Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 314–320 | Cite as

Surrogate endpoints in Parkinson’s disease research

  • Kevin M. Biglan
  • Robert G. Holloway
Article

Abstract

Biomarkers are important tools in understanding the underlying mechanisms of causation, progression, and treatment effects in Parkinson’s disease (PD). In addition, these biomarkers may be utilized as surrogate endpoints that, when used appropriately, can lead to important advances in therapeutics in a timely and cost-effective manner. This paper outlines the definition, role, validity process, and risks associated with surrogate endpoints. The use of biomarkers in recent PD clinical trials is discussed and potential shortcomings and unanswered questions related to interpreting these outcomes are reviewed. Finally, the significant challenges that lie ahead for validating and interpreting surrogate endpoints in PD are addressed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Temple RJ: A regulatory authority’s opinion about surrogate endpoints. In Clinical Measurement in Drug Evaluation. Edited by Nimmo WS, Tucker GT. New York: Wiley; 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schatzkin A: Understanding clinical trials: intermediate markers as surrogate endpoints in cancer research. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2000, 14:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Gruttola V, Fleming T, Lin DY, Coombs R: Perspective: validating surrogate markers-are we being naive? J Infect Dis 1997, 175:237–246.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wittes J, Lakatos E, Probstfield J: Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: cardiovascular diseases. Stat Med 1989, 8:415–425.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnston KC: What are surrogate outcome measures and why do they fail in clinical research? Neuroepidemiology 2000, 18:167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hillis A: Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Ophthalmologic disorders. Stat Med 1989, 8:427–430.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miller DH: Multiple sclerosis: use of MRI in evaluating new therapies. Semin Neurol 1998, 18:317–325.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brooks DJ: Monitoring neuroprotection and restorative therapies in Parkinson’s disease with PET. J Neural Transm Suppl 2000, 60:125–137.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    CAST Investigators: Preliminary report: effect of encainide and flecainide on mortality in a randomized trial of arrhythmia suppression after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1989, 321:406–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hine LK, Laird N, Hewitt P, Chalmers TC: Meta-analytic evidence against prophylactic use of lidocaine in acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 1989, 149:2694–2698.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Choi S, Lagakos SW, Schooley TT, Volberding PA: CD4+ lymphocytes are an incomplete surrogate marker for clinical progression in persons with asymptomatic HIV infection taking zidovudine. Ann Intern Med 1993, 118:674–680.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Downing GJ: Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical research: definitions and conceptual model. In Biomarkers and Surrogate Endpoints: Clinical Research and Applications: Proceedings of the NIH-FDA Conference Held on 15–16 April 1999. Edited by Downing GJ. New York: Elsevier Science; 2000:1–9. An excellent review of the definitions and roles of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marek K, Innis R, van Dyck C, et al.: [123I] beta-CIT SPECT imaging assessment of the rate of Parkinson’s disease progression. Neurology 2001, 57:2089–2094.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seibyl JP, Marek KL, Quinlan D, et al.: Decreased single-photon emission computed tomographic [123I]beta-CIT striatal uptake correlates with symptom severity in Parkinson’s disease. Ann Neurol 1995, 38:589–598.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vingerhoets FJ, Snow BJ, Lee CS, et al.: Longitudinal fluorodopa positron emission tomographic studies of the evolution of idiopathic parkinsonism. Ann Neurol 1994, 36:759–764.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parkinson Study Group: Dopamine transporter brain imaging to assess the effects of pramipexole vs levodopa on parkinson disease progression. JAMA 2002, 287:1653–1661. A well-designed study intended to assess the relative neuroprotective or neurotoxic effects of pramipexole and levodopa in early Parkinson’s disease patients using _-CIT single photon emission computed tomography. Although the study attempts to address the potential pitfalls of using a biomarker as a surrogate endpoint, it highlights the risks of using biomarkers and is a good example of the difficulties of validating biomarker outcomes as type II markers of therapeutic efficacy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Whone AL, Remy P, Davis MR, et al.: The REAL-PET study: slower progression in early Parkinson’s disease treated with ropinirole compared with l-dopa. Neurology 2002, 58:A82-A83.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parker WD, Boyson SJ, Parks JK: Abnormalities of the electron transport chain in idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. Ann Neurol 1989, 26:719–723.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shults CW, Oakes D, Kieburtz K, et al.: Effects of coenzyme Q10 in early Parkinson disease: evidence of slowing of the functional decline. Arch Neurol 2002, 59:1541–1550.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ondarza R, Velasco F, Velasco M, et al.: Neurotransmitter levels in cerebrospinal fluid in relation to severity of symptoms and response to medical therapy in Parkinson’s disease. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 1994, 62:90–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Furukawa Y, Kondo T, Nishi K, et al.: Total biopterin levels in the ventricular CSF of patients with Parkinson’s disease: a comparison between akineto-rigid and tremor types. J Neurol Sci 1991, 103:232–237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parkinson Study Group: Cerebrospinal homovanillic acid in the DATATOP study on Parkinson’s disease. Arch Neurol 1995, 52:237–245.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    LeWitt PA: Assessment of the dopaminergic lesion in Parkinson’s disease by CSF markers. Adv Neurol 1993, 60:544–547.