Power/sample size calculations for assessing correlates of risk in clinical efficacy trials

In a randomized controlled clinical trial that assesses treatment efficacy, a common objective is to assess the association of a measured biomarker response endpoint with the primary study endpoint in the active treatment group, using a case-cohort, case-control, or two-phase sampling design. Methods for power and sample size calculations for such biomarker association analyses typically do not account for the level of treatment efficacy, precluding interpretation of the biomarker association results in terms of biomarker effect modification of treatment efficacy, with detriment that the power calculations may tacitly and inadvertently assume that the treatment harms some study participants. We develop power and sample size methods accounting for this issue, and the methods also account for inter-individual variability of the biomarker that is not biologically relevant (e.g., due to technical measurement error). We focus on a binary study endpoint and on a biomarker subject to measurement error that is normally distributed or categorical with two or three levels. We illustrate the methods with preventive HIV vaccine efficacy trials and include an R package implementing the methods. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A Bayesian approach to estimating causal vaccine effects on binary post-infection outcomes

To estimate causal effects of vaccine on post-infection outcomes, Hudgens and Halloran (2006) defined a post-infection causal vaccine efficacy estimand VEI based on the principal stratification framework. They also derived closed forms for the maximum likelihood estimators of the causal estimand under some assumptions. Extending their research, we propose a Bayesian approach to estimating the causal vaccine effects on binary post-infection outcomes. The identifiability of the causal vaccine effect VEI is discussed under different assumptions on selection bias. The performance of the proposed Bayesian method is compared with the maximum likelihood method through simulation studies and two case studies - a clinical trial of a rotavirus vaccine candidate and a field study of pertussis vaccination. For both case studies, the Bayesian approach provided similar inference as the frequentist analysis. However, simulation studies with small sample sizes suggest that the Bayesian approach provides smaller bias and shorter confidence interval length.

Evaluating surrogate endpoints, prognostic markers, and predictive markers: Some simple themes

BACKGROUND

A surrogate endpoint is an endpoint observed earlier than the true endpoint (a health outcome) that is used to draw conclusions about the effect of treatment on the unobserved true endpoint. A prognostic marker is a marker for predicting the risk of an event given a control treatment; it informs treatment decisions when there is information on anticipated benefits and harms of a new treatment applied to persons at high risk. A predictive marker is a marker for predicting the effect of treatment on outcome in a subgroup of patients or study participants; it provides more rigorous information for treatment selection than a prognostic marker when it is based on estimated treatment effects in a randomized trial.

METHODS

We organized our discussion around a different theme for each topic.

RESULTS

"Fundamentally an extrapolation" refers to the non-statistical considerations and assumptions needed when using surrogate endpoints to evaluate a new treatment. "Decision analysis to the rescue" refers to use the use of decision analysis to evaluate an additional prognostic marker because it is not possible to choose between purely statistical measures of marker performance. "The appeal of simplicity" refers to a straightforward and efficient use of a single randomized trial to evaluate overall treatment effect and treatment effect within subgroups using predictive markers.

CONCLUSION

The simple themes provide a general guideline for evaluation of surrogate endpoints, prognostic markers, and predictive markers.

Bayesian sequential monitoring design for two-arm randomized clinical trials with noncompliance

In early-phase clinical trials, interim monitoring is commonly conducted based on the estimated intent-to-treat effect, which is subject to bias in the presence of noncompliance. To address this issue, we propose a Bayesian sequential monitoring trial design based on the estimation of the causal effect using a principal stratification approach. The proposed design simultaneously considers efficacy and toxicity outcomes and utilizes covariates to predict a patient's potential compliance behavior and identify the causal effects. Based on accumulating data, we continuously update the posterior estimates of the causal treatment effects and adaptively make the go/no-go decision for the trial. Numerical results show that the proposed method has desirable operating characteristics and addresses the issue of noncompliance.

Estimating the health benefit of reducing indoor air pollution in a randomized environmental intervention

Recent intervention studies targeted at reducing indoor air pollution have demonstrated both the ability to improve respiratory health outcomes and to reduce particulate matter (PM) levels in the home. However, these studies generally do not address whether it is the reduction of PM levels specifically that improves respiratory health. In this paper we apply the method of principal stratification to data from a randomized air cleaner intervention designed to reduce indoor PM in homes of children with asthma. We estimate the health benefit of the intervention amongst study subjects who would experience a substantial reduction in PM in response to the intervention. For those subjects we find an increase in symptom-free days that is almost three times as large as the overall intention-to-treat effect. We also explore the presence of treatment effects amongst those subjects whose PM levels would not respond to the air cleaner. This analysis demonstrates the usefulness of principal stratification for environmental intervention trials and its potential for much broader application in this area.

