scholarly journals Decision-making given surrogate outcomes

Author(s):  
J. André Knottnerus ◽  
Bart J. Knottnerus
Author(s):  
Yelan Guo ◽  
Caroline Bregman ◽  
Nicole Elliott

IntroductionThe use of surrogate outcomes in health technology assessment (HTA) is increasing and methods for validating surrogate relationships have been published. However, these may not be fully applicable to ultra-rare diseases due to challenges such as scarcity of evidence and heterogenous populations. This study reviews and summarizes the use of surrogate outcomes and committee's considerations in the evaluations within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) Highly Specialised Technology (HST) programme, which was established in 2013 in response to the challenges associated with the assessment of ultra-rare diseases.MethodsAll HST evaluation documents published before November 2020 were reviewed. Data extracted included surrogate outcomes used, rationales, the committee's considerations on the validity and generalizability of the surrogate relationships, related uncertainties, and other factors considered in decision-making.ResultsSeven out of the eighteen published HST topics used surrogate outcomes. The rationale for most of the surrogate relationships focused on biological plausibility. Common concerns raised by the committee included the generalizability of the surrogate relationship to the condition of interest, the lack of validation, and inability to prove or quantify the magnitude of benefits associated with the surrogate relationships. In some topics, other aspects of the evidence and clinical/patient expert's opinions were also considered by the committee.ConclusionsThe use of surrogate outcomes is common in NICE HST evaluations and the challenges in supporting surrogate relationships with more than biological plausibility are recognized. However, our review indicates that, the committee considers more than just biological plausibility and will take into account other related factors.


2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. 21-22
Author(s):  
Milton Rodriguez-Zuniga ◽  
Paola Rivera-Ramirez ◽  
Fabian Fiestas-Saldarriaga

IntroductionDecision making in publicly funded healthcare systems must rely on patient-relevant outcomes that directly measure clinical benefit, such as overall survival and quality of life (QoL). However, studies that support market authorization of oncology drugs usually assess surrogate outcomes, without having previously demonstrated that these intermediate outcomes reliably predict clinical outcomes. As part of an HTA process, we evaluated the clinical benefit of osimertinib, compared with platinum-pemetrexed combination chemotherapy, in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M mutation-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has progressed after first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of the PubMed database for randomized controlled trials (RCT) published from inception to January 2019. The clinical outcomes of interest were overall survival and QoL. Where trials reported surrogate outcomes, we conducted additional PubMed searches for evidence of validity for predicting clinical outcomes and used guidance on surrogate outcome validation in oncology from the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care.ResultsEvidence on osimertinib, compared with chemotherapy, for patients with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC that has progressed after EGFR-TKI therapy was obtained from the AURA3 trial. In this study, overall survival data were immature and the results for QoL and symptom domains were not clinically meaningful. In addition, median progression-free survival (PFS) was six months longer for osimertinib than for chemotherapy. However, to date, no study has demonstrated that PFS reliably predicts longer survival or better QoL.ConclusionsOur HTA suggested that, unless proven, PFS should not be used as a valid surrogate outcome for decision making in public health. For example, the results of the AURA3 trial showed that osimertinib has an effect on the surrogate outcome of PFS in patients with EGFR T790M-positive advanced NSCLC that has progressed after first-line EGFR-TKI therapy, but not on the clinically relevant outcomes of overall survival and QoL. Furthermore, currently available evidence has failed to prove that PFS reliably predicts outcomes that are clinically relevant. Despite this, osimertinib has been given marketing authorization and is widely recommended in clinical guidelines.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Simen ◽  
Fuat Balcı

AbstractRahnev & Denison (R&D) argue against normative theories and in favor of a more descriptive “standard observer model” of perceptual decision making. We agree with the authors in many respects, but we argue that optimality (specifically, reward-rate maximization) has proved demonstrably useful as a hypothesis, contrary to the authors’ claims.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Danks

AbstractThe target article uses a mathematical framework derived from Bayesian decision making to demonstrate suboptimal decision making but then attributes psychological reality to the framework components. Rahnev & Denison's (R&D) positive proposal thus risks ignoring plausible psychological theories that could implement complex perceptual decision making. We must be careful not to slide from success with an analytical tool to the reality of the tool components.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux

AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.


2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (01) ◽  
pp. 46
Author(s):  
David R. Shanks ◽  
Ben R. Newell

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (01) ◽  
pp. 48
Author(s):  
David R. Shanks ◽  
Ben R. Newell

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie F. Reyna ◽  
David A. Broniatowski

Abstract Gilead et al. offer a thoughtful and much-needed treatment of abstraction. However, it fails to build on an extensive literature on abstraction, representational diversity, neurocognition, and psychopathology that provides important constraints and alternative evidence-based conceptions. We draw on conceptions in software engineering, socio-technical systems engineering, and a neurocognitive theory with abstract representations of gist at its core, fuzzy-trace theory.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document