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ringendahl H: Factor structure, normative data and retestreliability of a test of fine motor functions in patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2002, 24:491–502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Parkinson Study Group: Pramipexole vs levodopa as initial treatment for Parkinson disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2000, 284:1931–1938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rascol O, Brooks DJ, Korczyn AD, et al.: A five-year study of the incidence of dyskinesia in patients with early Parkinson’s disease who were treated with ropinirole or levodopa. N Engl J Med 2000, 342:1484–1491.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rinne UK, Bracco F, Chouza C, et al.: Early treatment of Parkinson’s disease with cabergoline delays the onset of motor complications. Results of a double-blind levodopa controlled trial. Drugs 1998, 1:23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Parkinson Study Group: Effect of deprenyl on the progression of disability in early Parkinson’s disease. N Engl J Med 1989, 321:1364–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mildvan D, Landay A, De Gruttola V, et al.: An approach to the validation of markers for use in AIDS clinical trials. Clin Infect Dis 1997, 24:764–774.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Prentice RL: Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definitions and operational criteria. Stat Med 1989, 8:431–440.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fleming TR, DeMets DL: Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med 1996, 125:605–613.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Holloway RG, Dick AW: Clinical trial endpoints: on the road to nowhere? Neurology 2002, 58:679–686.Expands on the concept of clinical outcomes acting as surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. It discusses the forces influencing this trend, the risks associated with it, and potential solutions.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fahn S, for the Parkinson Study Group: Results of the ELLDOPA (earlier vs. later levodopa) study. Mov Disord 2002, 17(suppl 5):S13-S14.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Freed CR, Greene PE, Breeze RE, et al.: Transplantation of embryonic dopamine neurons for severe Parkinson’s disease. N Engl J Med 2001, 344:710–719.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Olanow CW: Transplantation for Parkinson’s disease: Pros, cons, and where do we go from here? Mov Disord 2002, 17(suppl 5):S15.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Marek K, Jennings D, Seibyl J: Single-photon emission tomography and dopamine transporter imaging in Parkinson’s disease. Adv Neurol 2003, 91:183–191.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Parkinson Study Group: A multicenter assessment of dopamine transporter imaging with DOPASCAN/SPECT in parkinsonism. Neurology 2000, 55:1540–1547.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pirker W, Djamshidian S, Asenbaum S, et al.: Progression of dopaminergic degeneration in Parkinson’s disease and atypical Parkinsonism: a longitudinal b-CIT SPECT study. Mov Disord 2002, 17:45–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Holloway RG, for the Parkinson Study Group: Pramipexole versus levodopa as initial treatment for Parkinson disease: a four-year randomized controlled trial. Neurology 2002, 58(suppl 3):A81.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fahn S: Parkinson disease, the effect of levodopa and the ELLDOPA trial. Arch Neurol 1999, 56:535.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Garnett ES, Nahmias C, Firnau G: Central dopaminergic pathways in hemiparkinsonism examined by positron emission tomography. Can J Neurol Sci 1984, 11(suppl 1):174–179.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nahmias C, Garnett ES, Firnau G, Lang A: Striatal dopamine distribution in parkinsonian patients during life. J Neurol Sci 1985, 69:223–230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Snow BJ, Tooyama I, McGeer EG, et al.: Human positron emission tomographic [18F]fluorodopa studies correlate with dopamine cell counts and levels. Ann Neurol 1993, 34:324–330.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ribeiro MJ, Vidailhet M, Loc’h C, et al.: Dopaminergic function and dopamine transporter binding assessed with positron emission tomography in Parkinson disease. Arch Neurol 2002, 59:580–586.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Guttman M, Stewart D, Hussey D, et al.: Influence of L-dopa and pramipexole on striatal dopamine transporter in early PD. Neurology 2001, 56:1559–1564.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ahlskog JE, Uitti RJ, O’Connor MK, et al.: The effect of dopamine agonist therapy on dopamine transporter imaging in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 1999, 14:940–946.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Meiergerd SM, Patterson TA, Schenk JO: D2 receptors may modulate the function of the striatal transporter for dopamine: kinetic evidence from studies in vitro and in vivo. J Neurochem 1993, 61:764–767.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ahlskog JE: Slowing Parkinson’s disease progression: recent dopamine agonist trials. Neurology 2003, 60:381–389.A thoughtful and complete discussion regarding the risks associated with using neuroimaging biomarkers in Parkinson’s disease therapeutic trials intended to assess disease progression.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Parkinson Study Group: Pramipexole vs levodopa as initial treatment for Parkinson Disease. JAMA 2000, 284:1931–1938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    De Gruttola VG, Clax P, DeMets DL, et al.: Consideration in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: summary of a National Institute of Health Workshop. Control Clin Trials 2001, 22:485–502.An excellent review of the National Institutes of Health workshop on surrogate endpoints. Discusses the role and risks of using surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. It introduces novel statistical methods to better understand studies where surrogate endpoints are used.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Chassany O, Sagnier P, Marquis P, et al., for the European Regulatory Issues on Quality of Life Assessment Group: Patient reported outcomes: the example of health-related quality of life—a European guidance document for the improved integration of health-related quality of life assessment in the drug regulatory process. Drug Info J 2003, 36:209–238.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin M. Biglan
    • 1
  • Robert G. Holloway
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of NeurologyUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations