Clinical review for general practice

ISSN (Print) 2713-2552
ISSN (Online) 2782-5671
  • Home
  • about
  • archives
  • contacts
left
FULLSCREEN > Archive > 2024 > Vol 5, №2 (2024) > Criteria for evaluation of the anticoagulant therapy efficacy: the role of «surrogate criteria»

Criteria for evaluation of the anticoagulant therapy efficacy: the role of «surrogate criteria»

Sergey R. Gilyarevsky

For citation:


  • Abstract
  • About the Author
  • References

Abstract

The article is devoted to the problem of using indirect indicators, or surrogate criteria, both in randomized clinical and observational studies. The reasons for the increasing frequency of using surrogate criteria in assessing the results of clinical trials are considered. The possible negative consequences of the widespread use of proxy measures and the need to educate clinicians to obtain evidence-based information using surrogate criteria rather than true clinical outcomes are discussed. Data from analyzes aimed at identifying the most important problems in the use of surrogate criteria in assessing the effectiveness of certain interventions are presented. The problem of using surrogate criteria in assessing the effectiveness and safety of the use of anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolic complications is separately considered. The necessary conditions are provided to ensure the possibility of using surrogate criteria in studies assessing the effectiveness of interventions. Examples of the use of both justified and insufficiently justified use of surrogate criteria for assessing the effectiveness of anticoagulants in various clinical situations are considered. The results of a randomized clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of an anticoagulant based on identifying surrogate criteria for atrial fibrillation using devices implanted in the heart are discussed. The problem of using surrogate criteria when assessing the risk of bleeding in studies assessing the effects of anticoagulants is discussed separately. The opinions of experts are presented, emphasizing the need for careful use of surrogate criteria when assessing the incidence of both venous thromboembolic complications and bleeding, since in such cases the results of comparing the benefits and risks of the intervention can be significantly distorted.
Keywords: surrogate criteria, atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolic events, apixaban, rivaroxaban, warfarin.

