Abstract
The efficacy of medicines, medical devices, and other health technologies should be proved in trials that assess final patient-relevant outcomes such as survival or morbidity. However, market access and coverage decisions are often based on surrogate endpoints, biomarkers, or intermediate endpoints, which aim to substitute and predict patient-relevant outcomes that are unavailable due to methodological, financial, or practical constraints. We provide a summary of the current use of surrogate endpoints in healthcare policy, discussing the case for and against their adoption and reviewing validation methods. We introduce a three-step framework for policy makers to handle surrogates, which involves establishing the level of evidence, assessing the strength of the association, and quantifying relations between surrogates and final outcomes. Although use of surrogates can be problematic, they can, when selected and validated appropriately, offer important opportunities for more efficient clinical trials and faster access to new health technologies that benefit patients and healthcare systems.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 487-495 |
| Journal | Value in Health |
| Volume | 20 |
| Early online date | 22 Dec 2016 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 6 Mar 2017 |
Bibliographical note
© 2016 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details.Keywords
- clinical outcome assessment, surrogate endpoints, validation, health technology assessment