[Surrogate end points--somewhere between essential and not worth discussing]

Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(3):161-7. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.03.012. Epub 2012 Apr 12.
[Article in German]

Abstract

Surrogate markers are only acceptable in single exceptional cases to demonstrate a patient related true outcome in medical care. This is especially true in drug therapy. Although many surrogate markers are correlated with an outcome, only a few have been shown to capture the effect of a treatment on the outcome. The examples for aberrations in medical care are numerous: They include menopausal hormone therapy, the prevention of cancer or cardiovascular diseases with vitamins, the therapy of cardiac arrhythmias using a special type of drugs as well as the treatment of osteoporosis with fluoride. All these treatments caused more harm than good to the patients; and very often mortality increased. In summary, most of the surrogate markers are not worth discussing, and they should not be utilised to demonstrate patient related outcome; they may only be acceptable in rare cases and would then have to be rigorously validated to protect patients from harm.

Publication types

  • Review

MeSH terms

  • Anti-Arrhythmia Agents / adverse effects
  • Anti-Arrhythmia Agents / therapeutic use
  • Arrhythmias, Cardiac / drug therapy
  • Biomarkers*
  • Cardiovascular Diseases / drug therapy
  • Drug Therapy*
  • Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
  • Estrogen Replacement Therapy / adverse effects
  • Evidence-Based Medicine*
  • Fluorides / adverse effects
  • Fluorides / therapeutic use
  • Germany
  • Humans
  • Neoplasms / prevention & control
  • Osteoporosis / drug therapy
  • Outcome Assessment, Health Care*
  • Practice Guidelines as Topic
  • Quality Assurance, Health Care
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Vitamins / adverse effects
  • Vitamins / therapeutic use

Substances

  • Anti-Arrhythmia Agents
  • Biomarkers
  • Vitamins
  • Fluorides