About the Author

Sergey R. Gilyarevsky 1

1 Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russia

References

1. FDA-NIH Biomarker Working Group. BEST (biomarkers, endpoints, and other tools) resource; 2016. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/books/NBK326791. Accessed: 06.08.2023.
2 Manyara AM, Davies P, Stewart D et al. Definitions, acceptability, limitations, and guidance in the use and reporting of surrogate end points in trials: a scoping review. J Clin Epidemiol 2023;160:83-99. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.06.013
3. Olivotto I, Oreziak A, Barriales-Villa R et al; EXPLORER-HCM study investigators. Mavacamten for treatment of symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (EXPLORER-HCM): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2020;396:759-69. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31792-X
4. Mann DL, Greene SJ, Givertz MM et al; LIFE Investigators. Sacubitril/Valsartan in Advanced Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Rationale and Design of the LIFE Trial. JACC Heart Fail 2020;8(10):789-99. DOI: 10.1016/j.jchf.2020.05.005
5. Spertus JA, Fine JT, Elliott P et al. Mavacamten for treatment of symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (EXPLORER-HCM): health status analysis of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2021;397(10293):2467-75. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00763-7
6. Gautret P, Lagier JC, Parola P et al. Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2020;56(1):105949. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105949
7. Alcalai R, Butnaru A, Moravsky G et al. Apixaban vs. warfarin in patients with left ventricular thrombus: a prospective multicentre randomized clinical trial‡. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother 2022;8(7):660-7. DOI: 10.1093/ehjcvp/pvab057
8. Ciani O, Buyse M, Garside R et al. Comparison of treatment effect sizes associated with surrogate and final patient relevant outcomes in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2013;346:f457. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f457
9. Cohen D. Rosiglitazone: what went wrong? BMJ 2010;341:c4848. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c4848
10. Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med 1996;125(7):605-13. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-125-7-199610010-00011
11. Kumar S, Rajkumar SV. Surrogate endpoints in randomised controlled trials: a reality check. Lancet 2019;394(10195):281-3. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31711-8
12. Shi Q, Sargent DJ. Meta-analysis for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in cancer clinical trials. Int J Clin Oncol 2009;14(2):102-11. DOI: 10.1007/s10147-009-0885-4
13. Ciani O, Buyse M, Drummond M et al. Time to Review the Role of Surrogate End Points in Health Policy: State of the Art and the Way Forward. Value Health 2017;20(3):487-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.011
14. Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJ et al; ARISTOTLE Committees and Investigators. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2011;365(11):981-92. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1107039
15. Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J et al; ROCKET AF Investigators. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2011;365(10):883-91. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1009638
16. Schulman S, Kearon C; Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation of the Scientific and Standardization Committee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost 2005;3(4):692-4. DOI: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2005.01204.x
17. Fu EL, Desai RJ, Paik JM et al. Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Warfarin or Rivaroxaban Versus Apixaban in Patients With Advanced CKD and Atrial Fibrillation: Nationwide US Cohort Study. Am J Kidney Dis 2024;83(3):293-305.e1. DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2023.08.017
18. Noseworthy PA, Kaufman ES, Chen LY et al. Subclinical and device-detected atrial fibrillation: pondering the knowledge gap: a scientific statement of the American Medical Association. Circulation 2019;140: e944-963. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000740
19. Healey JS, Lopes RD, Granger CB et al; ARTESIA Investigators. Apixaban for Stroke Prevention in Subclinical Atrial Fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2024;390(2):107-17. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2310234
20. Connolly SJ, Eikelboom J, Joyner C et al; AVERROES Steering Committee and Investigators. Apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2011;364(9):806-17. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1007432
21. Heit JA. The epidemiology of venous thromboembolism in the community. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2008;28(3):370-2. DOI: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.108.162545
22. Wendelboe AM, Raskob GE. Global Burden of Thrombosis: Epidemiologic Aspects. Circ Res 2016;118(9):1340-7. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.115.306841
23. Cushman M. Epidemiology and risk factors for venous thrombosis. Semin Hematol 2007;44(2):62-9. DOI: 10.1053/j.seminhematol.2007.02.004
24. Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, Chung KC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;128(1):305-10. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318219c171
25. James S, Erlinge D, Storey RF et al. Dapagliflozin in myocardial infarction without diabetes or heart failure. NEJM Evid 2024;3(2):
EVIDoa2300286. DOI: 10.1056/EVIDoa2300286
26. Heerspink HJL, Stefánsson BV, Correa-Rotter R et al; DAPA-CKD Trial Committees and Investigators. Dapagliflozin in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease. N Engl J Med 2020;383(15):1436-46. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2024816
27. Eshaghpour A, Li A, Park J et al. Assessing Use of Surrogate Outcome Measures in Randomized Controlled Trials Investigating Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis [abstract]. Res Pract Thromb Haemost 2021;5(Suppl 2). DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1582705/v1
28. Agnelli G, Buller HR, Cohen A et al. Apixaban for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 2013;368:699-708. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1207541
29. Carrier M, Abou-Nassar K, Mallick R et al. Apixaban to prevent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2019;380(8):711-9. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814468.
