Surrogate endpoints in cost-effectiveness analysis for use in medical technology assessment
https://doi.org/10.37489/2782-3784-myrwd-071
EDN: ZVVPHM
Abstract
Cost-effectiveness analysis of medical technologies is essential for making rational decisions in healthcare, which in turn contribute to more efficient allocation of limited budgetary resources and improved quality of care. Clinical economic analysis assesses the cost-benefit ratio of medical technologies, which helps determine their feasibility, taking into account the impact on patient health, quality of services and economic costs. One of the methods for accelerated cost-effectiveness assessment is the use of surrogate endpoints (SEP), which allows for faster and safer assessment of new medical technologies. Their use is important for decision makers in healthcare, especially in conditions of a lack of data on the long-term effectiveness of new technologies. Their use should be justified, with a confirmed statistical relationship between surrogate and clinical endpoints. A recent report summarizing current data on the use of SEP in cost-effectiveness analysis of medical technologies served as the basis for this article.
About the Authors
T. I. Busheva
First Saint Petersburg State Medical University named after Academician I. P. Pavlov
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Tatiana I. Busheva, resident
department of Clinical Pharmacology and Evidence-Based
Saint Petersburg
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
A. R. Kasimova
First Saint Petersburg State Medical University named after Academician I. P. Pavlov; National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics named after R. R. Vreden
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Alina R. Kasimova, Cand. Sci. (Med.), associate professor, Clinical pharmacologist
department of Clinical Pharmacology and Evidence-Based; Department of Clinical Pharmacology
Saint Petersburg
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
A. S. Kolbin
First Saint Petersburg State Medical University named after Academician I. P. Pavlov
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Alexey S. Kolbin, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor, Head of Chair
Chair of Clinical Pharmacology and Evidence-Based Medicine
Saint Petersburg
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
A. N. Pshenichnikov
City Polyclinic No. 77 of Nevsky District
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Aleksandr N. Pshenichnikov, General Practitioner
Saint Petersburg
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
References
1. De Gruttola VG, Clax P, DeMets DL, Downing GJ, Ellenberg SS, Friedman L, et al. Considerations in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: summary of a National Institutes of Health workshop. Contemp Clin Trials. 2001;22(5):485–502.
2. Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001 Mar;69(3):89-95. doi: 10.1067/mcp.2001.113989.
3. Yule MS, Thompson J, Leesahatsawat K, Sousa MS, Anker SD, Arends J, Balstad TR, Brown LR, Bye A, Dajani O, Fallon M, Hjermstad MJ, Jakobsen G, McDonald J, McGovern J, Roeland EJ, Sayers J, Skipworth RJE, Ottestad IO, Philips I, Simpson MR, Solheim TS, Vagnildhaug OM, McMillan D, Laird BJA, Dolan RD; Cancer Cachexia Endpoints Working Group. Biomarker endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials : Systematic Review 5 of the cachexia endpoint series. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2024 Jun;15(3):853-867. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.13491.
4. Table of Surrogate Endpoints That Were the Basis of Drug Approval or Licensure Режим доступа: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-resources/table-surrogate-endpoints-were-basis-drug-ap-proval-or-licensure
5. Canada’s Drug Agency (CDA-AMC), previously the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH); the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) in the US; the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care; the National Health Care Institute (ZIN) in the Netherlands; the Institute for Technology Assessment in Health (IETS) in Colombia; Rubix Health in the US. White paper. Surrogate endpoints in cost-effectiveness analysis for use in health technology assessment
6. Kaltenthaler E, Brazier J, De Nigris E, Tumur I, Ferriter M, Beverley C, Parry G, Rooney G, Sutcliffe P. Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for depression and anxiety update : a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2006 Sep;10(33):iii, xi-xiv, 1-168. doi: 10.3310/hta10330.
7. Ciani O, Buyse M, Drummond M, Rasi G, Saad ED, Taylor RS. Time to Review the Role of Surrogate End Points in Health Policy: State of the Art and the Way Forward. Value Health. 2017 Mar;20(3):487-495. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.011.
8. Elston J, Taylor RS. Use of surrogate outcomes in cost-effectiveness models : A review of United Kingdom health technology assessment reports. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2009;25(1):6-13. doi:10.1017/S0266462309090023
9. Bujkiewicz S, Achana F, Papanikos T, Riley R, & Abrams K. (2019). NICE DSU Technical Support Document 20: Multivariate meta-analysis of summary data for combining treatment effects on correlated outcomes and evaluating surrogate endpoints. Режим доступа: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/nice-dsu/tsds/multivariate-meta-analysis
10. Moynihan R. Surrogates under scrutiny: fallible correlations, fatal consequences. BMJ. 2011 Aug 15;343:d5160. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5160.
11. Yagudina RI, Chibilyaev VA. Use of endpoints and surrogate points in pharmacoeconomic studies. Pharmacoeconomics. Modern pharmacoeconomics and pharmacoepidemiology. 2010;2:12-18 (In Russ.)
12. Lazebnik LB, Gusein-zade MG, Efremov LI. Selection of "Surrogate" and "Endpoints" in Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Medical Interventions. Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology. 2011;8:73-79. (In Russ.)
13. Gurkina MV, Smetanina NS, Rumyntsev AG. Economic methods of medical technology assessment in hematology. Pediatric Hematology/Oncology and Immunopathology. 2018;17(2):136-143. doi: 10.24287/1726-1708-2018-17-2-136-143
14. Manyara AM, Davies P, Stewart D, Weir CJ, Young AE, Blazeby J, Butcher NJ, Bujkiewicz S, Chan AW, Dawoud D, Offringa M, Ouwens M, Hróbjartsson A, Amstutz A, Bertolaccini L, Bruno VD, Devane D, Faria CDCM, Gilbert PB, Harris R, Lassere M, Marinelli L, Markham S, Powers JH 3rd, Rezaei Y, Richert L, Schwendicke F, Tereshchenko LG, Thoma A, Turan A, Worrall A, Christensen R, Collins GS, Ross JS, Taylor RS, Ciani O. Reporting of surrogate endpoints in randomised controlled trial protocols (SPIRIT-Surrogate): extension checklist with explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2024 Jul 9;386:e078525. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2023-078525.
15. Manyara AM, Davies P, Stewart D, Weir CJ, Young AE, Blazeby J, Butcher NJ, Bujkiewicz S, Chan AW, Dawoud D, Offringa M, Ouwens M, Hróbjartsson A, Amstutz A, Bertolaccini L, Bruno VD, Devane D, Faria CDCM, Gilbert PB, Harris R, Lassere M, Marinelli L, Markham S, Powers JH 3rd, Rezaei Y, Richert L, Schwendicke F, Tereshchenko LG, Thoma A, Turan A, Worrall A, Christensen R, Collins GS, Ross JS, Taylor RS, Ciani O. Reporting of surrogate endpoints in randomised controlled trial reports (CONSORT-Surrogate): extension checklist with explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2024 Jul 9;386:e078524. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2023-078524.
Review
For citations:
Busheva T.I., Kasimova A.R., Kolbin A.S., Pshenichnikov A.N. Surrogate endpoints in cost-effectiveness analysis for use in medical technology assessment. Real-World Data & Evidence. 2025;5(2):16-27. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.37489/2782-3784-myrwd-071. EDN: ZVVPHM
Views:
73
Email this article 
Post a Comment 