Design and inference for the intent-to-treat principle using adaptive treatment

Nonadherence to assigned treatment jeopardizes the power and interpretability of intent-to-treat comparisons from clinical trial data and continues to be an issue for effectiveness studies, despite their pragmatic emphasis. We posit that new approaches to design need to complement developments in methods for causal inference to address nonadherence, in both experimental and practice settings. This paper considers the conventional study design for psychiatric research and other medical contexts, in which subjects are randomized to treatments that are fixed throughout the trial and presents an alternative that converts the fixed treatments into an adaptive intervention that reflects best practice. The key element is the introduction of an adaptive decision point midway into the study to address a patient's reluctance to remain on treatment before completing a full-length trial of medication. The clinical uncertainty about the appropriate adaptation prompts a second randomization at the new decision point to evaluate relevant options. Additionally, the standard 'all-or-none' principal stratification (PS) framework is applied to the first stage of the design to address treatment discontinuation that occurs too early for a midtrial adaptation. Drawing upon the adaptive intervention features, we develop assumptions to identify the PS causal estimand and to introduce restrictions on outcome distributions to simplify expectation-maximization calculations. We evaluate the performance of the PS setup, with particular attention to the role played by a binary covariate. The results emphasize the importance of collecting covariate data for use in design and analysis. We consider the generality of our approach beyond the setting of psychiatric research.

Inference for environmental intervention studies using principal stratification

Previous research has found evidence of an association between indoor air pollution and asthma morbidity in children. Environmental intervention studies have been performed to examine the role of household environmental interventions in altering indoor air pollution concentrations and improving health. Previous environmental intervention studies have found only modest effects on health outcomes and it is unclear if the health benefits provided by environmental modification are comparable with those provided by medication. Traditionally, the statistical analysis of environmental intervention studies has involved performing two intention-to-treat analyses that separately estimate the effect of the environmental intervention on health and the effect of the environmental intervention on indoor air pollution concentrations. We propose a principal stratification approach to examine the extent to which an environmental intervention's effect on health outcomes coincides with its effect on indoor air pollution. We apply this approach to data from a randomized air cleaner intervention trial conducted in a population of asthmatic children living in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. We find that among children for whom the air cleaner reduced indoor particulate matter concentrations, the intervention resulted in a meaningful improvement of asthma symptoms with an effect generally larger than previous studies have shown. A key benefit of using principal stratification in environmental intervention studies is that it allows investigators to estimate causal effects of the intervention for sub-groups defined by changes in the indoor air pollution concentration.

A principal stratification approach for evaluating natural direct and indirect effects in the presence of treatment-induced intermediate confounding

Recently, several authors have shown that natural direct and indirect effects (NDEs and NIEs) can be identified under the sequential ignorability assumptions, as long as there is no mediator-outcome confounder that is affected by the treatment. However, if such a confounder exists, NDEs and NIEs will generally not be identified without making additional identifying assumptions. In this article, we propose novel identification assumptions and estimators for evaluating NDEs and NIEs under the usual sequential ignorability assumptions, using the principal stratification framework. It is assumed that the treatment and the mediator are dichotomous. We must impose strong assumptions for identification. However, even if these assumptions were violated, the bias of our estimator would be small under typical conditions, which can be easily evaluated from the observed data. This conjecture is confirmed for binary outcomes by deriving the bounds of the bias terms. In addition, the advantage of our estimator is illustrated through a simulation study. We also propose a method of sensitivity analysis that examines what happens when our assumptions are violated. We apply the proposed method to data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Identification and estimation of survivor average causal effects

