Gilbert P B, DeGruttola V, Hammer S M, Kuritzkes D R
Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, 655 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
JAMA. 2001 Feb 14;285(6):777-84. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.6.777.
Suppression of plasma human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) RNA levels has been widely accepted as an appropriate surrogate end point for HIV disease progression, and it is currently used as the primary end point to determine efficacy in many antiretroviral trials. However, this end point does not always measure other important effects of treatment, such as inducement of multidrug resistance, which depletes future therapy options, and toxic effects. An alternative that directly factors in these treatment costs is a composite regimen termination end point, defined as a protocol-determined change in regimen due to either virologic failure or treatment-related toxic effects. Pros and cons for using purely virologic vs various composite primary end points are discussed. Conclusions include (1) a trial's clinical objective guides the choice of primary end point, (2) a purely virologic end point is often preferable, (3) it may be important to analyze both end point types in interpreting study results, and (4) long-term clinical outcome studies are needed for identifying the most predictive surrogate end points.
血浆人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)RNA水平的抑制已被广泛接受为HIV疾病进展的合适替代终点,目前在许多抗逆转录病毒试验中用作确定疗效的主要终点。然而,该终点并不总是能衡量治疗的其他重要效果,如诱导多药耐药性(这会减少未来的治疗选择)以及毒性作用。一个直接考虑这些治疗成本的替代终点是综合治疗方案终止终点,定义为由于病毒学失败或治疗相关毒性作用导致的方案的方案确定的变化。讨论了使用纯病毒学终点与各种综合主要终点的利弊。结论包括:(1)试验的临床目标指导主要终点的选择;(2)纯病毒学终点通常更可取;(3)在解释研究结果时分析两种终点类型可能很重要;(4)需要进行长期临床结局研究以确定最具预测性的替代终点。