Assessing the value of a censored surrogate outcome
Assessing the potential of surrogate markers and surrogate outcomes for replacing a long term outcome is an active area of research. The interest in this topic is partly motivated by increasing pressure from stakeholders to shorten the time required to evaluate the safety and/or efficacy of a treatment or intervention such that treatments deemed safe and effective can be made available to those in need more quickly. Most existing methods in surrogacy evaluation either require strict model assumptions or that primary outcome and surrogate outcome information is available for all study participants. In this paper, we focus on a setting where the primary outcome is subject to censoring and the aim is to quantify the surrogacy of an intermediate outcome, which is also subject to censoring. We define the surrogacy as the proportion of treatment effect on the primary outcome that is explained by the intermediate surrogate outcome information and propose two robust methods to estimate this quantity. We propose both a nonparametric approach that uses a kernel smoothed Nelson–Aalen estimator of conditional survival, and a semiparametric method that derives conditional survival estimates from a landmark Cox proportional hazards model. Simulation studies demonstrate that both approaches perform well in finite samples. Our methodological development is motivated by our interest in investigating the use of a composite cardiovascular endpoint as a surrogate outcome in a randomized study of the effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on survival. We apply the proposed methods to quantify the surrogacy of this potential surrogate outcome for the primary outcome, time to death.
KeywordsSurrogate Survival analysis Nonparametric Kernel
- FDA (2008) Guidance for industry diabetes mellitus: developing drugs and therapeutic biologics for treatment and prevention. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/.../Guidances/ucm071624.pdf. Accessed 9 Apr 2019
- Hammer S, Katzenstein D, Hughes M, Gundacker H, Schooley R, Haubrich R, Henry W, Lederman M, Phair J, Niu M et al (1996) A trial comparing nucleoside monotherapy with combination therapy in HIV-infected adults with CD4 cell counts from 200 to 500 per cubic millimeter. N Engl J Med 335(15):1081–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ledergerber B, Egger M, Opravil M, Telenti A, Hirschel B, Battegay M, Vernazza P, Sudre P, Flepp M, Furrer H et al (1999) Clinical progression and virological failure on highly active antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1 patients: a prospective cohort study. The Lancet 353(9156):863–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- NHLBI (2008) NHLBI data repository: prevention of events with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy (peace). https://biolincc.nhlbi.nih.gov/studies/peace/. Accessed 9 Apr 2019
- PEACE (2004) Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition in stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2004(351):2058–2068Google Scholar