In longitudinal studies, outcomes ascertained at follow-up are typically undefined for individuals who die prior to the follow-up visit. In such settings, outcomes are said to be truncated by death and inference about the effects of a point treatment or exposure, restricted to individuals alive at the follow-up visit, could be biased even if as in experimental studies, treatment assignment were randomized. To account for truncation by death, the survivor average causal effect (SACE) defines the effect of treatment on the outcome for the subset of individuals who would have survived regardless of exposure status. In this paper, the author nonparametrically identifies SACE by leveraging post-exposure longitudinal correlates of survival and outcome that may also mediate the exposure effects on survival and outcome. Nonparametric identification is achieved by supposing that the longitudinal data arise from a certain nonparametric structural equations model and by making the monotonicity assumption that the effect of exposure on survival agrees in its direction across individuals. A novel weighted analysis involving a consistent estimate of the survival process is shown to produce consistent estimates of SACE. A data illustration is given, and the methods are extended to the context of time-varying exposures. We discuss a sensitivity analysis framework that relaxes assumptions about independent errors in the nonparametric structural equations model and may be used to assess the extent to which inference may be altered by a violation of key identifying assumptions. © 2014 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fold rise in antibody titers by measured by glycoprotein-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay is an excellent correlate of protection for a herpes zoster vaccine, demonstrated via the vaccine efficacy curve

BACKGROUND

The phase III Zostavax Efficacy and Safety Trial of 1 dose of licensed zoster vaccine (ZV; Zostavax; Merck) in 50-59-year-olds showed approximately 70% vaccine efficacy (VE) to reduce the incidence of herpes zoster (HZ). An objective of the trial was to assess immune response biomarkers measuring antibodies to varicella zoster virus (VZV) by glycoprotein-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay as correlates of protection (CoPs) against HZ.

METHODS

The principal stratification vaccine efficacy curve framework for statistically evaluating immune response biomarkers as CoPs was applied. The VE curve describes how VE against the clinical end point (HZ) varies across participant subgroups defined by biomarker readout measuring vaccine-induced immune response. The VE curve was estimated using several subgroup definitions.

RESULTS

The fold rise in VZV antibody titers from the time before immunization to 6 weeks after immunization was an excellent CoP, with VE increasing sharply with fold rise: VE was estimated at 0% for the subgroup with no rise and at 90% for the subgroup with 5.26-fold rise. In contrast, VZV antibody titers measured 6 weeks after immunization did not predict VE, with similar estimated VEs across titer subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis illustrates the value of the VE curve framework for assessing immune response biomarkers as CoPs in vaccine efficacy trials.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT00534248.

Causal inference in longitudinal comparative effectiveness studies with repeated measures of a continuous intermediate variable

We propose a principal stratification approach to assess causal effects in nonrandomized longitudinal comparative effectiveness studies with a binary endpoint outcome and repeated measures of a continuous intermediate variable. Our method is an extension of the principal stratification approach originally proposed for the longitudinal randomized study "Prevention of Suicide in Primary Care Elderly: Collaborative Trial" to assess the treatment effect on the continuous Hamilton depression score adjusting for the heterogeneity of repeatedly measured binary compliance status. Our motivation for this work comes from a comparison of the effect of two glucose-lowering medications on a clinical cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes. Here, we consider a causal inference problem assessing how well the two medications work relative to one another on two binary endpoint outcomes: cardiovascular disease-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Clinically, these glucose-lowering medications can have differential effects on the intermediate outcome, glucose level over time. Ultimately, we want to compare medication effects on the endpoint outcomes among individuals in the same glucose trajectory stratum while accounting for the heterogeneity in baseline covariates (i.e., to obtain 'principal effects' on the endpoint outcomes). The proposed method involves a three-step model estimation procedure. Step 1 identifies principal strata associated with the intermediate variable using hybrid growth mixture modeling analyses. Step 2 obtains the stratum membership using the pseudoclass technique and derives propensity scores for treatment assignment. Step 3 obtains the stratum-specific treatment effect on the endpoint outcome weighted by inverse propensity probabilities derived from Step 2.

Causal inference for bivariate longitudinal quality of life data in presence of death by using global odds ratios

In longitudinal clinical trials, if a subject drops out due to death, certain responses, such as those measuring quality of life (QoL), will not be defined after the time of death. Thus, standard missing data analyses, e.g., under ignorable dropout, are problematic because these approaches implicitly 'impute' values of the response after death. In this paper we define a new survivor average causal effect for a bivariate response in a longitudinal quality of life study that had a high dropout rate with the dropout often due to death (or tumor progression). We show how principal stratification, with a few sensitivity parameters, can be used to draw causal inferences about the joint distribution of these two ordinal quality of life measures.

