Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dose finding by concentration-response versus dose-response: a simulation-based comparison

  • Pharmacodynamics
  • Published:
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

The investigations reported here aimed to evaluate the incremental benefit for dose finding by concentration-response analysis versus dose-response analysis.

Methods

Trials were simulated using an Emax model for a range of scenarios of drug properties, trial design options and target response levels. The simulated data were analysed by concentration-response and dose-response modelling; a dose was then chosen to target a specific response level in a confirmatory trial. The two approaches were compared in terms of the quality of model parameter estimation and the success rate for the confirmatory trial.

Results

While the accuracy for ED50 estimation was comparably good with both approaches, the precision was up to 90 % higher with concentration-response approach. The difference was most notable when clearance was highly variable between subjects and the top dose was relatively low. The higher precision by the concentration-response analysis lead to better dose selection and up to 20 % higher success rate for the subsequent confirmatory trial. The relatively small difference in success rate translated into a remarkable difference in sample size requirement.

Conclusion

By customising these parameters, the approach and the findings can be applied to assessing the value of pharmacokinetic sampling in particular trial situations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. FDAMA (1997) Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (FDAMA) (Pub.L.105–115)

  2. Sheiner LB (1997) Learning versus confirming in clinical drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997(61):275–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bretz F, Hsu J, Pinheiro J, Liu Y (2008) Dose finding−a challenge in statistics. Biom J 50:480–504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Woodcock J, Woosley R (2008) The FDA critical path initiative and its influence on new drug development. Annu Rev Med 59:1–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. US FDA. Guidance for industry: exposure-response relationships — study design, data analysis, and regulatory applications [online]. Available from URL http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm072109.pdf. [Accessed 2008 May 6]

  6. European Medicines Agency. International Conference on harmonisation (ICH)E 4. Guidance on Dose–response Information to Support Drug Registration (CPMP/ICH/378/95)

  7. Sheiner LB, Stanski DR, Vozeh S, Miller RD, Ham J (1979) Simultaneous modeling of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: application to d-tubocurarine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 25:358–371

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sharma A, Jusko WJ (1996) Characterization of four basic models of indirect pharmacodynamic responses. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 24:611–635

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Mager DE, Jusko WJ (2001) Pharmacodynamic modeling of time-dependent transduction systems. Clin Pharmacol Ther 70:210–216

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Simeoni M, Magni P, Cammia C et al (2004) Predictive pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of tumor growth kinetics in xenograft models after administration of anticancer agents. Cancer Res 64:1094–1101

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lobo ED, Balthasar JP (2002) Pharmacodynamic modeling of chemotherapeutic effects: application of a transit compartment model to characterize methotrexate effects in vitro. AAPS PharmSci 4:E42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jumbe NL, Xin Y, Leipold DD, Crocker L et al (2010) Modeling the efficacy of trastuzumab-DM1, an antibody drug conjugate, in mice. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 37:221–242

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lledó-García R, Hennig S, Karlsson MO (2009) Comparison of dose-finding designs for narrow therapeutic index drugs: concentration-controlled vs. dose-controlled trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther 86:62–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Karlsson MO, Sheiner LB (1993) The importance of modelling interocasion variability in population pharmacokinetic analyses. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 21(6):735–750

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Karlsson MO, Beal SL, Sheiner LB (1995) Three new residual error models for population PK/PD. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 23(6):651–672

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lockwood PA, Cook JA, Ewy WE, Mandema JW (2003) The use of clinical trial simulation to support dose selection: application to development of a new treatment for chronic neuropathic pain. Pharm Res 20(11):1752–1759

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lockwood P, Ewy W, Hermann D, Holford N (2006) Application of clinical trial simulation to compare roof-of-concept study designs for drugs with a slow onset of effect; an example in Alzheimer’s disease. Pharm Res 23:2050–2059

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Dansirikul C, Silber HE, Karlsson MO (2008) Approaches to handling pharmacodynamic baseline responses. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 35(3):269–283

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Chapel S, Kowalski K, Hutmacher M, Bockbrader H (2005) Pregabalin exposure-response analysis in patients with postherpetic neuralgia. Clin Pharmacol Ther 77:88–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pinheiro J, Hsu CH (2009) PAGE 18th Satellite meeting. Saint Petersburg

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Shuying Yang and Bruno Delafont for the discussion on the statistical summary of the simulated trial data.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Pharmacology Modelling & Simulation, GlaxoSmithKline, Uxbridge, UK

    Alienor Berges

  2. Clinical Pharmacology Modelling & Simulation, GlaxoSmithKline, 1-3, Iron Bridge Road, Uxbridge, UB11 1BT, UK

    Chao Chen

Authors
  1. Alienor Berges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chao Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chao Chen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berges, A., Chen, C. Dose finding by concentration-response versus dose-response: a simulation-based comparison. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 69, 1391–1399 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-013-1474-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-013-1474-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation