Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Griffith, T. F.
Right arrow Articles by Owen, W. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Griffith, T. F.
Right arrow Articles by Owen, W. F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Nephrol Dial Transplant (2003) 18: 2479-2482
© 2003 European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association

Editorial Comment

Left ventricular hypertrophy: a surrogate end point or correlate of cardiovascular events in kidney disease?

Todd F. Griffith1, Donal N. Reddan1, Preston S. Klassen1 and William F. Owen1,2

1Duke Institute of Renal Outcomes Research and Health Policy, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC and 2Baxter International Healthcare, Waukegan, IL, USA

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Todd F. Griffith, MD, MHS, Metrolina Nephrology Associates, PA, 928 Baxter Street, Charlotte, NC 28204, USA 3646, Durham, NC 27710, USA. Email: todd.griffith@alumni.duke.edu

Keywords: anaemia; cardiovascular disease; end-stage renal disease; left ventricular hypertrophy; mortality

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.



   Surrogate endpoints vs clinical correlates
 
Prentice [1] offered a statistical definition of a surrogate endpoint as ‘a response variable for which a test of the null hypothesis of no relationship to the treatment groups under comparison is also a valid test of the corresponding null hypothesis based on the true endpoint’. A National Institutes of Health (NIH) working group generated less quantitatively rigorous definitions that contrasted clinical and surrogate endpoints [2]. A ‘clinical endpoint’ is ‘[a] characteristic or variable that reflects how a patient feels, functions, or survives’, and so is related to the surrogate, ‘[a] biomarker that is intended to substitute for a clinical endpoint’. Moreover, ‘[a] surrogate endpoint is expected to predict clinical benefit (or harm or lack of benefit or harm) based on epidemiologic, therapeutic, pathophysiologic, or other scientific evidence’ [2]. While Prentice’s definition of surrogate requires the surrogate to account for the entirety of the . . . [Full Text of this Article]



   Anaemia, left ventricular hypertrophy and mortality
 


   Anaemia treatment and clinical outcomes
 


   LVH as a surrogate outcome in anaemia correction
 


   Conclusions
 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?