Literature DB >> 2028115

A simulation study comparing designs for dose ranging.

L B Sheiner1, Y Hashimoto, S L Beal.   

Abstract

Only with knowledge of the (prior) distribution of dose-response parameters in a population, can one determine both the initial dose of a drug for chronic administration to an individual (such as the dose producing a fixed degree of response in a fixed proportion of the population) and an appropriate subsequent (adjusted) dose (such as the dose yielding a desirable response according to the posterior parameter distribution, given an observed response to an initial dose). The currently FDA-sanctioned design for a dose-ranging study, the parallel-dose design, assigns just one of several doses to each patient. It does not provide good information on the distribution of individual dose-response parameters. A cross-over design assigns several dose levels to each patient. It therefore can provide better information, but does not resemble clinical practice. Consequently, study participants must be restricted to patients who can tolerate such non-therapeutic drug exposure, posing problems in extrapolation of study results to other types of patients. A titration or dose-escalation design begins all patients on placebo and, except for those patients assigned to a placebo-only group, escalates the dose for a patient at preset intervals only when clinical response at lower doses is inadequate. It both exposes patients to several dose levels and resembles good clinical practice, allowing study of a representative patient sample. We report here the simulation results of parameter estimation for the three designs when the data arise from complex and realistic dose-response models and/or with certain complications in study execution. The dose-escalation design clearly performs better overall than the parallel-dose design for the models considered here, and generally, just a little worse than the cross-over design. These results support the conclusion that for dose ranging, depending on the demands of the clinical situation, one should use either the cross-over or the dose-escalation design.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1991        PMID: 2028115     DOI: 10.1002/sim.4780100303

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  13 in total

Review 1.  Utilisation of pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling and simulation in regulatory decision-making.

Authors:  J V Gobburu; P J Marroum
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 6.447

2.  Simulation for population pharmacodynamic analysis of dose-ranging trials: usefulness of the mixture model analysis for detecting nonresponders.

Authors:  Takeshi Shiiki; Yukiya Hashimoto; Ken-ichi Inui
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.200

3.  Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic integration in drug development and dosage-regimen optimization for veterinary medicine.

Authors:  Pierre-Louis Toutain
Journal:  AAPS PharmSci       Date:  2002

Review 4.  Conditioning on certain random events associated with statistical variability in PK/PD.

Authors:  Stuart L Beal
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2005-11-07       Impact factor: 2.745

5.  Oral olanzapine disposition in adolescents with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder: a population pharmacokinetic model.

Authors:  Evelyn D Lobo; Carol Robertson-Plouch; Tonya Quinlan; Quan Hong; Richard F Bergstrom
Journal:  Paediatr Drugs       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.022

6.  Dose-response modelling of umeclidinium and fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium in asthma.

Authors:  Shuying Yang; Navin Goyal; Misba Beerahee; Roopa Trivedi; Laurie Lee; Steven Pascoe
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 2.953

Review 7.  Expanding clinical applications of population pharmacodynamic modelling.

Authors:  C Minto; T Schnider
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 4.335

8.  Bayesian nonparametric population models: formulation and comparison with likelihood approaches.

Authors:  J Wakefield; S Walker
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1997-04

Review 9.  Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data and models in clinical trials.

Authors:  J L Steimer; M E Ebelin; J Van Bree
Journal:  Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet       Date:  1993 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.441

10.  Simulation for the analysis of distorted pharmacodynamic data.

Authors:  Y Hashimoto; J Ozaki; T Koue; A Odani; M Yasuhara; R Hori
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 4.200

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.