Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials
One of the most important considerations in designing clinical trials is the choice of outcome measures. These outcome measures could be clinically meaningful endpoints that are direct measures of how patients feel, function, and survive. Alternatively, indirect measures, such as biomarkers that inc...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Statistics in medicine 2012-11, Vol.31 (25), p.2973-2984 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 2984 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 25 |
| container_start_page | 2973 |
| container_title | Statistics in medicine |
| container_volume | 31 |
| creator | Fleming, Thomas R. Powers, John H. |
| description | One of the most important considerations in designing clinical trials is the choice of outcome measures. These outcome measures could be clinically meaningful endpoints that are direct measures of how patients feel, function, and survive. Alternatively, indirect measures, such as biomarkers that include physical signs of disease, laboratory measures, and radiological tests, often are considered as replacement endpoints or ‘surrogates’ for clinically meaningful endpoints. We discuss the definitions of clinically meaningful endpoints and surrogate endpoints, and provide examples from recent clinical trials. We provide insight into why indirect measures such as biomarkers may fail to provide reliable evidence about the benefit‐to‐risk profile of interventions. We also discuss the nature of evidence that is important in assessing whether treatment effects on a biomarker reliably predict effects on a clinically meaningful endpoint, and provide insights into why this reliability is specific to the context of use of the biomarker. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/sim.5403 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3551627</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1111857877</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5423-4a819a53da274c62b9f3e740fc124532faa0cde77d20a9dcf9225f25e5a1f5ae3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kcFO3DAQhq2qqCxQqU-AIvXCJWCPM3FyQSoIFgQUaaHq0TKOA4asvdgJLW9fb3dZoFJ9mYM_ffpnfkK-MLrLKIW9aKe7WFD-gYwYrUVOAauPZERBiLwUDNfJRoz3lDKGID6RdQDBGNTViOCB9VMVHkyImXJNFocQ_K3qTWZcM_PW9TGzLtOddVarLuuDVV3cImttGubzcm6SH8dH14cn-fnl-PTw23musQCeF6pitULeKBCFLuGmbrkRBW01gwI5tEpR3RghGqCqbnRbA2ALaFCxFpXhm2R_4Z0NN1PTaOP6oDo5CzZlfpZeWfn-x9k7eeufJEdkJYgk2FkKgn8cTOzl1EZtuk4544coWXoVikrM0a__oPd-CC6t95cqkTGBr0IdfIzBtKswjMp5FzJ1IeddJHT7bfgV-HL8BOQL4JftzPN_RfLq9GIpXPI29ub3ik_tyVJwgfLn97E8OZuMJ7QaS-R_AFdkodw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1111651175</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Fleming, Thomas R. ; Powers, John H.</creator><creatorcontrib>Fleming, Thomas R. ; Powers, John H.</creatorcontrib><description>One of the most important considerations in designing clinical trials is the choice of outcome measures. These outcome measures could be clinically meaningful endpoints that are direct measures of how patients feel, function, and survive. Alternatively, indirect measures, such as biomarkers that include physical signs of disease, laboratory measures, and radiological tests, often are considered as replacement endpoints or ‘surrogates’ for clinically meaningful endpoints. We discuss the definitions of clinically meaningful endpoints and surrogate endpoints, and provide examples from recent clinical trials. We provide insight into why indirect measures such as biomarkers may fail to provide reliable evidence about the benefit‐to‐risk profile of interventions. We also discuss the nature of evidence that is important in assessing whether treatment effects on a biomarker reliably predict effects on a clinically meaningful endpoint, and provide insights into why this reliability is specific to the context of use of the biomarker. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0277-6715</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-0258</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/sim.5403</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22711298</identifier><identifier>CODEN: SMEDDA</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</publisher><subject>accelerated approval ; Biomarkers ; clinical efficacy measure ; Clinical outcomes ; Clinical trials ; Clinical Trials as Topic ; clinically meaningful endpoint ; correlate ; Design of experiments ; effect modifiers ; Endpoint Determination ; Humans ; indirect measure ; Intervention ; Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care ; replacement endpoint ; Reproducibility of Results ; Research Design ; validation</subject><ispartof>Statistics in medicine, 2012-11, Vol.31 (25), p.2973-2984</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright John Wiley and Sons, Limited Nov 10, 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5423-4a819a53da274c62b9f3e740fc124532faa0cde77d20a9dcf9225f25e5a1f5ae3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5423-4a819a53da274c62b9f3e740fc124532faa0cde77d20a9dcf9225f25e5a1f5ae3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fsim.5403$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fsim.5403$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22711298$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fleming, Thomas R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Powers, John H.</creatorcontrib><title>Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials</title><title>Statistics in medicine</title><addtitle>Statist. Med</addtitle><description>One of the most important considerations in designing clinical trials is the choice of outcome measures. These outcome measures could be clinically meaningful endpoints that are direct measures of how patients feel, function, and survive. Alternatively, indirect measures, such as biomarkers that include physical signs of disease, laboratory measures, and radiological tests, often are considered as replacement endpoints or ‘surrogates’ for clinically meaningful endpoints. We discuss the definitions of clinically meaningful endpoints and surrogate endpoints, and provide examples from recent clinical trials. We provide insight into why indirect measures such as biomarkers may fail to provide reliable evidence about the benefit‐to‐risk profile of interventions. We also discuss the nature of evidence that is important in assessing whether treatment effects on a biomarker reliably predict effects on a clinically meaningful endpoint, and provide insights into why this reliability is specific to the context of use of the biomarker. