Hard, harder, hardest: principal stratification, statistical identifiability, and the inherent difficulty of finding surrogate endpoints
Tóm tắt
In many areas of clinical investigation there is great interest in identifying and validating surrogate endpoints, biomarkers that can be measured a relatively short time after a treatment has been administered and that can reliably predict the effect of treatment on the clinical outcome of interest. However, despite dramatic advances in the ability to measure biomarkers, the recent history of clinical research is littered with failed surrogates. In this paper, we present a statistical perspective on why identifying surrogate endpoints is so difficult. We view the problem from the framework of causal inference, with a particular focus on the technique of principal stratification (PS), an approach which is appealing because the resulting estimands are not biased by unmeasured confounding. In many settings, PS estimands are not statistically identifiable and their degree of non-identifiability can be thought of as representing the statistical difficulty of assessing the surrogate value of a biomarker. In this work, we examine the identifiability issue and present key simplifying assumptions and enhanced study designs that enable the partial or full identification of PS estimands. We also present example situations where these assumptions and designs may or may not be feasible, providing insight into the problem characteristics which make the statistical evaluation of surrogate endpoints so challenging.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Fleming TRT, DeMets DLD: Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled?. Ann Internal Med. 1996, 125 (7): 605-613. doi: 10.1059/0003-4819-125-7-199610010-00011
Wolfson J, Gilbert P: Statistical identifiability and the surrogate endpoint problem, with application to vaccine trials. Biometrics. 2010, 66 (4): 1153-1161. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2009.01380.x
Buyse M, Molenberghs G, Burzykowski T, Renard D, Geys H: The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics. 2010, 1 (1): 49-67. doi:10.1093/biostatistics/1.1.49
Gail MH, Pfeiffer R, Van Houwelingen HC, Carroll RJ, Houwelingen HCV: On meta-analytic assessment of surrogate outcomes. Biostatistics. 2000, 1 (3): 231-246. doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/1.3.231
Little RJ, Rubin DB: Causal effects in clinical and epidemiological studies via potential outcomes: concepts and analytical approaches. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000, 21 (1): 121-145. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.121
Pearl J: Causation, action, and counterfactuals. TARK ’96: Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge. 1996, 51-73. [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1029693.1029698], The Netherlands: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, []
Joffe MM, Greene T: Related causal frameworks for surrogate outcomes. Biometrics. 2009, 65 (2): 530-538. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2008.01106.x
Prentice RL: Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med. 1989, 8 (4): 431-440. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780080407
Baron R, Kenny D: The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986, 51 (6): 1173-82.
Lin DY, Fischl MA, Schoenfeld DA: Evaluating the role of CD4-lymphocyte counts as surrogate endpoints in human immunodeficiency virus clinical trials. Stat Med. 1993, 12 (9): 835-842. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780120904
Collette L, Burzykowski T, Schröder FH: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) alone is not an appropriate surrogate marker of long-term therapeutic benefit in prostate cancer trials. Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England : 1990). 2006, 42 (10): 1344-50. 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.02.011. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.02.011
Gabler NB, French B, Strom BL, Palevsky HI, Taichman DB, Kawut SM, Halpern SD: Validation of 6-minute walk distance as a surrogate end point in pulmonary arterial hypertension trials. Circulation. 2012, 126 (3): 349-56. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.105890
Daniels MJ, Roy JA, Kim C, Hogan JW, Perri MG: Bayesian inference for the causal effect of mediation. Biometrics. 2012, 68 (4): 1028-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2012.01781.x
Vanderweele TJ, Vansteelandt S: Odds ratios for mediation analysis for a dichotomous outcome. Am J Epidemiol. 2010, 172 (12): 1339-48. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwq332 10.1093/aje/kwq332
VanderWeele TJ: Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiol (Cambridge, Mass.). 2010, 21 (4): 540-51. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181df191c
VanderWeele T, Vansteelandt S: Conceptual issues concerning mediation, interventions and composition. Stat Interface. 2009, 2: 457-468. 10.4310/SII.2009.v2.n4.a7
Vanderweele TJ: Surrogate measures and consistent surrogates. Biometrics. 2013, 69 (3): 561-569. doi: 10.1111/biom.12071
Frangakis CE, Rubin DB: Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics. 2002, 58 (1): 21-29. doi: 10.2307/3068286
Gilbert PB, Hudgens MG: Evaluating candidate principal surrogate endpoints. Biometrics. 2008, 64 (4): 1146-1154. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2008.01014.x
Zigler CM, Belin TR: A Bayesian approach to improved estimation of causal effect predictiveness for a principal surrogate endpoint. Biometrics. 2012, 68 (3): 922-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01736.x
Huang Y, Gilbert PB, Wolfson J: Design and estimation for evaluating principal surrogate markers in vaccine trials. Biometrics. 2013, 69 (2): 301-309. doi: 10.1111/biom.12014
Conlon ASC, Taylor JMG, Elliott MR: Surrogacy assessment using principal stratification when surrogate and outcome measures are multivariate normal. Biostat (Oxford, England). 2014, 15 (2): 266-83.doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxt051
Robins JJM, Greenland S: Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 1992, 3 (2): 143-155. doi: 10.2307/3702894
Hudgens MG, Halloran ME: Toward causal inference with interference. J Am Stat Assoc. 2008, 103 (482): 832-842. doi: 10.1198/016214508000000292
Jin H, Rubin DB: Principal stratification for causal inference with extended partial compliance. J Am Stat Assoc. 2008, 103 (481): 101-111. doi: 10.1198/016214507000000347
Efron B, Feldman D: Compliance as an explanatory variable in clinical trials. J Am Stat Assoc. 1991, 86 (413): 9-17. 10.1080/01621459.1991.10474996.
Goetghebeur E, Molenberghs G: Causal inference in a placebo-controlled clinical trial with binary outcome and ordered compliance. J Am Stat Assoc. 1996, 91 (435): 928-934. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1996.10476962
Follmann D: Augmented designs to assess immune response in vaccine trials. Biometrics. 2006, 62 (4): 1161-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2006.00569.x
Woods JR: The two-period crossover design in medical research. Ann Internal Med. 1989, 110 (7): 560. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-110-7-560
Donovan SJ: Divalproex treatment for youth with explosive temper and mood lability: a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover design. Am J Psychiatry. 2000, 157 (5): 818-820. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.157.5.818
Moldoveanu Z, Clements ML, Prince SJ, Murphy BR, Mestecky J: Human immune responses to influenza virus vaccines administered by systemic or mucosal routes. Vaccine. 1995, 13 (11): 1006-12. 10.1016/0264-410X(95)00016-T
Krumholz HM, Chen Y-T, Wang Y, Vaccarino V, Radford MJ, Horwitz RI: Predictors of readmission among elderly survivors of admission with heart failure. Am Heart J. 2000, 139 (1): 72-77. doi:10.1016/S0002-8703(00)90311-9
May A, Wang TJ: Biomarkers for cardiovascular disease: challenges and future directions. Trends Mol Med. 2008, 14 (6): 261-7. doi: 10.1016/j.molmed.2008.04.003
Vasan RS: Biomarkers of cardiovascular disease: molecular basis and practical considerations. Circulation. 2006, 113 (19): 2335-62. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.482570
Berk BC, Weintraub WS, Alexander RW: Elevation of C-reactive protein in “active” coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 1990, 65 (3): 168-72. 10.1016/0002-9149(90)90079-G