Exploratory assessment of dose proportionality: review of current approaches and proposal for a practical criterion

This article reviews currently used approaches for establishing dose proportionality in Phase I dose escalation studies. A review of relevant literature between 2002 and 2006 found that the power model was the preferred choice for assessing dose proportionality in about one‐third of the articles. Th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPharmaceutical statistics : the journal of the pharmaceutical industry Vol. 8; no. 1; pp. 38 - 49
Main Authors Hummel, Jürgen, McKendrick, Sue, Brindley, Charlie, French, Raymond
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Chichester, UK John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 01.01.2009
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:This article reviews currently used approaches for establishing dose proportionality in Phase I dose escalation studies. A review of relevant literature between 2002 and 2006 found that the power model was the preferred choice for assessing dose proportionality in about one‐third of the articles. This article promotes the use of the power model and a conceptually appealing extension, i.e. a criterion based on comparing the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of predicted mean values from the extremes of the dose range (Rdnm) to pre‐defined equivalence criterion (ϑL,ϑU). The choice of bioequivalence default values of ϑL=0.8 and ϑU=1.25 seems reasonable for dose levels only a doubling apart but are impractically strict when applied over the complete dose range. Power calculations are used to show that this prescribed criterion lacks power to conclude dose proportionality in typical Phase I dose‐escalation studies. A more lenient criterion with values ϑL=0.5 and ϑU=2 is proposed for exploratory dose proportionality assessments across the complete dose range. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliography:ark:/67375/WNG-0WNCXS22-N
istex:F8ECF26352CA8F1881704423EC6356C659E1A85A
ArticleID:PST326
ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
ObjectType-Review-1
ISSN:1539-1604
1539-1612
DOI:10.1002/pst.326