondents as black boxes.…”

Value Insider Season 1 Episode 1: The Importance of Payers and HTA: How Did We End Up Here? (Introduction to Value) [Podcast]

“…The second dimension of difference is the outcomes that are considered. And I think the regulatory bodies will accept surrogate outcomes, 17,18 not necessarily final outcomes for patients. Also, they tend not to focus very much on quality of life measures, although that's increasing.…”