Definitions and validation criteria for biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: Development and testing of a quantitative hierarchical levels of evidence schema

Marissa N. Lassere, Kent R. Johnson, Maarten Boers, Peter Tugwell, Peter Brooks, Lee Simon, Vibeke Strand, Philip G. Conaghan, Mikkel Østergaard, Walter P. Maksymowych, Robert Landewé, Barry Bresnihan, Paul Peter Tak, Richard Wakefield, Philip Mease, Clifton Bingham, Michael Hughes, Doug Altman, Marc Buyse, Sally GalbraithGeorge Wells

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective. There are clear advantages to using biomarkers and surrogate endpoints, but concerns about clinical and statistical validity and systematic methods to evaluate these aspects hinder their efficient application. Our objective was to review the literature on biomarkers and surrogates to develop a hierarchical schema that systematically evaluates and ranks the surrogacy status of biomarkers and surrogates; and to obtain feedback from stakeholders. Methods. After a systematic search of Medline and Embase on biomarkers, surrogate (outcomes, endpoints, markers, indicators), intermediate endpoints, and leading indicators, a quantitative surrogate validation schema was developed and subsequently evaluated at a stakeholder workshop. Results. The search identified several classification schema and definitions. Components of these were incorporated into a new quantitative surrogate validation level of evidence schema that evaluates biomarkers along 4 domains: Target, Study Design, Statistical Strength, and Penalties. Scores derived from 3 domains - the Target that the marker is being substituted for, the Design of the (best) evidence, and the Statistical strength - are additive. Penalties are then applied if there is serious counterevidence. A total score (0 to 15) determines the level of evidence, with Level 1 the strongest and Level 5 the weakest. It was proposed that the term "surrogate" be restricted to markers attaining Levels 1 or 2 only. Most stakeholders agreed that this operationalization of the National Institutes of Health definitions of biomarker, surrogate endpoint, and clinical endpoint was useful. Conclusion. Further development and application of this schema provides incentives and guidance for effective biomarker and surrogate endpoint research, and more efficient drug discovery, development, and approval.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)607-615
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Rheumatology
Volume34
Issue number3
StatePublished - Mar 2007

Fingerprint

Biomarkers
Drug Approval
National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
Drug Discovery
Motivation
Education
Research

Keywords

  • Biomarker
  • Levels of evidence
  • Predictive factors
  • Surrogate
  • Trial endpoint

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Rheumatology
  • Immunology

Cite this

Lassere, M. N., Johnson, K. R., Boers, M., Tugwell, P., Brooks, P., Simon, L., ... Wells, G. (2007). Definitions and validation criteria for biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: Development and testing of a quantitative hierarchical levels of evidence schema. Journal of Rheumatology, 34(3), 607-615.

Definitions and validation criteria for biomarkers and surrogate endpoints : Development and testing of a quantitative hierarchical levels of evidence schema. / Lassere, Marissa N.; Johnson, Kent R.; Boers, Maarten; Tugwell, Peter; Brooks, Peter; Simon, Lee; Strand, Vibeke; Conaghan, Philip G.; Østergaard, Mikkel; Maksymowych, Walter P.; Landewé, Robert; Bresnihan, Barry; Tak, Paul Peter; Wakefield, Richard; Mease, Philip; Bingham, Clifton; Hughes, Michael; Altman, Doug; Buyse, Marc; Galbraith, Sally; Wells, George.

In: Journal of Rheumatology, Vol. 34, No. 3, 03.2007, p. 607-615.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lassere, MN, Johnson, KR, Boers, M, Tugwell, P, Brooks, P, Simon, L, Strand, V, Conaghan, PG, Østergaard, M, Maksymowych, WP, Landewé, R, Bresnihan, B, Tak, PP, Wakefield, R, Mease, P, Bingham, C, Hughes, M, Altman, D, Buyse, M, Galbraith, S & Wells, G 2007, 'Definitions and validation criteria for biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: Development and testing of a quantitative hierarchical levels of evidence schema', Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 607-615.
Lassere, Marissa N. ; Johnson, Kent R. ; Boers, Maarten ; Tugwell, Peter ; Brooks, Peter ; Simon, Lee ; Strand, Vibeke ; Conaghan, Philip G. ; Østergaard, Mikkel ; Maksymowych, Walter P. ; Landewé, Robert ; Bresnihan, Barry ; Tak, Paul Peter ; Wakefield, Richard ; Mease, Philip ; Bingham, Clifton ; Hughes, Michael ; Altman, Doug ; Buyse, Marc ; Galbraith, Sally ; Wells, George. / Definitions and validation criteria for biomarkers and surrogate endpoints : Development and testing of a quantitative hierarchical levels of evidence schema. In: Journal of Rheumatology. 2007 ; Vol. 34, No. 3. pp. 607-615.
@article{e7a35596c4df471ebbf9f9b87d84cb6a,
title = "Definitions and validation criteria for biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: Development and testing of a quantitative hierarchical levels of evidence schema",
abstract = "Objective. There are clear advantages to using biomarkers and surrogate endpoints, but concerns about clinical and statistical validity and systematic methods to evaluate these aspects hinder their efficient application. Our objective was to review the literature on biomarkers and surrogates to develop a hierarchical schema that systematically evaluates and ranks the surrogacy status of biomarkers and surrogates; and to obtain feedback from stakeholders. Methods. After a systematic search of Medline and Embase on biomarkers, surrogate (outcomes, endpoints, markers, indicators), intermediate endpoints, and leading indicators, a quantitative surrogate validation schema was developed and subsequently evaluated at a stakeholder workshop. Results. The search identified several classification schema and definitions. Components of these were incorporated into a new quantitative surrogate validation level of evidence schema that evaluates biomarkers along 4 domains: Target, Study Design, Statistical Strength, and Penalties. Scores derived from 3 domains - the Target that the marker is being substituted for, the Design of the (best) evidence, and the Statistical strength - are additive. Penalties are then applied if there is serious counterevidence. A total score (0 to 15) determines the level of evidence, with Level 1 the strongest and Level 5 the weakest. It was proposed that the term {"}surrogate{"} be restricted to markers attaining Levels 1 or 2 only. Most stakeholders agreed that this operationalization of the National Institutes of Health definitions of biomarker, surrogate endpoint, and clinical endpoint was useful. Conclusion. Further development and application of this schema provides incentives and guidance for effective biomarker and surrogate endpoint research, and more efficient drug discovery, development, and approval.",
keywords = "Biomarker, Levels of evidence, Predictive factors, Surrogate, Trial endpoint",
author = "Lassere, {Marissa N.} and Johnson, {Kent R.} and Maarten Boers and Peter Tugwell and Peter Brooks and Lee Simon and Vibeke Strand and Conaghan, {Philip G.} and Mikkel {\O}stergaard and Maksymowych, {Walter P.} and Robert Landew{\'e} and Barry Bresnihan and Tak, {Paul Peter} and Richard Wakefield and Philip Mease and Clifton Bingham and Michael Hughes and Doug Altman and Marc Buyse and Sally Galbraith and George Wells",
year = "2007",
month = "3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
pages = "607--615",
journal = "Journal of Rheumatology",
issn = "0315-162X",
publisher = "Journal of Rheumatology",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Definitions and validation criteria for biomarkers and surrogate endpoints

