Using Bayesian Evidence Synthesis Methods to Incorporate Real-World Evidence in Surrogate Endpoint Evaluation.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1177/0272989X231162852
Lorna Wheaton, Anastasios Papanikos, Anne Thomas, Sylwia Bujkiewicz
{"title":"Using Bayesian Evidence Synthesis Methods to Incorporate Real-World Evidence in Surrogate Endpoint Evaluation.","authors":"Lorna Wheaton,&nbsp;Anastasios Papanikos,&nbsp;Anne Thomas,&nbsp;Sylwia Bujkiewicz","doi":"10.1177/0272989X231162852","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Traditionally, validation of surrogate endpoints has been carried out using randomized controlled trial (RCT) data. However, RCT data may be too limited to validate surrogate endpoints. In this article, we sought to improve the validation of surrogate endpoints with the inclusion of real-world evidence (RWE).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We use data from comparative RWE (cRWE) and single-arm RWE (sRWE) to supplement RCT evidence for the evaluation of progression-free survival (PFS) as a surrogate endpoint to overall survival (OS) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Treatment effect estimates from RCTs, cRWE, and matched sRWE, comparing antiangiogenic treatments with chemotherapy, were used to inform surrogacy patterns and predictions of the treatment effect on OS from the treatment effect on PFS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven RCTs, 4 cRWE studies, and 2 matched sRWE studies were identified. The addition of RWE to RCTs reduced the uncertainty around the estimates of the parameters for the surrogate relationship. The addition of RWE to RCTs also improved the accuracy and precision of predictions of the treatment effect on OS obtained using data on the observed effect on PFS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The addition of RWE to RCT data improved the precision of the parameters describing the surrogate relationship between treatment effects on PFS and OS and the predicted clinical benefit of antiangiogenic therapies in mCRC.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Regulatory agencies increasingly rely on surrogate endpoints when making licensing decisions, and for the decisions to be robust, surrogate endpoints need to be validated. In the era of precision medicine, when surrogacy patterns may depend on the drug's mechanism of action and trials of targeted therapies may be small, data from randomized controlled trials may be limited.Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly used at different stages of the drug development process. When used to enhance the evidence base for surrogate endpoint evaluation, RWE can improve inferences about the strength of surrogate relationships and the precision of predicted treatment effect on the final clinical outcome based on the observed effect on the surrogate endpoint in a new trial.Careful selection of RWE is needed to reduce risk of bias.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":"43 5","pages":"539-552"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10336701/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231162852","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: Traditionally, validation of surrogate endpoints has been carried out using randomized controlled trial (RCT) data. However, RCT data may be too limited to validate surrogate endpoints. In this article, we sought to improve the validation of surrogate endpoints with the inclusion of real-world evidence (RWE).

Methods: We use data from comparative RWE (cRWE) and single-arm RWE (sRWE) to supplement RCT evidence for the evaluation of progression-free survival (PFS) as a surrogate endpoint to overall survival (OS) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Treatment effect estimates from RCTs, cRWE, and matched sRWE, comparing antiangiogenic treatments with chemotherapy, were used to inform surrogacy patterns and predictions of the treatment effect on OS from the treatment effect on PFS.

Results: Seven RCTs, 4 cRWE studies, and 2 matched sRWE studies were identified. The addition of RWE to RCTs reduced the uncertainty around the estimates of the parameters for the surrogate relationship. The addition of RWE to RCTs also improved the accuracy and precision of predictions of the treatment effect on OS obtained using data on the observed effect on PFS.

Conclusion: The addition of RWE to RCT data improved the precision of the parameters describing the surrogate relationship between treatment effects on PFS and OS and the predicted clinical benefit of antiangiogenic therapies in mCRC.

Highlights: Regulatory agencies increasingly rely on surrogate endpoints when making licensing decisions, and for the decisions to be robust, surrogate endpoints need to be validated. In the era of precision medicine, when surrogacy patterns may depend on the drug's mechanism of action and trials of targeted therapies may be small, data from randomized controlled trials may be limited.Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly used at different stages of the drug development process. When used to enhance the evidence base for surrogate endpoint evaluation, RWE can improve inferences about the strength of surrogate relationships and the precision of predicted treatment effect on the final clinical outcome based on the observed effect on the surrogate endpoint in a new trial.Careful selection of RWE is needed to reduce risk of bias.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用贝叶斯证据综合方法将真实世界的证据纳入替代终点评价。
目的:传统上,替代终点的验证是使用随机对照试验(RCT)数据进行的。然而,RCT数据可能过于有限,无法验证替代终点。在本文中,我们试图通过纳入真实世界证据(RWE)来改进替代终点的验证。方法:我们使用比较RWE (cRWE)和单臂RWE (sRWE)的数据来补充RCT证据,以评估转移性结直肠癌(mCRC)的无进展生存期(PFS)作为总生存期(OS)的替代终点。来自rct、cRWE和匹配sRWE的治疗效果估计,比较抗血管生成治疗与化疗,用于告知代孕模式,并从治疗对PFS的影响中预测治疗对OS的影响。结果:7项rct、4项cRWE研究和2项匹配的sRWE研究被确定。在随机对照试验中加入RWE减少了对替代关系参数估计的不确定性。在rct中加入RWE还提高了根据观察到的PFS效果数据预测治疗对OS效果的准确性和精确性。结论:RWE加入RCT数据提高了描述mCRC中PFS和OS治疗效果与抗血管生成治疗预测临床获益之间替代关系参数的准确性。重点:监管机构在做出许可决策时越来越依赖代理端点,为了使决策可靠,代理端点需要得到验证。在精准医疗时代,代孕模式可能取决于药物的作用机制,靶向治疗的试验可能很小,随机对照试验的数据可能有限。真实世界证据(RWE)越来越多地用于药物开发过程的不同阶段。当用于增强替代终点评价的证据基础时,RWE可以根据新试验中观察到的替代终点效应,提高对替代关系强度的推断和预测治疗效果对最终临床结局的准确性。需要仔细选择RWE以减少偏倚风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Unclear Trajectory and Uncertain Benefit: Creating a Lexicon for Clinical Uncertainty in Patients with Critical or Advanced Illness Using a Delphi Consensus Process. Multi-indication Evidence Synthesis in Oncology Health Technology Assessment: Meta-analysis Methods and Their Application to a Case Study of Bevacizumab. Use of Adaptive Conjoint Analysis-Based Values Clarification in a Patient Decision Aid Is Not Associated with Better Perceived Values Clarity or Reduced Decisional Conflict but Enhances Values Congruence. A Sequential Calibration Approach to Address Challenges of Repeated Calibration of a COVID-19 Model. A Longitudinal Study of the Association of Awareness of Disease Incurability with Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1