Dataset Information

Comparing biomarkers as trial level general surrogates.

ABSTRACT: An intermediate response measure that accurately predicts efficacy in a new setting can reduce trial cost and time to product licensure. In this article, we define a trial level general surrogate, which is an intermediate response that can be used to accurately predict efficacy in a new setting. Methods for evaluating general surrogates have been developed previously. Many methods in the literature use trial level intermediate responses for prediction. However, all existing methods focus on surrogate evaluation and prediction in new settings, rather than comparison of candidate general surrogates, and few formalize the use of cross validation to quantify the expected prediction error. Our proposed method uses Bayesian non-parametric modeling and cross-validation to estimate the absolute prediction error for use in evaluating and comparing candidate trial level general surrogates. Simulations show that our method performs well across a variety of scenarios. We use our method to evaluate and to compare candidate trial level general surrogates in several multi-national trials of a pentavalent rotavirus vaccine. We identify at least one immune measure that has potential value as a trial level general surrogate and use it to predict efficacy in a new trial where the clinical outcome was not measured.

SUBMITTER: Gabriel EE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5045774 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing biomarkers as trial level general surrogates.

Gabriel Erin E EE Daniels Michael J MJ Halloran M Elizabeth ME

Biometrics 20160401 4

An intermediate response measure that accurately predicts efficacy in a new setting can reduce trial cost and time to product licensure. In this article, we define a trial level general surrogate, which is an intermediate response that can be used to accurately predict efficacy in a new setting. Methods for evaluating general surrogates have been developed previously. Many methods in the literature use trial level intermediate responses for prediction. However, all existing methods focus on surr ...[more]

PMID: 27038302

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients who have severe narrowing at or near the origin of the internal carotid artery as a result of atherosclerosis have a high risk of ischaemic stroke ipsilateral to the arterial lesion. Previous trials have shown that carotid endarterectomy improves long-term outcomes, particularly when performed soon after a prior transient ischaemic attack or mild ischaemic stroke. However, complications may occur during or soon after surgery, the most serious of which is stroke, which can be fatal. It has been suggested that performing the operation under local anaesthesia, rather than general anaesthesia, may be safer. Therefore, a prospective, randomised trial of local versus general anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy was proposed to determine whether type of anaesthesia influences peri-operative morbidity and mortality, quality of life and longer term outcome in terms of stroke-free survival.Methods/designA two-arm, parallel group, multicentre randomised controlled trial with a recruitment target of 5000 patients. For entry into the study, in the opinion of the responsible clinician, the patient requiring an endarterectomy must be suitable for either local or general anaesthesia, and have no clear indication for either type. All patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic internal carotid stenosis for whom open surgery is advised are eligible. There is no upper age limit. Exclusion criteria are: no informed consent; definite preference for local or general anaesthetic by the clinician or patient; patient unlikely to be able to co-operate with awake testing during local anaesthesia; patient requiring simultaneous bilateral carotid endarterectomy; carotid endarterectomy combined with another operation such as coronary bypass surgery; and, the patient has been randomised into the trial previously. Patients are randomised to local or general anaesthesia by the central trial office. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients alive, stroke free (including retinal infarction) and without myocardial infarction 30 days post-surgery. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of patients alive and stroke free at one year; health related quality of life at 30 days; surgical adverse events, re-operation and re-admission rates; the relative cost of the two methods of anaesthesia; length of stay and intensive and high dependency bed occupancy.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN00525237.

Project description:BackgroundVitamin D status is presently assessed by measuring total serum concentration of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D]. However, 25(OH)D concentration alone might not accurately reflect vitamin D status owing to its weak relationship with various clinical indices and inconsistency across races. Recently, 24,25-dihydroxyvitamin D [24,25(OH)2D] and vitamin D metabolite ratio [VMR; ratio of 24,25(OH)2D to 25(OH)D] have emerged as vitamin D biomarkers. The present study aimed to determine the values of 24,25(OH)2D and VMR in healthy Koreans and compare them with other vitamin D biomarkers, including 25(OH)D and bioavailable 25(OH)D.MethodsSerum samples and medical information were collected from 200 individuals (100 females and 100 males) who underwent general health checks without self-reported symptoms. We measured 24,25(OH)2D concentration using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, and concentrations of 25(OH)D and vitamin D binding protein using immunoassays. VMR and bioavailable 25(OH)D concentration were calculated using the above data. Serum parathyroid hormone level, and bone mineral density (BMD) data were collected as clinical outcomes, and the effects of the vitamin D markers on them were tested using multiple linear regression models.ResultsThe mean values of 25(OH)D, 24,25(OH)2D, VMR, and bioavailable 25(OH)D were 24.3 ± 8.5 ng/mL, 1.9 ± 1.1 ng/mL, 7.6 ± 2.5, and 3.2 ± 1.2 ng/mL, respectively. The concentration of 25(OH)D closely correlated with 24,25(OH)2D (R = 0.868, P < 0.001) and bioavailable 25(OH)D (R = 0.862, P < 0.001). No significant effects of 24,25(OH)2D, VMR, and bioavailable 25(OH)D were observed on the prediction of PTH and BMD in the multiple linear regression models.ConclusionOur study presents the distribution of 24,25(OH)2D concentration and VMR in Korean population for the first time. Overall, our data reaffirm that 25(OH)D is the primary marker for determining vitamin D status in the general population.

Dataset Information

Comparing biomarkers as trial level general surrogates.

Publications

Comparing biomarkers as trial level general surrogates.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets