Skip to main content

Concentration-Controlled or Effect-Controlled Trials

Useful Alternatives to Conventional Dose-Controlled Trials?

Clinical Pharmacokinetics volume 40, pages 317–325 (2001)Cite this article

Abstract

Historically, dose-finding trials have been confirmatory in nature despite the fact that these trials represent an important and essential ‘learning’ phase in the drug development process. About 10 years ago 2 alternatives to the randomised dose-controlled trial (RDCT) were proposed as being more informative trial types. Controlling systemic drug exposure in order to improve efficiency of a trial forms the basis for the suggestion of a randomised concentration-controlled trial (RCCT). For the common instance where pharmacodynamic variability is larger than pharmacokinetic variability, the randomised effect-controlled trial (RECT), where patients are randomised to the effect of interest was suggested as even more informative.

A survey of the literature shows that the RCCT has been sparsely applied and RECT not at all. For RCCT, the practical complications of carrying out the study seldom makes it the study type of choice. For RECT, the limited number of suitable situations for its application and the fact that the same effect is used for randomisation and analysis may explain the lack of applications.

As a somewhat more favourable trial type, we suggest the randomised biomarker-controlled trial (RBCT), where patients are randomised to a certain value or range of a biomarker whereas the analysis is performed on another, clinically more relevant, effect. Although the RBCT has some attractive features, for example contributing to validation of a biomarker as a surrogate for clinical outcome, it is unlikely to be extensively used. Instead, the main shift from confirming to learning in dose-finding trials is coming from the incorporation of well-known learning components into the RDCT (e.g. sparse concentration measurements combined with population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic, biomarker measurements and analysis of effect measures throughout the entire trial period).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

49,54 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Table I
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Table II

References

  1. Sheiner B. Learning versus confirming in clinical drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997; 61: 275–91

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lesko LJ, Rowland M, Peck CC, et al. Optimising the science of drug development: opportunities for better candidate selection and accelerated evaluation in humans. Eur J Pharm Sci 2000; 10: iv–xiv

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lieberman R, Nelson R. Dose-response and concentration-response relationships: clinical and regulatory perspectives. Ther Drug Monit 1993; 15: 304–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Miller L, Dalton M, Vestal R, et al. Delays in the drug approval process: recent trends. J Clin Res Drug Dev 1988; 2: 31–45

    Google Scholar 

  5. Peck CC. Requirements and general principles of proof of concept trials. 6th EUFEPS Conference. Optimising Drug Development: Streamlining Proof of Concept; 1999 Nov 30–Dec 2; Basel

  6. Peck CC. Concentration-controlled versus concentration-defined clinical trials [reply]. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1993; 53: 385–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Peck CC. The randomized concentration-controlled clinical trial: an information-rich alternative to the randomized placebo-controlled trial [abstract]. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1990; 47: 126

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sanathanan LP, Peck CC. The randomized concentration-controlled trial: an evaluation of its sample size efficiency. Control Clin Trials 1991; 12: 780–94

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Endrenyi L, Zah J. Comparative efficiencies of randomized concentration- and dose-controlled clinical trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1994; 56: 331–8

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Johnston A, Holt DW. Concentration-controlled trials: what does the future hold? Clin Pharmacokinet 1995; 28: 93–9

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Levy G. Concentration controlled versus concentration-defined clinical trials [letter]. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1993; 53: 385–8

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Voze S, Kewitz G, Perruchoud A, et al. Theophylline serum concentrations and therapeutic effect in severe acute bronchial obstruction: the optimal use of intravenously administered theophylline. Am Rev Respir Dis 1982; 125: 181–4

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gelenberg AJ, Kane JM, Keller MB, et al. Comparison of standard and low serum levels of lithium for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorders. N Engl J Med 1989; 321: 1489–93

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mueller EA, Kovarik JM, van Bree J, et al. Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of a microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine in renal allograft recipients: a concentration controlled comparison with the commercial formulation. Transplantation 1994; 57: 1178–82

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Fletcher CV, Acosta EP, Henry K, et al. Concentration-controlled zidovudine therapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998; 64: 331–8

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Evans WE, Relling MV, Rodman JH, et al. Conventional compared with individualized chemotherapy for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 499–505

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bever CT, Young D, Anderson PA, et al. The effects of 4-aminopyridine in multiple sclerosis patients: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, concentration-controlled, cross-over trial. Neurology 1994; 44: 1054–9

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Joel S, O’Byrne K, Penson R, et al. A randomised, concentration-controlled, comparison of standard (5-days) vs. prolonged (15-day) infusions of etoposide phosphate in small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 1998; 9: 1205–11

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. McMichael J, Lieberman R, Doyle H, et al. Computer-guided concentration-controlled trials in autoimmune disorders. Ther Drug Monit 1993; 15: 510–3

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Van Gelder T, Hilbrands LB, Vanrenterghem W, et al. A randomized double-blind, multicenter plasma concentration controlled study of the safety and efficacy of oral mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection after kidney transplantation. Transplantation 1999; 68: 261–6

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pledger GW, Sackellares JC, Treiman DM, et al. Flunarizine for treatment of partial seizures: results of a concentration-controlled trial. Neurology 1994; 44: 1830–6

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Trull A, Steel L, Sharpies L, et al. Randomized, trough blood cyclosporine concentration-controlled trial to compare the pharmacodynamics of Sandimmune and Neoral in de novo lung transplant recipients. Ther Drug Monit 1999; 21: 17–26

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Flexner C, van der Horst C, Jacobson MA, et al. Relationship between plasma concentrations of 3′-deoxy-3′-fluorothymidine (Alovudine) and antiretroviral activity in two concentration-controlled trials. J Infect Dis 1994; 170: 1394–403

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Holford N, Black P, Couch R, et al. Theophylline target concentration in severe airways obstruction: 10 or 20 mg/L? A randomised concentration-controlled trial. Clin Pharmacokinet 1993; 25: 495–505

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Holford N, Hashimoto Y, Sheiner LB. Time and concentration help explain the recovery of peak flow following acute airways obstruction: population analysis of a randomised concentration controlled trial. Clin Pharmacokinet 1993; 25: 506–15

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Note for guidance on dose-response information to support drug registration. CPMP/ICH/378/95

  27. Levy G. Predicting effective drug concentrations for individual patients: determinants of pharmacodynamic variability. Clin Pharmacokinet 1998; 34: 323–33

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Levy G, Ebling WF, Forrest A. Concentration- or effect-controlled clinical trials with sparse data. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1994; 56: 1–8

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Ebling WF, Levy G. Population pharmacodynamics: strategies for concentration— and effect-controlled clinical trials. Ann Pharmacother 1996; 30: 12–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Sheiner LB, Beal SL, Sambol NC. Study designs for dose ranging. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1989; 46(1): 63–77

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Hashimoto Y, Sheiner LB. Designs for population pharmacodynamics: value of pharmacokinetic data and population analysis. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1991 Jun; 19(3): 333–53

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Mongan E, Kelly P, Nies K, et al. Tinnitus as an indication of therapeutic serum salicylate levels. JAMA 1973; 226: 142–5

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Ausems ME, Hug Jr CC, Stanski DR, et al. Plasma concentrations of alfentanil required to supplement nitrous oxide anaesthesia for general surgery. Anaesthesiology 1986; 65: 362–73

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Lasagna L. Diuretics vs. α-blockers for treatment of hypertension: lessons from ALLHAT. JAMA 2000; 283: 2013–4

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Quintiles AB, Islandsgatan 2, SE-753 18, Uppsala, Sweden

    Anders Grahnén

  2. Division of Pharmacokinetics and Drug Therapy, Department of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Mats O. Karlsson

Authors
  1. Anders Grahnén
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mats O. Karlsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anders Grahnén.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grahnén, A., Karlsson, M.O. Concentration-Controlled or Effect-Controlled Trials. Clin Pharmacokinet 40, 317–325 (2001). https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-200140050-00001

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-200140050-00001

Keywords

  • Trial Type
  • Target Concentration
  • Clinical Trial Design
  • Mechanistic Pathway
  • Pharmacokinetic Variability