Surrogate measures and consistent surrogates

Surrogates which allow one to predict the effect of the treatment on the outcome of interest from the effect of the treatment on the surrogate are of importance when it is difficult or expensive to measure the primary outcome. Unfortunately, the use of such surrogates can give rise to paradoxical situations in which the effect of the treatment on the surrogate is positive, the surrogate and outcome are strongly positively correlated, but the effect of the treatment on the outcome is negative, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as the "surrogate paradox." New results are given for consistent surrogates that extend the existing literature on sufficient conditions that ensure the surrogate paradox is not manifest. Specifically, it is shown that for the surrogate paradox to be manifest it must be the case that either there is (i) a direct effect of treatment on the outcome not through the surrogate and in the opposite direction as that through the surrogate or (ii) confounding for the effect of the surrogate on the outcome, or (iii) a lack of transitivity so that treatment does not positively affect the surrogate for all the same individuals for whom the surrogate positively affects the outcome. The conditions for consistent surrogates and the results of the article are important because they allow investigators to predict the direction of the effect of the treatment on the outcome simply from the direction of the effect of the treatment on the surrogate. These results on consistent surrogates are then related to the four approaches to surrogate outcomes described by Joffe and Greene (2009, Biometrics 65, 530-538) to assess whether the standard criteria used by these approaches to assess whether a surrogate is "good" suffice to avoid the surrogate paradox.

Rank-based principal stratum sensitivity analyses

We describe rank-based approaches to assess principal stratification treatment effects in studies where the outcome of interest is only well-defined in a subgroup selected after randomization. Our methods are sensitivity analyses, in that estimands are identified by fixing a parameter and then we investigate the sensitivity of results by varying this parameter over a range of plausible values. We present three rank-based test statistics and compare their performance through simulations, and provide recommendations. We also study three different bootstrap approaches for determining levels of significance. Finally, we apply our methods to two studies: an HIV vaccine trial and a prostate cancer prevention trial.

Joint modeling compliance and outcome for causal analysis in longitudinal studies

This article discusses joint modeling of compliance and outcome for longitudinal studies when noncompliance is present. We focus on two-arm randomized longitudinal studies in which subjects are randomized at baseline, treatment is applied repeatedly over time, and compliance behaviors and clinical outcomes are measured and recorded repeatedly over time. In the proposed Markov compliance and outcome model, we use the potential outcome framework to define pre-randomization principal strata from the joint distribution of compliance under treatment and control arms, and estimate the effect of treatment within each principal strata. Besides the causal effect of the treatment, our proposed model can estimate the impact of the causal effect of the treatment at a given time on future compliance. Bayesian methods are used to estimate the parameters. The results are illustrated using a study assessing the effect of cognitive behavior therapy on depression. A simulation study is used to assess the repeated sampling properties of the proposed model.

Intermediate outcomes in randomized clinical trials: an introduction

BACKGROUND

Intermediate outcomes are common and typically on the causal pathway to the final outcome. Some examples include noncompliance, missing data, and truncation by death like pregnancy (e.g. when the trial intervention is given to non-pregnant women and the final outcome is preeclampsia, defined only on pregnant women). The intention-to-treat approach does not account properly for them, and more appropriate alternative approaches like principal stratification are not yet widely known. The purposes of this study are to inform researchers that the intention-to-treat approach unfortunately does not fit all problems we face in experimental research, to introduce the principal stratification approach for dealing with intermediate outcomes, and to illustrate its application to a trial of long term calcium supplementation in women at high risk of preeclampsia.

METHODS

Principal stratification and related concepts are introduced. Two ways for estimating causal effects are discussed and their application is illustrated using the calcium trial, where noncompliance and pregnancy are considered as intermediate outcomes, and preeclampsia is the main final outcome.

RESULTS

The limitations of traditional approaches and methods for dealing with intermediate outcomes are demonstrated. The steps, assumptions and required calculations involved in the application of the principal stratification approach are discussed in detail in the case of our calcium trial.

CONCLUSIONS

The intention-to-treat approach is a very sound one but unfortunately it does not fit all problems we find in randomized clinical trials; this is particularly the case for intermediate outcomes, where alternative approaches like principal stratification should be considered.

