title: Characterizing non-constant relative potency.
abstract: Relative potency plays an important role in toxicology. Estimates of relative potency are used to rank chemicals by their effects, to calculate equivalent doses of test chemicals compared to a standard, and to weight contributions of constituent chemicals when evaluating mixtures. Typically relative potency is characterized by a constant dilution factor, even when non-similar dose-response curves indicate that constancy is inappropriate. Improperly regarding relative potency as constant may distort conclusions and potentially mislead investigators or policymakers. We consider a more general approach that allows relative potency to vary as a function of dose, response, or response quantile. Distinct functions can be defined, each generalizing different but equivalent descriptions of constant relative potency. When two chemicals have identical response limits, these functions all carry fundamentally equivalent information; otherwise, relative potency as a function of response quantile is distinct and embodies a modified definition of relative potency. Which definition is preferable depends on whether one views any differences in response limits as intrinsic to the chemicals or as extrinsic, arising from idiosyncrasies of data sources. We illustrate these ideas with constructed examples and real data. Relative potency functions offer a unified and principled description of relative potency for non-similar dose-response curves.
authors: Biostatistics Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2233, USA. dinse@niehs.nih.gov
authors: Gregg E
authors: GE
authors: Dinse
authors: David M
authors: DM
authors: Umbach
references: Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Jan;113(1):43-8
references: 15626646
references: J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1964 May;144:143-9
references: 14183424
references: Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1997 Feb;25(1):68-78
references: 9056502
references: J Pharm Sci. 1966 Jul;55(7):716-23
references: 5338618
references: Natl Toxicol Program Tech Rep Ser. 2006 Jan;(520):4-246
references: 16628245
references: Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2000 Sep 15;167(3):157-72
references: 10986007
references: Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 1991 Aug;21(2):169-76
references: 1958072
references: FASEB J. 1988 Mar 1;2(3):209-15
references: 3350235
references: Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2004 Jan 15;194(2):156-68
references: 14736496
references: Natl Toxicol Program Tech Rep Ser. 2006 Sep;(525):1-198
references: 17160103
references: Natl Toxicol Program Tech Rep Ser. 2006 Apr;(521):4-232
references: 16835633
references: Clin Chem. 1974 Oct;20(10):1255-70
references: 4370388
references: Biometrics. 1965 Dec;21(4):785-98
references: 5857228
references: Toxicol Sci. 2006 Oct;93(2):223-41
references: 16829543
references: Am J Physiol. 1978 Aug;235(2):E97-102
references: 686171
references: Am J Physiol. 1987 Mar;252(3 Pt 1):E357-64
references: 3826362
references: Methods Enzymol. 1975;37:3-22
references: 1128249