Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: Preferred definitions and conceptual framework

genome are dramatically reshaping the research and development pathways for drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics. The growth in the number of molecular entities entering the drug development pipeline has accelerated as a consequence of powerful discovery and screening technologies such as combinatorial chemistry, mass spectrometry, high throughput screening, celland tissue-based DNA microarrays, and proteomic approaches.1 As a consequence, there is an escalating number of therapeutic candidates, which has caused the need for new technologies and strategies to streamline the process to make safe and effective therapies available to patients. One approach to the achievement of more expeditious and informative therapeutic research is the use of precise clinical measurement tools to determine disease progression and the effects of interventions (drugs, surgery, and vaccines). For example, gene-based approaches such as single nucleotide polymorphism maps are now being developed to distinguish the molecular and cellular basis for variations in clinical response to therapy.2 Another approach is the use of a wide array of analytical tools to assess biological parameters, which are referred to as biomarkers. Biomarker measurements can help explain empirical results of clinical trials by relating the effects of interventions on molecular and cellular pathways to clinical responses. In doing so, biomarkers provide an avenue for researchers to gain a mechanistic understanding of the differences in clinical response that may be influenced by uncontrolled variables (for example, drug metabolism). There are a variety of ways that biomarker measurements can aid in the development and evaluation of COMMENTARY

[1]  M. Bobbio [Surrogate end points]. , 2000, Italian heart journal. Supplement : official journal of the Italian Federation of Cardiology.

[2]  Ash A. Alizadeh,et al.  Distinct types of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma identified by gene expression profiling , 2000, Nature.

[3]  R. Temple,et al.  Are surrogate markers adequate to assess cardiovascular disease drugs? , 1999, JAMA.

[4]  T. Fleming,et al.  Surrogate end points, health outcomes, and the drug-approval process for the treatment of risk factors for cardiovascular disease. , 1999, JAMA.

[5]  M. Pfeffer,et al.  Long-Term Effects of Pravastatin on Plasma Concentration of C-reactive Protein , 1999 .

[6]  P. Flandre,et al.  Estimating the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker by D. Y. Lin, T. R. Fleming and V. De Gruttola, Statistics in Medicine, 16, 1515–1527 (1997) , 1999 .

[7]  P. Ridker Evaluating Novel Cardiovascular Risk Factors: Can We Better Predict Heart Attacks? , 1999, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[8]  R. Thomas,et al.  Tumor clearance of technetium 99m-sestamibi as a predictor of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. , 1998, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[9]  Anton Pozniak,et al.  Surrogacy in HIV-1 clinical trials , 1998, The Lancet.

[10]  P. Rolan The contribution of clinical pharmacology surrogates and models to drug development--a critical appraisal. , 2003, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[11]  R. Santella DNA Damage as an Intermediate Biomarker in Intervention Studies , 1997, Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine. Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine.

[12]  M J Daniels,et al.  Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  V De Gruttola,et al.  Estimating the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  D. DeMets,et al.  Surrogate End Points in Clinical Trials: Are We Being Misled? , 1996, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[15]  W. Colburn,et al.  Efficacy Measures: Surrogates or Clinical Outcomes? , 1996, Journal of clinical pharmacology.

[16]  L. Deyton Importance of surrogate markers in evaluation of antiviral therapy for HIV infection. , 1996, JAMA.

[17]  J D Tucker,et al.  New molecular endpoints and methods for routine toxicity testing. , 1995, Fundamental and applied toxicology : official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[18]  M D Hughes,et al.  Evaluating surrogate markers. , 1995, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes and human retrovirology : official publication of the International Retrovirology Association.

[19]  Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) , 1994, The Lancet.

[20]  N. Volkow,et al.  Slow recovery of human brain MAO B after L‐Deprenyl (Selegeline) withdrawal , 1994, Synapse.

[21]  S W Lagakos,et al.  Surrogate Markers in AIDS: Where Are We? Where Are We Going? , 1992, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[22]  B. Graubard,et al.  Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. , 1992, Statistics in medicine.

[23]  H L Greene,et al.  Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. , 1991, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  John I. Gallin,et al.  A controlled trial of interferon gamma to prevent infection in chronic granulomatous disease. The International Chronic Granulomatous Disease Cooperative Study Group. , 1991, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. Final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). SHEP Cooperative Research Group. , 1991, JAMA.

[26]  R. Prentice Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. , 1989, Statistics in medicine.

[27]  F. Royal A survey of the pharmaceutical industry in the British Zone of Germany. , 1947, The Pharmaceutical journal.