Comparing competing risk outcomes within principal strata, with application to studies of mother-to-child transmission of HIV

In randomized trials to prevent breast milk transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) from mother to infant, investigators are often interested in assessing the effect of a treatment or intervention on the cumulative risk of HIV infection by time (age) t in infants who are alive and uninfected at a certain time point τ(0)  < t. Such comparisons are challenging for two reasons. First, infants are typically randomized at birth (time 0 < τ(0) ) such that comparisons between trial arms among the subset of infants alive and uninfected at τ(0) are subject to selection bias. Second, in most mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) trials competing risks are often present, such as death or cessation of breastfeeding prior to HIV infection. In this paper, we present methods for assessing the causal effect of a treatment on competing risk outcomes within principal strata. In MTCT trials, the causal effect of interest is that of treatment on the risk of HIV infection by time t > τ(0) within the principal stratum of infants who would be alive and uninfected by τ(0) regardless of randomization assignment. We develop large sample nonparametric bounds and a semiparametric sensitivity analysis model for drawing inference about this causal effect. We present a simulation study demonstrating that the proposed methods perform well in finite samples. We apply the proposed methods to a large, recent MTCT trial.

Effective elements of cognitive behaviour therapy for psychosis: results of a novel type of subgroup analysis based on principal stratification

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses show that cognitive behaviour therapy for psychosis (CBT-P) improves distressing positive symptoms. However, it is a complex intervention involving a range of techniques. No previous study has assessed the delivery of the different elements of treatment and their effect on outcome. Our aim was to assess the differential effect of type of treatment delivered on the effectiveness of CBT-P, using novel statistical methodology.

METHOD

The Psychological Prevention of Relapse in Psychosis (PRP) trial was a multi-centre randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared CBT-P with treatment as usual (TAU). Therapy was manualized, and detailed evaluations of therapy delivery and client engagement were made. Follow-up assessments were made at 12 and 24 months. In a planned analysis, we applied principal stratification (involving structural equation modelling with finite mixtures) to estimate intention-to-treat (ITT) effects for subgroups of participants, defined by qualitative and quantitative differences in receipt of therapy, while maintaining the constraints of randomization.

RESULTS

Consistent delivery of full therapy, including specific cognitive and behavioural techniques, was associated with clinically and statistically significant increases in months in remission, and decreases in psychotic and affective symptoms. Delivery of partial therapy involving engagement and assessment was not effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses suggest that CBT-P is of significant benefit on multiple outcomes to patients able to engage in the full range of therapy procedures. The novel statistical methods illustrated in this report have general application to the evaluation of heterogeneity in the effects of treatment.

Predicting treatment effect from surrogate endpoints and historical trials: an extrapolation involving probabilities of a binary outcome or survival to a specific time

Using multiple historical trials with surrogate and true endpoints, we consider various models to predict the effect of treatment on a true endpoint in a target trial in which only a surrogate endpoint is observed. This predicted result is computed using (1) a prediction model (mixture, linear, or principal stratification) estimated from historical trials and the surrogate endpoint of the target trial and (2) a random extrapolation error estimated from successively leaving out each trial among the historical trials. The method applies to either binary outcomes or survival to a particular time that is computed from censored survival data. We compute a 95% confidence interval for the predicted result and validate its coverage using simulation. To summarize the additional uncertainty from using a predicted instead of true result for the estimated treatment effect, we compute its multiplier of standard error. Software is available for download.

Assessing the sensitivity of methods for estimating principal causal effects

The framework of principal stratification provides a way to think about treatment effects conditional on post-randomization variables, such as level of compliance. In particular, the complier average causal effect (CACE) - the effect of the treatment for those individuals who would comply with their treatment assignment under either treatment condition - is often of substantive interest. However, estimation of the CACE is not always straightforward, with a variety of estimation procedures and underlying assumptions, but little advice to help researchers select between methods. In this article, we discuss and examine two methods that rely on very different assumptions to estimate the CACE: a maximum likelihood ('joint') method that assumes the 'exclusion restriction,' (ER) and a propensity score-based method that relies on 'principal ignorability.' We detail the assumptions underlying each approach, and assess each methods' sensitivity to both its own assumptions and those of the other method using both simulated data and a motivating example. We find that the ER-based joint approach appears somewhat less sensitive to its assumptions, and that the performance of both methods is significantly improved when there are strong predictors of compliance. Interestingly, we also find that each method performs particularly well when the assumptions of the other approach are violated. These results highlight the importance of carefully selecting an estimation procedure whose assumptions are likely to be satisfied in practice and of having strong predictors of principal stratum membership.