30. Khorana AA, Soff GA, Kakkar AK et al. Rivaroxaban for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2019;380(8):720-8. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814630
31. Agnelli G, Becattini C, Meyer G et al. Apixaban for the treatment of venous thromboembolism associated with cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2020;382(17):1599-607. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1915103
32. Kumar S, Sarr MG, Kamath PS. Mesenteric venous thrombosis. New England Journal of Medicine 2001;345(23):1683-8. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra010076
33. Kassaï B, Shah NR, Leizorovicza A et al. The true treatment benefit is unpredictable in clinical trials using surrogate outcome measured with diagnostic tests. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58(10):1042-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.024
34. Robert-Ebadi H, Righini M. Should we diagnose and treat distal deep vein thrombosis? Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program 2017;2017(1):231-6. DOI: 10.1182/asheducation-2017.1.231
35. Büller HR, Davidson BL, Decousus H et al; Matisse Investigators. Subcutaneous fondaparinux versus intravenous unfractionated heparin in the initial treatment of pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 2003;349(18):1695-702. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa035451. Erratum in: N Engl J Med 2004;350(4):423.
36. Kaatz S, Ahmad D, Spyropoulos AC, Schulman S; Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation. Definition of clinically relevant non-major bleeding in studies of anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolic disease in non-surgical patients: communication from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost 2015;13(11):2119-26. DOI: 10.1111/jth.13140
37. Loke YK, Kwok CS. Dabigatran and rivaroxaban for prevention of venous thromboembolism – systematic review and adjusted indirect comparison. J Clin Pharm Ther 2011;36:111-24. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2710.2010.01162.x
38. Raskob GE, Gallus AS, Pineo GF et al. Apixaban versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after hip or knee replacement: pooled analysis of major venous thromboembolism and bleeding in 8464 patients from the ADVANCE-2 and ADVANCE-3 trials. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012;94:257-64. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.94b2.27850
39. Nieto JA, Espada NG, Merino RG, Gonzalez TC. Dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban versus enoxaparin for thomboprophylaxis after total knee or hip arthroplasty: pool-analysis of phase III randomized clinical trials. Thromb Res 2012;130:183-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2012.02.011
40. Burgess S, Crown N, Louzada ML et al. Clinical performance of bleeding risk scores for predicting major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding events in patients receiving warfarin. J Thromb Haemost 2013;11:1647-54. DOI: 10.1111/jth.12352
41. Camm AJ, Amarenco P, Haas S et al; XANTUS Investigators. XANTUS: a real-world, prospective, observational study of patients treated with rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J 2016;37:1145-53. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv466
42. Wells PS, Forgie MA, Simms M et al. The outpatient bleeding risk index: validation of a tool for predicting bleeding rates in patients treated for deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:917-20. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.163.8.917
43. Lopes LC, Spencer FA, Neumann I et al. Bleeding risk in atrial fibrillation patients taking vitamin K antagonists: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2013;94:367-75. DOI: 10.1038/ clpt.2013.99
44. You JJ, Singer DE, Howard PA et al; American College of Chest Physicians. Antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012;141(2 Suppl.):e531S-75S. DOI: 10.1378/chest.11-2304
45. Guyatt GH, Eikelboom JW, Gould MK et al; American College of Chest Physicians. Approach to outcome measurement in the prevention of thrombosis in surgical and medical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012;141(2 Suppl.):e185S-94S. DOI: 10.1378/chest.11-2289
46. Kearon C, Akl EA, Comerota AJ et al; American College of Chest Physicians. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012;141(2 Suppl.):e419S-94S. DOI: 10.1378/chest.11-2301
47. Buyse M, Molenberghs G, Burzykowski T et al. The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics 2000;1:49-67. DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/1.1.49
48. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care: Executive Summaries [Internet]. Cologne, Germany: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG); 2005–. Validity of surrogate endpoints in oncology: Executive summary of rapid report A10-05, Version 1.1. 2011 Nov 21.
49. Burzykowski T, Buyse M. Surrogate threshold effect: an alternative measure for meta-analytic surrogate endpoint validation. Pharm Stat 2006;5:173-86. DOI: 10.1002/pst.207. PMID: 17080751.
50. Buyse M, Sargent DJ, Grothey A et al. Biomarkers and surrogate end points – the challenge of statistical validation. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2010;7:309-17. DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2010.43
51. Laporte S, Chapelle C, Bertoletti L et al. Assessment of clinically relevant bleeding as a surrogate outcome for major bleeding: validation by meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Thromb Haemost 2017;15(8):1547-58. DOI: 10.1111/jth.13740
52. Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001;69(3):89-95. DOI: 10.1067/mcp.2001.113989
53. Temple R. Are surrogate markers adequate to assess cardiovascular disease drugs? JAMA 1999;282(8):790-5. DOI: 10.1001/jama.282.8.790
54. Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med 1989;8(4):431-40. DOI: 10.1002/sim. 4780080407

For citation:Gilyarevsky S.R. Criteria for evaluation of the anticoagulant therapy efficacy: the role of «surrogate criteria». Clinical analysis in general medicine. 2024; 5 (2): 6–14. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.47407/kr2023.5.2.00382


All accepted articles publish licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly.

  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Ethics
  • For authors
  • Author fees
  • Peer review
  • Contacts

oa
crossref
анри


  Indexing

doaj
elibrary

Address of the Editorial Office:

127055, Moscow, s/m 37

Correspondence address:

115054, Moscow, Zhukov passage, 19, fl. 2, room XI


Managing Editor:

+7 (495) 926-29-83

id@con-med.ru