Literature DB >> 30945324

Translating the dose response into risk and benefit.

John B Warren1.   

Abstract

When choosing a medicine two aspects determine the balance between benefit and harm (risk-benefit), matching the medicine to the individual and the choice of dose. Knowing the relationship between dose and response allows a calculation of the dose that causes 50% of the maximal effect, the ED50 . Rational drug dosing depends on defining the ratio of the dose to the ED50 . The ED50 of each drug has two scales, whether the effect measured is for efficacy, or safety. Quantifying efficacy is comparatively straightforward. A fall in blood pressure, combined with a statistical and clinically significant reduction in cardiovascular events, might justify the efficacy of an antihypertensive. Measuring a drug's effect on safety is more complex, as this is so often a subjective assessment of a collection of adverse events. Though a science-based therapeutic window defined from in vitro efficacy and safety dose response curves is reassuring, this review discusses how to translate this into dose-dependent risk-benefit based on clinical trial data. Some of the limitations of our knowledge about the choice of dose that optimizes an individual's risk-benefit, or whether no drug is a better option, are discussed. It is important to define these limitations when educating the consumer/patient about the clinical pharmacology that justifies their treatment dose options.
© 2019 The British Pharmacological Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EMA; FDA; Phase 1-3; clinical trials; mortality; safety

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30945324      PMCID: PMC6783622          DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13949

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol        ISSN: 0306-5251            Impact factor:   4.335


  33 in total

1.  Randomized clinical trials: slow death by a thousand unnecessary policies?

Authors:  Salim Yusuf
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-10-12       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Symmetrical analysis of risk-benefit.

Authors:  John B Warren; Simon Day; Peter Feldschreiber
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.335

3.  Metformin may not reduce cardiovascular risk or all-cause mortality.

Authors:  Matteo Monami
Journal:  Evid Based Med       Date:  2012-08-14

Review 4.  Translating the dose response into risk and benefit.

Authors:  John B Warren
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2019-05-17       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 5.  LDL-C does not cause cardiovascular disease: a comprehensive review of the current literature.

Authors:  Uffe Ravnskov; Michel de Lorgeril; David M Diamond; Rokuro Hama; Tomohito Hamazaki; Björn Hammarskjöld; Niamh Hynes; Malcolm Kendrick; Peter H Langsjoen; Luca Mascitelli; Kilmer S McCully; Harumi Okuyama; Paul J Rosch; Tore Schersten; Sherif Sultan; Ralf Sundberg
Journal:  Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2018-10-11       Impact factor: 5.045

6.  Risk of death in elderly users of conventional vs. atypical antipsychotic medications.

Authors:  Philip S Wang; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Jerry Avorn; Michael A Fischer; Helen Mogun; Daniel H Solomon; M Alan Brookhart
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  ISIS-3: a randomised comparison of streptokinase vs tissue plasminogen activator vs anistreplase and of aspirin plus heparin vs aspirin alone among 41,299 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction. ISIS-3 (Third International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1992-03-28       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1988-08-13       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Associations of serum potassium levels with mortality in chronic heart failure patients.

Authors:  Mette Aldahl; Anne-Sofie Caroline Jensen; Line Davidsen; Matilde Alida Eriksen; Steen Møller Hansen; Berit Jamie Nielsen; Maria Lukács Krogager; Lars Køber; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Peter Søgaard
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2017-10-07       Impact factor: 29.983

Review 10.  Impact of metformin on cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis of randomised trials among people with type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Simon J Griffin; James K Leaver; Greg J Irving
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 10.122

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Translating the dose response into risk and benefit.

Authors:  John B Warren
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2019-05-17       Impact factor: 4.335

2.  Prospective evaluation of high-dose methotrexate pharmacokinetics in adult patients with lymphoma using novel determinants of kidney function.

Authors:  Jason N Barreto; Joel M Reid; Carrie A Thompson; Kristin C Mara; Andrew D Rule; Kianoush B Kashani; Nelson Leung; Thomas R Larson; Renee M McGovern; Thomas E Witzig; Erin F Barreto
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2021-08-23       Impact factor: 4.689

3.  Associations between statins and adverse events in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: Pairwise, network, and dose-response meta-analyses of 47 randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Xinyi Wang; Jingen Li; Tongxin Wang; Zihao Zhang; Qiuyi Li; Dan Ma; Zhuo Chen; Jianqing Ju; Hao Xu; Keji Chen
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-08-25
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.