Bivariate network meta‐analysis for surrogate endpoint evaluation

Surrogate endpoints are very important in regulatory decision making in healthcare, in particular if they can be measured early compared to the long‐term final clinical outcome and act as good predictors of clinical benefit. Bivariate meta‐analysis methods can be used to evaluate surrogate endpoints and to predict the treatment effect on the final outcome from the treatment effect measured on a surrogate endpoint. However, candidate surrogate endpoints are often imperfect, and the level of association between the treatment effects on the surrogate and final outcomes may vary between treatments. This imposes a limitation on methods which do not differentiate between the treatments. We develop bivariate network meta‐analysis (bvNMA) methods, which combine data on treatment effects on the surrogate and final outcomes, from trials investigating multiple treatment contrasts. The bvNMA methods estimate the effects on both outcomes for all treatment contrasts individually in a single analysis. At the same time, they allow us to model the trial‐level surrogacy patterns within each treatment contrast and treatment‐level surrogacy, thus enabling predictions of the treatment effect on the final outcome either for a new study in a new population or for a new treatment. Modelling assumptions about the between‐studies heterogeneity and the network consistency, and their impact on predictions, are investigated using an illustrative example in advanced colorectal cancer and in a simulation study. When the strength of the surrogate relationships varies across treatment contrasts, bvNMA has the advantage of identifying treatment comparisons for which surrogacy holds, thus leading to better predictions.

[1]  Sylwia Bujkiewicz,et al.  A Bayesian hierarchical meta-analytic method for modelling surrogate relationships that vary across treatment classes , 2019, 1905.07194.

[2]  N. Städler,et al.  Combining tumour response and progression free survival as surrogate endpoints for overall survival in advanced colorectal cancer. , 2018, Cancer epidemiology.

[3]  N. Pavlakis,et al.  Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors for metastatic colorectal cancer. , 2017, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[4]  Richard D Riley,et al.  A matrix‐based method of moments for fitting multivariate network meta‐analysis models with multiple outcomes and random inconsistency effects , 2017, Biometrics.

[5]  Blair H. Smith,et al.  Physical activity and exercise for chronic pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews , 2017, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[6]  S. Mocellin,et al.  Second-line systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. , 2017, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[7]  Ariel Alonso,et al.  Applied Surrogate Endpoint Evaluation Methods with SAS and R , 2016 .

[8]  Carolyn A Greig,et al.  Physical fitness training for stroke patients. , 2016, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[9]  Richard D Riley,et al.  Bayesian bivariate meta-analysis of correlated effects: Impact of the prior distributions on the between-study correlation, borrowing of strength, and joint inferences , 2016, Statistical methods in medical research.

[10]  Bradley P Carlin,et al.  A Bayesian missing data framework for generalized multiple outcome mixed treatment comparisons , 2016, Research synthesis methods.

[11]  Richard D Riley,et al.  Bayesian meta‐analytical methods to incorporate multiple surrogate endpoints in drug development process , 2015, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  Kelvin K. W. Chan,et al.  A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Biologic Agents in the First Line Setting for Advanced Colorectal Cancer , 2015, PloS one.

[13]  Bradley P Carlin,et al.  Incorporation of individual‐patient data in network meta‐analysis for multiple continuous endpoints, with application to diabetes treatment , 2015, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  B. Carlin,et al.  Detecting outlying trials in network meta‐analysis , 2015, Statistics in medicine.

[15]  Keith R Abrams,et al.  Uncertainty in the Bayesian meta-analysis of normally distributed surrogate endpoints , 2015, Statistical methods in medical research.

[16]  T. Walsh,et al.  Exercise rehabilitation following intensive care unit discharge for recovery from critical illness. , 2015, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[17]  J. Staessen,et al.  Multivariate meta-analysis using individual participant data , 2014, Research synthesis methods.

[18]  Nicola J Cooper,et al.  Network meta-analysis of multiple outcome measures accounting for borrowing of information across outcomes , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[19]  Dimitris Mavridis,et al.  An approach for modelling multiple correlated outcomes in a network of interventions using odds ratios , 2014, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  Yinghui Wei,et al.  Bayesian multivariate meta‐analysis with multiple outcomes , 2013, Statistics in medicine.

[21]  Nicola J Cooper,et al.  Multivariate meta-analysis of mixed outcomes: a Bayesian approach , 2013, Statistics in medicine.

[22]  Yinghui Wei,et al.  Estimating within-study covariances in multivariate meta-analysis with multiple outcomes , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[23]  Bradley P Carlin,et al.  Bayesian adjusted R2 for the meta‐analytic evaluation of surrogate time‐to‐event endpoints in clinical trials , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[24]  K. Johnson,et al.  Is blood pressure reduction a valid surrogate endpoint for stroke prevention? an analysis incorporating a systematic review of randomised controlled trials, a by-trial weighted errors-in-variables regression, the surrogate threshold effect (STE) and the biomarker-surrogacy (BioSurrogate) evaluation , 2012, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[25]  Wolfgang Viechtbauer,et al.  Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta‐analysis , 2010, Research synthesis methods.

[26]  Guobing Lu,et al.  Modeling between-trial variance structure in mixed treatment comparisons. , 2009, Biostatistics.

[27]  J. Haerting,et al.  Anti-angiogenic therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer. , 2009, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[28]  P C Lambert,et al.  An evaluation of bivariate random‐effects meta‐analysis for the joint synthesis of two correlated outcomes , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[29]  Geert Molenberghs,et al.  Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints , 2006, Handbook of Statistical Methods for Randomized Controlled Trials.

[30]  G. Lu,et al.  Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[31]  J. Berlin,et al.  Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[32]  M. Pourahmadi,et al.  Bayesian analysis of covariance matrices and dynamic models for longitudinal data , 2002 .

[33]  Theo Stijnen,et al.  Advanced methods in meta‐analysis: multivariate approach and meta‐regression , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[34]  G. Molenberghs,et al.  The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. , 2000, Biostatistics.

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

[36]  S. Papson,et al.  “Model” , 1981 .

[37]  G. Molenberghs,et al.  Validation of surrogate end points in multiple randomized clinical trials with failure time end points , 2001 .