Surrogate endpoints in trials—a call for better reporting
===========================================================

* Oriana Ciani
* Anthony M Manyara
* Rod S Taylor

Evidence for the effectiveness of interventions should ideally come from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assess a participant relevant final outcome, such as all-cause mortality.12 However, such trials require large sample sizes, long follow-up times, and are ultimately costly.2 One way to improve trial efficiency is the use of a surrogate endpoint that acts as proxy and predictor for the participant relevant final outcome.3 Over the past 20 years, drug licensing in United States (US) and Europe has allowed the use of surrogate endpoints in the approval of new therapies, typically based on biomarkers e.g. systolic blood pressure and/or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol for cardiovascular death, HIV viral load for development of AIDS, and tumour response for overall survival.3 However, it is important to acknowledge the potential application of surrogates in the wider setting of non-drug trials and the use of intermediate outcomes that may lie more distally on the causal pathway to a final outcome e.g. hospice enrolment for mortality with an intervention aimed at improving end of life care4; fruit and vegetable consumption for cardiovascular events for a behavioural intervention designed to improve cardiovascular risk.5

Despite their benefits, use of surrogate endpoints in evaluation and regulatory approval of health interventions remains highly controversial. First, some drugs, approved on the basis of surrogate endpoints, have failed to deliver improved participant relevant final outcomes, and in some cases, cause more overall harm than benefit, due to “off treatment-surrogate-final outcome pathway” effects.6 A notable illustration is the diabetes drug rosiglitazone, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1999 and European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2000 after a number of short term phase I-III clinical trials, showing that it improved the surrogate endpoints of blood glucose and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c).7 However, meta-analyses of RCTs published some 10 years later together with the large RECORD trial (4447 type 2 diabetes patients followed up for 6 years) with the primary outcome of cardiovascular hospitalisation or cardiovascular death, showed that the addition of rosiglitazone to standard drug therapy did not improve cardiovascular risk, and was associated with increased heart failure hospitalisation and a potential increase in myocardial infarction.7 Following EMA reassessment, rosiglitazone was withdrawn from the UK market in September 2010. Furthermore, trials of surrogate primary outcomes trials have been shown to overestimate the health benefits of interventions by >40% (adjusted ratio of odds ratios: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.05 to 2.04), compared to trials using participant relevant final primary outcomes.8

Surrogate treatment effect overestimation has fundamental implications for payer/reimbursement organisations such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and may result in the funding and introduction of new therapies into healthcare systems that are not truly cost effective.9 Therefore, it would be expected that RCTs using a primary surrogate endpoint pay close attention to this aspect of design in their reporting e.g., clearly stating that the primary outcome is a surrogate, outlining the rationale for its use, and providing evidence of the surrogate endpoint being on the causal pathway or its validity (e.g., meta-analysis of RCTs showing a strong association of the treatment effect on the surrogate endpoint and final participant relevant outcomes10). Unfortunately, this appears not to be the case; the most recent analysis, a review of RCTs published in 2005 and 2006, found that 17% (107/626) used a surrogate primary endpoint and of these, only a third discussed whether the surrogate endpoint was validated.11

Implementing reporting guidelines such as the widely used SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 201312 and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 2010 statements13 can improve completeness of protocol and RCT reporting.14 However, these guidelines and their extensions, including SPIRIT-PRO15 and CONSORT-PRO16) and ongoing CONSORT-Outcomes,17 do not directly address the issues of surrogate endpoint reporting.

## Footnotes

*   Competing interests: We are working on a new initiative to develop guideline extensions specific to surrogate outcomes (‘SPIRIT-SURROGATE’ and ‘CONSORT-SURROGATE’) ([https://www.gla.ac.uk/spirit-consort-surrogate](https://www.gla.ac.uk/spirit-consort-surrogate)). The aims of these extensions are to improve the reporting RCT protocols and reports that use a surrogate primary endpoint. None further declared.

*   Acknowledgments: SPIRIT-SURROGATE/CONSORT-SURROGATE is Medical Research Council Better Research Better Health (MR/V038400/1) funded project. Project Management Group: Philippa Davies, University of Bristol; Derek Stewart, Patient and Public Involvement lead; Christopher Weir, University of Edinburgh; Amber Young, University of Bristol. International Project Advisory Executive Committee members: Joseph Ross, (Chair): Martin Offringa, University of Toronto and Co-Chair of the international SPIRIT/CONSORT-Outcomes Group; Nancy Butcher and Co-Chair of the international SPIRIT/CONSORT-Outcomes Group, University of Toronto; An-Wen Chan, University of Toronto and SPIRIT Group Representative; Gary Collins, University of Oxford and SPIRIT Group Representative; Sylwia Bujkiewicz, University of Leicester, Dalia Dawoud, National Institute of Health and Care Excellence; Mario Ouwens, Astra Zeneca and Chair of the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research taskforce on surrogacy.

*   Provenance and peer review: not commissioned, not peer reviewed.

