title: Links between analysis of surrogate endpoints and endogeneity.
abstract: There has been substantive interest in the assessment of surrogate endpoints in medical research. These are measures that could potentially replace 'true' endpoints in clinical trials and lead to studies that require less follow-up. Recent research in the area has focused on assessments using causal inference frameworks. Beginning with a simple model for associating the surrogate and true endpoints in the population, we approach the problem as one of endogenous covariates. An instrumental variables estimator and general two-stage algorithm are proposed. Existing surrogacy frameworks are then evaluated in the context of the model. In addition, we define an extended relative effect estimator as well as a sensitivity analysis for assessing what we term the treatment instrumentality assumption. A numerical example is used to illustrate the methodology.
authors.affiliation: Department of Statistics, Penn State University, University Park, PA, USA. ghoshd@psu.edu
authors.forename: Debashis
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Ghosh
authors.forename: Michael R
authors.initials: MR
authors.lastname: Elliott
authors.forename: Jeremy M G
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Taylor
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D015415:Biomarkers; D056808:Biostatistics / Q000379:methods*; D015984:Causality; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D023381:Endpoint Determination / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D005901:Glaucoma / Q000628:therapy; D006801:Humans; D015233:Models, Statistical; D017711:Nonlinear Dynamics
chemical_list: D015415:Biomarkers
references.citation: Stat Med. 1989 Apr;8(4):431-40
references.pmid: 2727467
references.citation: Stat Med. 1997 Sep 15;16(17):1965-82
references.pmid: 9304767
references.citation: Biometrics. 2005 Dec;61(4):1102-11
references.pmid: 16401284
references.citation: Stat Med. 1992 Jan 30;11(2):167-78
references.pmid: 1579756
references.citation: Biometrics. 2008 Dec;64(4):1146-54
references.pmid: 18363776
references.citation: Biometrics. 2009 Jun;65(2):530-8
references.pmid: 18759836
references.citation: J Health Econ. 2008 May;27(3):531-43
references.pmid: 18192044
references.citation: Biostatistics. 2000 Mar;1(1):49-67
references.pmid: 12933525
references.citation: Biometrics. 2002 Mar;58(1):21-9
references.pmid: 11890317
references.citation: Biometrics. 2002 Dec;58(4):803-12
references.pmid: 12495134
references.citation: Epidemiology. 1992 Mar;3(2):143-55
references.pmid: 1576220
references.citation: Stat Med. 2004 May 30;23(10):1571-8
references.pmid: 15122737
references.citation: Biostatistics. 2000 Sep;1(3):231-46
references.pmid: 12933506
references.citation: JAMA. 2007 Jan 17;297(3):278-85
references.pmid: 17227979
references.citation: Biometrics. 1998 Sep;54(3):1014-29
references.pmid: 9840970
references.citation: Ophthalmology. 1999 Apr;106(4):653-62
references.pmid: 10201583
references.citation: Stat Med. 2006 Feb 15;25(3):389-413
references.pmid: 16382420
references.citation: Int J Biostat. 2008 Apr 07;4(1):Article 4
references.pmid: 20231915
references.citation: Biometrics. 2010 Jun;66(2):523-31
references.pmid: 19673864