A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials

Background: Interventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials. Methods: As part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials. Findings: Current surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)-thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators. Interpretation: There is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence. Funding: SPIRIT-SURROGATE/CONSORT-SURROGATE project is Medical Research Council Better Research Better Health (MR/V038400/1) funded

Reporting of surrogate endpoints in randomised controlled trial protocols (SPIRIT-Surrogate): extension checklist with explanation and elaboration

Randomised controlled trials often use surrogate endpoints to substitute for a target outcome (an outcome of direct interest and relevance to trial participants, clinicians, and other stakeholders—eg, all cause mortality) to improve efficiency (through shortened duration of follow-up, reduced sample size, and lower research costs), and for ethical or practical reasons. However, their use has a fundamental limitation in terms of uncertainty of the intervention effect on the target outcome and limited information on potential intervention harms. There have been increasing calls for improved reporting of trial protocols that use surrogate endpoints. This report presents the SPIRIT-Surrogate, an extension of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist, a consensus driven reporting guideline designed for trial protocols using surrogate endpoints as the primary outcome(s). The SPIRIT-Surrogate extension includes nine items modified from the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. The guideline provides examples and explanations for each item. We recommend that all stakeholders (including trial investigators and sponsors, research ethics reviewers, funders, journal editors, and peer reviewers) use this extension in reporting trial protocols that use surrogate endpoints. Its use will allow for improved design of such trials, improved transparency, and interpretation of findings when trials are completed, and ultimately reduced research waste

Reporting of surrogate endpoints in randomised controlled trial reports (CONSORT-Surrogate): extension checklist with explanation and elaboration

Randomised controlled trials commonly use surrogate endpoints to substitute for a target outcome (outcome of direct interest and relevance to trial participants, clinicians, and other stakeholders—eg, all cause mortality) to improve their efficiency (through shorter trial duration, reduced sample size, and thus lower research costs), or for ethical or practical reasons. But reliance on surrogate endpoints can increase the uncertainty of an intervention’s treatment effect and potential failure to provide adequate information on intervention harms, which has led to calls for improved reporting of trials using surrogate endpoints. This report presents a consensus driven reporting guideline for trials using surrogate endpoints as the primary outcomes—the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extension checklist: CONSORT-Surrogate. The extension includes nine items modified from the CONSORT 2010 checklist and two new items. Examples and explanations for each item are provided. We recommend that all stakeholders (including trial investigators and sponsors, journal editors and peer reviewers, research ethics reviewers, and funders) use this extension in reporting trial reports using surrogate endpoints. Use of this checklist will improve transparency, interpretation, and usefulness of trial findings, and ultimately reduce research waste

Are functional mobility tests responsive to group physical therapy intervention in individuals with Parkinson’s disease?

The Timed up and go test (TUG), the Five times sit-to-stand test (FTSTS) and the Bed Mobility test (BMT) are widely used in clinical practice for Parkinson Disease (PD). However, no reported studies have evaluated the responsiveness to group physical therapy intervention (GPTI). To verify if TUG, FTSTS and BMT were responsive to GPTI. Thirty individuals with PD were assessed prior to and after an 8-week evidence-based GPTI. Paired t test was used to determine statistically significant change pre-and post-intervention. Internal responsiveness (IR) was classified with the standardized response mean (SRM). A 5-point Likert scale assessed self-perceived performance by the subjects after the intervention. Analysis of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the accuracy and cut-off scores for identifying participants who had shown improvement. GPTI was efficient in improving real (p≤0.001) and self-perceived mobility performance in all measures. All tests were responsive to changes: the IR varied from medium to high (SRM = 0.7-1.5); the cut-off point for TUG test was >2.2 s, for FTSTS test was >2.5 s and for BM test >1.4 s. The TUG, FTSTS and BMT were responsive to the GPTI and accurately detected meaningful clinical changes. Our results provide an important information about the clinical application of these tests in PD individuals