## References

1.  Akobeng AK. Understanding randomised controlled trials. Arch Dis Child2005;90:840-4. doi:10.1136/adc.2004.058222 pmid:16040885
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTI6ImFyY2hkaXNjaGlsZCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiI5MC84Lzg0MCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjIzOiIvYm1qLzM3OC9ibWoubzE5MTIuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

2.  Hariton E, Locascio JJ. Randomised controlled trials - the gold standard for effectiveness research: Study design: randomised controlled trials. BJOG2018;125:1716. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.15199 pmid:29916205
    
    [CrossRef](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/1471-0528.15199&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29916205&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F378%2Fbmj.o1912.atom) 

3.  Biomarkers Definitions Working Group.Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther2001;69:89-95. doi:10.1067/mcp.2001.113989 pmid:11240971
    
    [CrossRef](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1067/mcp.2001.113989&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11240971&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F378%2Fbmj.o1912.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000167641800001&link_type=ISI) 

4.  Casarett D, Karlawish J, Morales K, Crowley R, Mirsch T, Asch DA. Improving the use of hospice services in nursing homes: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA2005;294:211-7. doi:10.1001/jama.294.2.211 pmid:16014595
    
    [CrossRef](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.294.2.211&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16014595&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F378%2Fbmj.o1912.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000230406100025&link_type=ISI) 

5.  Domke A, Keller J, Heuse S, Wiedemann AU, Lorbeer N, Knoll N. Immediate effects of a very brief planning intervention on fruit and vegetable consumption: A randomized controlled trial. Appl Psychol Health Well Being2021;13:377-93. doi:10.1111/aphw.12254 pmid:33538409
    
    [CrossRef](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/aphw.12254&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33538409&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F378%2Fbmj.o1912.atom) 

6.  Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled?Ann Intern Med1996;125:605-13. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-125-7-199610010-00011 pmid:8815760
    
    [CrossRef](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/0003-4819-125-7-199610010-00011&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8815760&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F378%2Fbmj.o1912.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1996VJ65300011&link_type=ISI) 

7.  Cohen D. Rosiglitazone: what went wrong?BMJ2010;341:c4848. doi:10.1136/bmj.c4848 pmid:20819889
    
    [FREE Full Text](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNDEvc2VwMDZfMi9jNDg0OCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjIzOiIvYm1qLzM3OC9ibWoubzE5MTIuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

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. BMJ2013;346:f457. doi:10.1136/bmj.f457 pmid:23360719
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE2OiIzNDYvamFuMjlfMS9mNDU3IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjM6Ii9ibWovMzc4L2Jtai5vMTkxMi5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

9.  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 Health2017;20:487-95. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.011 pmid:28292495
    
    [CrossRef](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.011&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28292495&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F378%2Fbmj.o1912.atom) 

10. Xie W, Halabi S, Tierney JF, et al. A systematic review and recommendation for reporting of surrogate endpoint evaluation using meta-analyses. JNCI Cancer Spectr2019;3:pkz002. doi:10.1093/jncics/pkz002 pmid:31360890
    
    [CrossRef](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jncics/pkz002&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31360890&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F378%2Fbmj.o1912.atom) 

11. la Cour JL, Brok J, Gøtzsche PC. Inconsistent reporting of surrogate outcomes in randomised clinical trials: cohort study. BMJ2010;341:c3653. doi:10.1136/bmj.c3653 pmid:20719823
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNDEvYXVnMThfMy9jMzY1MyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjIzOiIvYm1qLzM3OC9ibWoubzE5MTIuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

12. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med2013;158:200-7. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583 pmid:23295957
    
    [CrossRef](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23295957&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F378%2Fbmj.o1912.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000314757900007&link_type=ISI) 

13. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ2010;340:c332. doi:10.1136/bmj.c332 pmid:20332509
    
    [FREE Full Text](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE2OiIzNDAvbWFyMjNfMS9jMzMyIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjM6Ii9ibWovMzc4L2Jtai5vMTkxMi5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

14. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D. Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Syst Rev2012;1:60. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-60 pmid:23194585
    
    [CrossRef](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/2046-4053-1-60&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23194585&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F378%2Fbmj.o1912.atom) 

15. Calvert M, King M, Mercieca-Bebber R, et al. SPIRIT-PRO Extension explanation and elaboration: guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in protocols of clinical trials. BMJ Open2021;11:e045105. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045105 pmid:34193486
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTEvNi9lMDQ1MTA1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjM6Ii9ibWovMzc4L2Jtai5vMTkxMi5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

16. Calvert M, Blazeby J, Altman DG, Revicki DA, Moher D, Brundage MD, CONSORT PRO Group. Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA2013;309:814-22. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.879 pmid:23443445
    
    [CrossRef](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2013.879&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23443445&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F378%2Fbmj.o1912.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000315332200027&link_type=ISI) 

17. Butcher NJ, Monsour A, Mew EJ, et al. Improving outcome reporting in clinical trial reports and protocols: study protocol for the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT). Trials2019;20:161. doi:10.1186/s13063-019-3248-0 pmid:30841935
    
    [CrossRef](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13063-019-3248-0&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](https://www.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fbmj%2F378%2Fbmj.o1912.atom)