T2 - Development and testing of a quantitative hierarchical levels of evidence schema

AU - Lassere, Marissa N.

AU - Johnson, Kent R.

AU - Boers, Maarten

AU - Tugwell, Peter

AU - Brooks, Peter

AU - Simon, Lee

AU - Strand, Vibeke

AU - Conaghan, Philip G.

AU - Østergaard, Mikkel

AU - Maksymowych, Walter P.

AU - Landewé, Robert

AU - Bresnihan, Barry

AU - Tak, Paul Peter

AU - Wakefield, Richard

AU - Mease, Philip

AU - Bingham, Clifton

AU - Hughes, Michael

AU - Altman, Doug

AU - Buyse, Marc

AU - Galbraith, Sally

AU - Wells, George

PY - 2007/3

Y1 - 2007/3

N2 - Objective. There are clear advantages to using biomarkers and surrogate endpoints, but concerns about clinical and statistical validity and systematic methods to evaluate these aspects hinder their efficient application. Our objective was to review the literature on biomarkers and surrogates to develop a hierarchical schema that systematically evaluates and ranks the surrogacy status of biomarkers and surrogates; and to obtain feedback from stakeholders. Methods. After a systematic search of Medline and Embase on biomarkers, surrogate (outcomes, endpoints, markers, indicators), intermediate endpoints, and leading indicators, a quantitative surrogate validation schema was developed and subsequently evaluated at a stakeholder workshop. Results. The search identified several classification schema and definitions. Components of these were incorporated into a new quantitative surrogate validation level of evidence schema that evaluates biomarkers along 4 domains: Target, Study Design, Statistical Strength, and Penalties. Scores derived from 3 domains - the Target that the marker is being substituted for, the Design of the (best) evidence, and the Statistical strength - are additive. Penalties are then applied if there is serious counterevidence. A total score (0 to 15) determines the level of evidence, with Level 1 the strongest and Level 5 the weakest. It was proposed that the term "surrogate" be restricted to markers attaining Levels 1 or 2 only. Most stakeholders agreed that this operationalization of the National Institutes of Health definitions of biomarker, surrogate endpoint, and clinical endpoint was useful. Conclusion. Further development and application of this schema provides incentives and guidance for effective biomarker and surrogate endpoint research, and more efficient drug discovery, development, and approval.

AB - Objective. There are clear advantages to using biomarkers and surrogate endpoints, but concerns about clinical and statistical validity and systematic methods to evaluate these aspects hinder their efficient application. Our objective was to review the literature on biomarkers and surrogates to develop a hierarchical schema that systematically evaluates and ranks the surrogacy status of biomarkers and surrogates; and to obtain feedback from stakeholders. Methods. After a systematic search of Medline and Embase on biomarkers, surrogate (outcomes, endpoints, markers, indicators), intermediate endpoints, and leading indicators, a quantitative surrogate validation schema was developed and subsequently evaluated at a stakeholder workshop. Results. The search identified several classification schema and definitions. Components of these were incorporated into a new quantitative surrogate validation level of evidence schema that evaluates biomarkers along 4 domains: Target, Study Design, Statistical Strength, and Penalties. Scores derived from 3 domains - the Target that the marker is being substituted for, the Design of the (best) evidence, and the Statistical strength - are additive. Penalties are then applied if there is serious counterevidence. A total score (0 to 15) determines the level of evidence, with Level 1 the strongest and Level 5 the weakest. It was proposed that the term "surrogate" be restricted to markers attaining Levels 1 or 2 only. Most stakeholders agreed that this operationalization of the National Institutes of Health definitions of biomarker, surrogate endpoint, and clinical endpoint was useful. Conclusion. Further development and application of this schema provides incentives and guidance for effective biomarker and surrogate endpoint research, and more efficient drug discovery, development, and approval.

KW - Biomarker

KW - Levels of evidence

KW - Predictive factors

KW - Surrogate

KW - Trial endpoint

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33847628809&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33847628809&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 17343307

AN - SCOPUS:33847628809

VL - 34

SP - 607

EP - 615

JO - Journal of Rheumatology

JF - Journal of Rheumatology

SN - 0315-162X

IS - 3

ER -