Commentary on "Principal stratification - a goal or a tool?" by Judea Pearl

This commentary takes up Pearl's welcome challenge to clearly articulate the scientific value of principal stratification estimands that we and colleagues have investigated, in the area of randomized placebo-controlled preventive vaccine efficacy trials, especially trials of HIV vaccines. After briefly arguing that certain principal stratification estimands for studying vaccine effects on post-infection outcomes are of genuine scientific interest, the bulk of our commentary argues that the "causal effect predictiveness" (CEP) principal stratification estimand for evaluating immune biomarkers as surrogate endpoints is not of ultimate scientific interest, because it evaluates surrogacy restricted to the setting of a particular vaccine efficacy trial, but is nevertheless useful for guiding the selection of primary immune biomarker endpoints in Phase I/II vaccine trials and for facilitating assessment of transportability/bridging surrogacy.

Principal stratification and attribution prohibition: good ideas taken too far

Pearl's article provides a useful springboard for discussing further the benefits and drawbacks of principal stratification and the associated discomfort with attributing effects to post-treatment variables. The basic insights of the approach are important: pay close attention to modification of treatment effects by variables not observable before treatment decisions are made, and be careful in attributing effects to variables when counterfactuals are ill-defined. These insights have often been taken too far in many areas of application of the approach, including instrumental variables, censoring by death, and surrogate outcomes. A novel finding is that the usual principal stratification estimand in the setting of censoring by death is by itself of little practical value in estimating intervention effects.

Sensitivity Analysis and Bounding of Causal Effects With Alternative Identifying Assumptions

When identification of causal effects relies on untestable assumptions regarding nonidentified parameters, sensitivity of causal effect estimates is often questioned. For proper interpretation of causal effect estimates in this situation, deriving bounds on causal parameters or exploring the sensitivity of estimates to scientifically plausible alternative assumptions can be critical. In this paper, we propose a practical way of bounding and sensitivity analysis, where multiple identifying assumptions are combined to construct tighter common bounds. In particular, we focus on the use of competing identifying assumptions that impose different restrictions on the same non-identified parameter. Since these assumptions are connected through the same parameter, direct translation across them is possible. Based on this cross-translatability, various information in the data, carried by alternative assumptions, can be effectively combined to construct tighter bounds on causal effects. Flexibility of the suggested approach is demonstrated focusing on the estimation of the complier average causal effect (CACE) in a randomized job search intervention trial that suffers from noncompliance and subsequent missing outcomes.

Principal stratification--uses and limitations

Pearl (2011) asked for the causal inference community to clarify the role of the principal stratification framework in the analysis of causal effects. Here, I argue that the notion of principal stratification has shed light on problems of non-compliance, censoring-by-death, and the analysis of post-infection outcomes; that it may be of use in considering problems of surrogacy but further development is needed; that it is of some use in assessing "direct effects"; but that it is not the appropriate tool for assessing "mediation." There is nothing within the principal stratification framework that corresponds to a measure of an "indirect" or "mediated" effect.

Causal assessment of surrogacy in a meta-analysis of colorectal cancer trials

When the true end points (T) are difficult or costly to measure, surrogate markers (S) are often collected in clinical trials to help predict the effect of the treatment (Z). There is great interest in understanding the relationship among S, T, and Z. A principal stratification (PS) framework has been proposed by Frangakis and Rubin (2002) to study their causal associations. In this paper, we extend the framework to a multiple trial setting and propose a Bayesian hierarchical PS model to assess surrogacy. We apply the method to data from a large collection of colon cancer trials in which S and T are binary. We obtain the trial-specific causal measures among S, T, and Z, as well as their overall population-level counterparts that are invariant across trials. The method allows for information sharing across trials and reduces the nonidentifiability problem. We examine the frequentist properties of our model estimates and the impact of the monotonicity assumption using simulations. We also illustrate the challenges in evaluating surrogacy in the counterfactual framework that result from nonidentifiability.