Dataset Information

The use of surrogate endpoints in regulating medicines for cardio-renal disease: opinions of stakeholders.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

There is discussion whether medicines can be authorized on the market based on evidence from surrogate endpoints. We assessed opinions of different stakeholders on this topic.

Methods

We conducted an online questionnaire that targeted various stakeholder groups (regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical industry, academia, relevant public sector organisations) and medical specialties (cardiology or nephrology vs. other). Participants were enrolled through purposeful sampling. We inquired for conditions under which surrogate endpoints can be used, the validity of various cardio-renal biomarkers and new approaches for biomarker use.

Results

Participants agreed that surrogate endpoints can be used when the surrogate is scientifically valid (5-point Likert response format, mean score: 4.3, SD: 0.9) or when there is an unmet clinical need (mean score: 3.8, SD: 1.2). Industry participants agreed to a greater extent than regulators and academics. However, out of four proposed surrogates (blood pressure (BP), HbA1c, albuminuria, CRP) for cardiovascular outcomes or end-stage renal disease, only use of BP for cardiovascular outcomes was deemed moderately accurate (mean: 3.6, SD: 1.1). Specialists in cardiology or nephrology tended to be more positive about the use of surrogate endpoints.

Conclusion

Stakeholders in drug development do not oppose to the use of surrogate endpoints in drug marketing authorization, but most surrogates are not considered valid. To solve this impasse, increased efforts are required to validate surrogate endpoints and to explore alternative ways to use them.

SUBMITTER: Schievink B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4182561 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The use of surrogate endpoints in regulating medicines for cardio-renal disease: opinions of stakeholders.

Schievink Bauke B Lambers Heerspink Hiddo H Leufkens Hubert H De Zeeuw Dick D Hoekman Jarno J

PloS one 20140930 9

<h4>Aim</h4>There is discussion whether medicines can be authorized on the market based on evidence from surrogate endpoints. We assessed opinions of different stakeholders on this topic.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted an online questionnaire that targeted various stakeholder groups (regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical industry, academia, relevant public sector organisations) and medical specialties (cardiology or nephrology vs. other). Participants were enrolled through purposeful sampling. We inq ...[more]

PMID: 25268242

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn situations of unmet medical need or in the interests of public health, expedited approval pathways, including conditional marketing authorisation (CMA) and accelerated assessment (AA), speed up European Medicines Agency (EMA) marketing authorisation recommendations for medicinal products. CMAs are based on incomplete benefit-risk assessment data and authorisation remains conditional until regulator-imposed confirmatory postmarketing measures are fulfilled. For products undergoing AA, complete safety and efficacy data should be available, and postauthorisation measures may include only standard requirements of risk management and pharmacovigilance plans. In the pivotal trials supporting products assessed by expedited pathways, surrogate endpoints reduce drug development time compared with waiting for the intended clinical outcomes. Whether surrogate endpoints supporting products authorised through CMA and AA pathways reliably predict clinical benefits of therapy has not been studied systematically. Our objectives were to determine the extent to which surrogate endpoints are used and to assess whether their validity had been confirmed according to published hierarchies.Methods and findingsWe used European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) to identify the primary endpoints in the pivotal trials supporting products authorised through CMA or AA pathways during January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2018. We excluded products that were vaccines, topical, reversal, or bleeding prophylactic agents or withdrawn within the study time frame. Where pivotal trials reported surrogate endpoints, we conducted PubMed searches for evidence of validity for predicting clinical outcomes. We used 2 published hierarchies to assess validity level. Surrogates with randomised controlled trials supporting the surrogate-clinical outcome relationship were rated as 'validated'. Fifty-one products met the inclusion criteria; 26 underwent CMAs, and 25 underwent AAs. Overall, 26 products were for oncology indications, 10 for infections, 8 for genetic disorders, and 7 for other systems disorders. Five products (10%), all AAs, were authorised based on pivotal trials reporting clinical outcomes, and 46 (90%) were authorised based on surrogate endpoints. No studies were identified that validated the surrogate endpoints. Among a total of 49 products with surrogate endpoints reported, most were rated according to the published hierarchies as being 'reasonably likely' (n = 30; 61%) or of having 'biological plausibility' (n = 46; 94%) to predict clinical outcomes. EPARs did not consistently explain the nature of the pivotal trial endpoints supporting authorisations, whether surrogate endpoints were validated or not, or describe the endpoints to be reported in the confirmatory postmarketing studies. Our study has limitations: we may have overlooked relevant validation studies; the findings apply to 2 expedited pathways and may not be generalisable to products authorised through the standard assessment pathway.ConclusionsThe pivotal trial evidence supporting marketing authorisations for products granted CMA or AA was based dominantly on nonvalidated surrogate endpoints. EPARs and summary product characteristic documents, including patient information leaflets, need to state consistently the nature and limitations of endpoints in pivotal trials supporting expedited authorisations so that prescribers and patients appreciate shortcomings in the evidence about actual clinical benefit. For products supported by nonvalidated surrogate endpoints, postauthorisation measures to confirm clinical benefit need to be imposed by the regulator on the marketing authorisation holders.

Project description:BackgroundClinical trials in severe falciparum malaria require a large sample size to detect clinically meaningful differences in mortality. This means few interventions can be evaluated at any time. Using a validated surrogate endpoint for mortality would provide a useful alternative allowing a smaller sample size. Here we evaluate changes in coma score and plasma lactate as surrogate endpoints for mortality in severe falciparum malaria.MethodsThree datasets of clinical studies in severe malaria were re-evaluated: studies from Chittagong, Bangladesh (adults), the African 'AQUAMAT' trial comparing artesunate and quinine (children), and the Vietnamese 'AQ' study (adults) comparing artemether with quinine. The absolute change, relative change, slope of the normalization over time, and time to normalization were derived from sequential measurements of plasma lactate and coma score, and validated for their use as surrogate endpoint, including the proportion of treatment effect on mortality explained (PTE) by these surrogate measures.ResultsImprovements in lactate concentration or coma scores over the first 24 hours of admission, were strongly prognostic for survival in all datasets. In hyperlactataemic patients in the AQ study (n = 173), lower mortality with artemether compared to quinine closely correlated with faster reduction in plasma lactate concentration, with a high PTE of the relative change in plasma lactate at 8 and 12 hours of 0.81 and 0.75, respectively. In paediatric patients enrolled in the 'AQUAMAT' study with cerebral malaria (n = 785), mortality was lower with artesunate compared to quinine, but this was not associated with faster coma recovery.ConclusionsThe relative changes in plasma lactate concentration assessed at 8 or 12 hours after admission are valid surrogate endpoints for severe malaria studies on antimalarial drugs or adjuvant treatments aiming at improving the microcirculation. Measures of coma recovery are not valid surrogate endpoints for mortality.

Dataset Information

The use of surrogate endpoints in regulating medicines for cardio-renal disease: opinions of stakeholders.

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

The use of surrogate endpoints in regulating medicines for cardio-renal disease: opinions of stakeholders.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure