Comparison of different methods to evaluate population dose-response and relative potency: Importance of interoccasion variability

Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 67-83

  Lalonde, Richard L ^a,c   Ouellet, Danièle ^a   Kimanani, Ebi K ^a   Potvin, Diane ^a   Vaughan, Leigh M ^b   Hill, Malcolm R ^b  

^a MDS Inc   (Canada)

^b Dura Pharmaceuticals   (United States)

^c PFIZER INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Albuterol; Dose response; Interoccasion variability; Mixed effects modeling; Relative potency

Indexed keywords

BRONCHODILATING AGENT; SALBUTAMOL; SPIROS; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASTHMA; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG EFFECT; DRUG POTENCY; DRUG RESPONSE; DRUG SCREENING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SIMULATION; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ADMINISTRATION, INHALATION; ALBUTEROL; ASTHMA; BRONCHODILATOR AGENTS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; FEMALE; FORCED EXPIRATORY VOLUME; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALITY; MALE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, CHEMICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; NEBULIZERS AND VAPORIZERS; PLACEBOS; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD;

EID: 0032782044     PISSN: 0090466X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1020682729226     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. L. B. Sheiner, S. L. Beal, and N. C. Sambol. Study designs for dose-ranging. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 46:63-77 (1989).
2. L. B. Sheiner. Leaning versus confirming in clinical drug development. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 61:275-291 (1997).
3. International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) Guideline for Industry. Dose-response information to support drug registration. Fed. Reg. 59:55972-55976 (1994).
4. D. J. Finney. Statistical Method in Biological Assay, Charles Griffin, London, 1978.
5. M. O. Karlsson and L. B. Sheiner. The importance of modeling interoccasion variability in population pharmacokinetic analyses. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 21:735-750 (1993).
6. D. J. Schuirmann. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 15:657-680 (1987).
7. A. J. Boeckmann, L. B. Sheiner, and S. L. Beal. NONMEM Users Guide Part V, NON-MEM Project Group. University of California, San Francisco, 1994.
8. H. Akaike. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. 19:716-723 (1974).
9. R. C. Ahrens, J. B. Harris, G. Milavetz, L. Annis, and R. Ries. Use or bronchial provocation with histamine to compare the pharmacodynamics of inhaled albuterol and meta-proterenol in patients with asthma. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 79:876-882 (1987).
10. P. J. Barnes and N. B. Pride. Dose response curves to inhaled β-adrenoceptor agonists in normal and asthmatic subjects. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 15:677-682 (1983).
11. W. R. Gillespie, S. G. Machado, D. J. Schuirmann, G. R. Zhu, A. H. Balch, and C. Hu. Bioequivalence assessment based on pharmacodynamic response: Application to albuterol metered-dose inhalers. Pharm. Res. 14:S-139 (1997).
12. M. O. Karlsson and L. B. Sheiner. Estimating bioavailability when clearance varies with time. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 55:623-637 (1994).