Clinical cross-over trials in phase I

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 263-278

  Senn, Stephen ^a   Ezzet, Farkad ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b NOVARTIS PHARMA AG   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRUG;

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONCENTRATION RESPONSE; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DOSE RESPONSE; DOSE TIME EFFECT RELATION; DRUG MONITORING; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG TOLERABILITY; HUMAN; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL; REVIEW;

EID: 0033429702     PISSN: 09622802     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/096228029900800306     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Senn SJ. Cross-over trials in clinical research. Chichester: John Wiley, 1993.
2. Senn SJ. Statistical issues in drug development. Chichester: John Wiley, 1997.
3. Kershner RP, Federer WT. Two-treatment cross-over designs for estimating a variety of effects. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1981; 76: 612-19.
4. Lasker EM, Meisner M, Kushner HB. Optimal crossover designs in the presence of carryover effects. Biometrics 1983; 39: 1089-91.
5. Matthews JNS. Optimal cross-over designs for the comparison of two treatments in the presence of carry-over effects and autocorrelated errors. Biometrika 1989; 74: 311-20.
6. Donev AN. Crossover designs with correlated observations. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 1998; 8: 249-62.
7. Fleiss JL. A critique of recent research on the two-treatment cross-over design. Controlled Clinical Trials 1989; 10: 1121-30.
8. Senn SJ, and Lambrou D. Robust and realistic approaches to carry-over. Statistics in Medicine 1989; 17: 2849-64.
9. Boon PC and Roes KCB. Design and analysis issues for cross-over designs in phase I clinical studies. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 1999; 9 109-28.
10. Sheiner LB, Hasimoto Y, Beal SL. A simulation study comparing studies for dose ranging. Statistics in Medicine 1991; 10: 303-22.
11. Senn SJ. Statisticians and pharmacokineticists: what can they learn from each other? In: Aarens L ed. COST B1 medicine: the population approach: measuring and managing variability in response, concentration and dose. Brussels: European Commission, 1997.
12. Racine A, Grieve AP, Flühler H, Smith AFM. Bayesian methods in practice: experiences in the pharmaceutical industry (with discussion). Applied Statistics 1986; 35: 93-150.
13. Martin A, Browning RC. Metoprolol in the aged hypertensive: a comparison of two dosage schedules. Postgraduate Medical Journal 1985; 61: 225-27.
14. Tett SE, Holford NHG, McLachlan AJ. Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: an underutilized resource, Drug Information Journal 1998; 32: 693-710.
15. Rowland M, Tozer TN. Clinical pharmacokinetics: concepts and applications, 3rd edn. Baltimore, MD: William & Wilkins, 1995.
16. Matthews JNS. Multi-period cross-over trials. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 1994; 3: 383-405.
17. Atkinson AC, Donev AN. Optimum experimental designs. Oxford: Oxford Science Publications, 1992.
18. Jones B, Donev AN. Modelling and design of cross-over trials. Statistics in Medicine 1996; 15: 1435-46.
19. Davidian M, Giltinan DM. Nonlinear models for repeated measurement data. London: Chapman & Hall, 1995.
20. Jones B, Wang J, Jarvis P, Byrom W. Design of cross-over trials for pharmacokinetic studies, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 1999; 78: 307-16.
21. Fedorov VV. Theory of optimal experiments. New York: Academic Press, 1972.
22. Steinijans VW, Hauschke D, Schall, R. International harmonization of regulatory requirements for average bioequivalence and current issues in individual bioequivalence. Drug Information Journal 1995; 29: 1055-62.
23. Anderson S, Hauck WW. Consideration of individual bioequivalence. Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics 1990; 18: 259-73.
24. Shumaker RC, Metzler CM. The phenytoin trial is a case study of 'individual' bioequivalence. Drug Information Journal 1998; 32: 1063-72.
25. Senn SJ. In the blood: proposed new requirements for registering generic drugs. The Lancet 1998; 352: 85-86.
26. Dette H, Munk, A. Optimum allocation of treatments for Welch's test in equivalence assessment. Biometrics 1997; 53: 1143-50.
27. Senn SJ, Grieve AP. A comment on optimal allocations for bioequivalence studies. Biometrics 1999; in press.
28. Freeman PR. The performance of the two-stage analysis of two-treatment, two-period crossover trials. Statistics in Medicine 1989; 8: 1421-32.
29. Senn SJ. The AB/BA cross-over: how to perform the two stage analysis if you can't be persuaded that you shouldn't. In: Hansen, B, de Ridder M eds. Liber Amicorum Roel van Strik. Rotterdam, 1996.
30. Gould AL. Interim analyses for monitoring clinical trials that do not materially affect the type I error rate. Statistics in Medicine 1992; 11: 55-66.
31. Gould AL. Group sequential extensions of a standard bioequivalence testing procedure Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics 1995; 23: 57-86.
32. Gough K, Hutchison M, Keene O, Byrom B, Ellis S, Lacey L, McKeller J. Assessment of dose proportionality: report from the statisticians in the pharmacetical industry/pharmacokinetics UK joint workin party. Drug Information Journal 1995; 29: 1039-48.
33. Gibaldi M, Perrier D. Pharmacokinetics, 2nd edn. Basle: Marcel Dekker, 1982.
34. Racine-Poon A, Grieve AP, Flühler H, Smith AFM. A two-stage procedure for bioequivalence studies. Biometrics 1987; 43: 847-56.
35. Cook RD, Weisberg S. Diagnostics for heteroscadasticity in regression. Biometrika 1983; 70: 1-10.