Statistical Validation of Surrogate Endpoints: Another Look at the Prentice Criterion and Other Criteria

Abstract

For the statistical validation of surrogate endpoints, an alternative formulation is proposed for testing Prentice’s fourth criterion, under a bivariate normal model. In such a setup, the criterion involves inference concerning an appropriate regression parameter, and the criterion holds if the regression parameter is zero. Testing such a null hypothesis has been criticized in the literature since it can only be used to reject a poor surrogate, and not to validate a good surrogate. In order to circumvent this, an equivalence hypothesis is formulated for the regression parameter, namely the hypothesis that the parameter is equivalent to zero. Such an equivalence hypothesis is formulated as an alternative hypothesis, so that the surrogate endpoint is statistically validated when the null hypothesis is rejected. Confidence intervals for the regression parameter and tests for the equivalence hypothesis are proposed using bootstrap methods and small sample asymptotics, and their performances are numerically evaluated and recommendations are made. The choice of the equivalence margin is a regulatory issue that needs to be addressed. The proposed equivalence testing formulation is also adopted for other parameters that have been proposed in the literature on surrogate endpoint validation, namely, the relative effect and proportion explained.

Key Words:

• Bioequivalence
• Bootstrap calibration
• Equivalence hypothesis
• Modified signed log-likelihood ratio test statistic
• Proportion explained
• Relative effect
• Signed log-likelihood ratio test statistic.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are grateful to two reviewers for several helpful suggestions.