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</description><subject>accelerated approval</subject><subject>Biomarkers</subject><subject>clinical efficacy measure</subject><subject>Clinical outcomes</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Clinical Trials as Topic</subject><subject>clinically meaningful endpoint</subject><subject>correlate</subject><subject>Design of experiments</subject><subject>effect modifiers</subject><subject>Endpoint Determination</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>indirect measure</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care</subject><subject>replacement endpoint</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>validation</subject><issn>0277-6715</issn><issn>1097-0258</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kcFO3DAQhq2qqCxQqU-AIvXCJWCPM3FyQSoIFgQUaaHq0TKOA4asvdgJLW9fb3dZoFJ9mYM_ffpnfkK-MLrLKIW9aKe7WFD-gYwYrUVOAauPZERBiLwUDNfJRoz3lDKGID6RdQDBGNTViOCB9VMVHkyImXJNFocQ_K3qTWZcM_PW9TGzLtOddVarLuuDVV3cImttGubzcm6SH8dH14cn-fnl-PTw23musQCeF6pitULeKBCFLuGmbrkRBW01gwI5tEpR3RghGqCqbnRbA2ALaFCxFpXhm2R_4Z0NN1PTaOP6oDo5CzZlfpZeWfn-x9k7eeufJEdkJYgk2FkKgn8cTOzl1EZtuk4544coWXoVikrM0a__oPd-CC6t95cqkTGBr0IdfIzBtKswjMp5FzJ1IeddJHT7bfgV-HL8BOQL4JftzPN_RfLq9GIpXPI29ub3ik_tyVJwgfLn97E8OZuMJ7QaS-R_AFdkodw</recordid><startdate>20121110</startdate><enddate>20121110</enddate><creator>Fleming, Thomas R.</creator><creator>Powers, John H.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20121110</creationdate><title>Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials</title><author>Fleming, Thomas R. ; Powers, John H.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5423-4a819a53da274c62b9f3e740fc124532faa0cde77d20a9dcf9225f25e5a1f5ae3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>accelerated approval</topic><topic>Biomarkers</topic><topic>clinical efficacy measure</topic><topic>Clinical outcomes</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Clinical Trials as Topic</topic><topic>clinically meaningful endpoint</topic><topic>correlate</topic><topic>Design of experiments</topic><topic>effect modifiers</topic><topic>Endpoint Determination</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>indirect measure</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care</topic><topic>replacement endpoint</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>validation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fleming, Thomas R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Powers, John H.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Statistics in medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fleming, Thomas R.</au><au>Powers, John H.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials</atitle><jtitle>Statistics in medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Statist. Med</addtitle><date>2012-11-10</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>25</issue><spage>2973</spage><epage>2984</epage><pages>2973-2984</pages><issn>0277-6715</issn><eissn>1097-0258</eissn><coden>SMEDDA</coden><abstract>One of the most important considerations in designing clinical trials is the choice of outcome measures. These outcome measures could be clinically meaningful endpoints that are direct measures of how patients feel, function, and survive. Alternatively, indirect measures, such as biomarkers that include physical signs of disease, laboratory measures, and radiological tests, often are considered as replacement endpoints or ‘surrogates’ for clinically meaningful endpoints. We discuss the definitions of clinically meaningful endpoints and surrogate endpoints, and provide examples from recent clinical trials. We provide insight into why indirect measures such as biomarkers may fail to provide reliable evidence about the benefit‐to‐risk profile of interventions. We also discuss the nature of evidence that is important in assessing whether treatment effects on a biomarker reliably predict effects on a clinically meaningful endpoint, and provide insights into why this reliability is specific to the context of use of the biomarker. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</abstract><cop>Chichester, UK</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</pub><pmid>22711298</pmid><doi>10.1002/sim.5403</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0277-6715 |
| ispartof | Statistics in medicine, 2012-11, Vol.31 (25), p.2973-2984 |
| issn | 0277-6715 1097-0258 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3551627 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | accelerated approval Biomarkers clinical efficacy measure Clinical outcomes Clinical trials Clinical Trials as Topic clinically meaningful endpoint correlate Design of experiments effect modifiers Endpoint Determination Humans indirect measure Intervention Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care replacement endpoint Reproducibility of Results Research Design validation |
| title | Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-20T19%3A18%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Biomarkers%20and%20surrogate%20endpoints%20in%20clinical%20trials&rft.jtitle=Statistics%20in%20medicine&rft.au=Fleming,%20Thomas%20R.&rft.date=2012-11-10&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=25&rft.spage=2973&rft.epage=2984&rft.pages=2973-2984&rft.issn=0277-6715&rft.eissn=1097-0258&rft.coden=SMEDDA&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/sim.5403&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1111857877%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1111651175&rft_id=info:pmid/22711298&rfr_iscdi=true |