title: Dose finding by concentration-response versus dose-response: a simulation-based comparison.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  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.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  By customising these parameters, the approach and the findings can be applied to assessing the value of pharmacokinetic sampling in particular trial situations.
authors: Clinical Pharmacology Modelling & Simulation, GlaxoSmithKline, Uxbridge, UK.
authors: Alienor
authors: A
authors: Berges
authors: Chao
authors: C
authors: Chen
mesh_terms: D017322:Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; D017326:Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; D003198:Computer Simulation; D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D015507:Drugs, Investigational / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000032:analysis / Q000493:pharmacokinetics*; D006801:Humans; D008657:Metabolic Clearance Rate; D008954:Models, Biological; D009994:Osmolar Concentration; D010601:Pharmacology, Clinical / Q000379:methods*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012107:Research Design
chemical_list: D015507:Drugs, Investigational
references: J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2010 Jun;37(3):221-42
references: 20424896
references: Pharm Res. 2003 Nov;20(11):1752-9
references: 14661918
references: Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001 Sep;70(3):210-6
references: 11557908
references: Biom J. 2008 Aug;50(4):480-504
references: 18663758
references: Cancer Res. 2004 Feb 1;64(3):1094-101
references: 14871843
references: AAPS PharmSci. 2002;4(4):E42
references: 12646013
references: Annu Rev Med. 2008;59:1-12
references: 18186700
references: Pharm Res. 2006 Sep;23(9):2050-9
references: 16906456
references: Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009 Jul;86(1):62-9
references: 19339964
references: Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1997 Mar;61(3):275-91
references: 9084453
references: Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1979 Mar;25(3):358-71
references: 761446
references: J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1996 Dec;24(6):611-35
references: 9300353
references: J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1995 Dec;23(6):651-72
references: 8733951
references: J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1993 Dec;21(6):735-50
references: 8138894
references: J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2008 Jun;35(3):269-83
references: 18446428