Literature DB >> 30352015

Interval estimators of relative potency in toxicology and radiation countermeasure studies: comparing methods and experimental designs.

Reid D Landes1, Shelly Y Lensing1, Martin Hauer-Jensen2.   

Abstract

The relative potency of one agent to another is commonly represented by the ratio of two quantal response parameters; for example, the LD50 of animals receiving a treatment to the LD50 of control animals, where LD50 is the dose of toxin that is lethal to 50% of animals. Though others have considered interval estimators of LD50, here, we extend Bayesian, bootstrap, likelihood ratio, Fieller's and Wald's methods to estimate intervals for relative potency in a parallel-line assay context. In addition to comparing their coverage probabilities, we also consider their power in two types of dose designs: one assigning treatment and control the same doses vs. one choosing doses for treatment and control to achieve same lethality targets. We explore these methods in realistic contexts of relative potency of radiation countermeasures. For larger experiments (e.g., ≥100 animals), the methods return similar results regardless of the interval estimation method or experiment design. For smaller experiments (e.g., < 60 animals), Wald's method stands out among the others, producing intervals that hold closely to nominal levels and providing more power than the other methods in statistically efficient designs. Using this simple statistical method within a statistically efficient design, researchers can reduce animal numbers.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3Rs; Power; dose reduction factor; parallel-line assay; sample size

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30352015      PMCID: PMC6450382          DOI: 10.1080/10543406.2018.1535500

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biopharm Stat        ISSN: 1054-3406            Impact factor:   1.051


  7 in total

1.  Confidence intervals for the 50 per cent response dose.

Authors:  D Faraggi; P Izikson; B Reiser
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2003-06-30       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Statistical inference for relative potency in bivariate dose-response assays with correlated responses.

Authors:  Stephen J Iturria
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 1.051

3.  Interval estimation of the median lethal dose.

Authors:  D A Williams
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Estimation of cancer drug potencies and relative potencies from in vitro data.

Authors:  T Le Chap; Patricia M Grambsch; An Liu
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 1.051

5.  New drug and biological drug products; evidence needed to demonstrate effectiveness of new drugs when human efficacy studies are not ethical or feasible. Final rule.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  2002-05-31

6.  Determination of sample sizes for demonstrating efficacy of radiation countermeasures.

Authors:  Ralph L Kodell; Shelly Y Lensing; Reid D Landes; K Sree Kumar; Martin Hauer-Jensen
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2009-05-07       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Practical advice on calculating confidence intervals for radioprotection effects and reducing animal numbers in radiation countermeasure experiments.

Authors:  Reid D Landes; Shelly Y Lensing; Ralph L Kodell; Martin Hauer-Jensen
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 2.841

  7 in total
  1 in total

1.  Harmonization of Multiple SARS-CoV-2 Reference Materials Using the WHO IS (NIBSC 20/136): Results and Implications.

Authors:  William Jonathan Windsor; Yannik Roell; Heidi Tucker; Chi-An Cheng; Sara Suliman; Laura J Peek; Gary A Pestano; William T Lee; Heinz Zeichhardt; Molly M Lamb; Martin Kammel; Hui Wang; Ross Kedl; Cody Rester; Thomas E Morrison; Bennet J Davenport; Kyle Carson; Jennifer Yates; Kelly Howard; Karen Kulas; David R Walt; Aner Dafni; Daniel Taylor; May Chu
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2022-05-30       Impact factor: 6.064

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.