Advertisement

Clinical Pharmacokinetics

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 93–99 | Cite as

Concentration-Controlled Trials

What Does the Future Hold?
  • Atholl Johnston
  • David W. Holt
Leading Article

Conclusions

There can be no doubt that the introduction of measures to control the drug concentration in clinical trials results in additional complexity and increases cost. However, these disadvantages may be balanced by increased study power, a possible reduction in patient numbers and the gain of additional information relating drug concentrations to pharmacodynamics during drug development. Also, the measurement of drug concentrations rationalises the sometimes criticised intention-to-treat analysis,[39] by eliminating the non- or poorly compliant patient from the evaluated study data. There is a need to integrate pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics during drug development.[40] Concentration-controlled studies may be one of the ways to do this, but the few, non phase I studies, which have been completed and published, have involved only compliance checking,[41] relatively straight-forward therapeutic drug monitoring[19,42,43] or have been undertaken in single centres.[16,17,21,44–47] Before the potential benefits of concentration-controlled trials can be realised in a wider arena, the practical problems, such as those discussed in section 3, must be addressed.

Keywords

Maximum Tolerate Dose Suramin Pharmacokinetic Variability External Quality Assessment Scheme Pharmacodynamic Variability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Mueller EA, Kovarik JM, van Bree JB, et al. Improved dose linearity of cyclosporine pharmacokinetics from a microemulsion formulation. Pharm Res 1994; 11: 304–10Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lieberman R, Nelson R. Dose-response and concentration-response relationships: clinical and regulatory perspectives. Ther Drug Monit 1993; 15: 498–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miller L, Dalton M, Vestal R, et al. Delays in the drug approval process: recent trends. J Clin Res Drug Dev 1988; 2: 31–45Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaye SB, Workman P, Graham MA, et al. Pharmacokinetics and early clinical studies of selected new drugs. Cancer Surv 1993; 17: 371–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Newell DR. Phase I clinical studies with cytotoxic drugs: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations. Br J Cancer 1990; 61: 189–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Estey E, Hoth D, Simon R, et al. Therapeutic response in phase I trials of antineoplastic agents. Can Treat Rep 1986; 70: 1105–15Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kerr DJ, Kaye SB, Graham J, et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of LM985 (flavone acetic acid ester). Cancer Res 1986; 46: 3142–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Collins JM, Zaharko DS, Dedrick RL, et al. Potential roles for preclinical pharmacology in phase I clinical trials. Can Treat Rep 1986; 70: 73–80Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Hennik MB, van der Vijgh WJ, Klein I, et al. Comparative pharmacokinetics of cisplatin and three analogues in mice and humans. Cancer Res 1987; 47: 6297–301PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    EORTC Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism Group. Pharmacokinetically guided dose escalation in phase I clinical trials. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1987; 23: 1083–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Graham MA, Workman P. The impact of pharmacokinetically guided dose escalation strategies in phase I clinical trials: critical evaluation and recommendations for future studies. Ann Oncol 1992; 3: 339–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fuse E, Kobayashi S, Inaba M, et al. Application of pharmacokinetically guided dose escalation with respect to cell cycle phase specificity. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994; 86: 989–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lønning PE. Dose response evaluation: use of plasma concentration confidence intervals as a tool to predict optimal drug dose ratio. Clin Pharmacokinet 1993; 25: 1–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sanathanan LP, Peck CC. The randomized concentration-controlled trial: an evaluation of its sample size efficiency. Control Clin Trials 1991; 12: 780–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sanathanan LP, Peck CC, Temple R, et al. Randomization, PK-controlled dosing, and titration: an integrated approach for designing clinical trials. Drug Inform J 1991; 25: 425–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vožeh S, Kewitz G, Perruchoud A, et al. Theophylline serum concentration and therapeutic effect in severe acute bronchial obstruction: the optimal use of intravenously administered theophylline. Am Rev Respir Dis 1982; 125: 181–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holford N, Black P, Couch R, et al. Theophylline target concentrations in severe airways obstruction — 10 or 20 mg/L: a randomised concentration-controlled trial. Clin Pharmacokinet 1993; 25: 495–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leppik IE. Compliance during treatment of epilepsy. Epilepsia 1988; 29 Suppl. 2: S79–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Temkin NR, Dikmen SS, Wilensky AJ, et al. A randomized, double-blind study of phenytoin for the prevention of posttraumatic seizures. N Engl J Med 1990; 323: 497–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vozeh S, Koelz A, Martin E, et al. Predictability of phenytoin serum levels by nomograms and clinicians. Eur Neurol 1980; 19: 345–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gelenberg AJ, Kane JM, Keller MB, et al. Comparison of Standard and low serum levels of lithium for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. N Engl J Med 1989; 321: 1489–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Levy G. Concentration-controlled versus concentration-defined clinical trials [letter]. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1993; 53: 385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peck CC. Concentration-controlled versus concentration defined clinical trials — a reply [letter]. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1993; 53: 385–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Levy G. Concentration-controlled versus concentration-defined clinical trials [rebuttal]. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1993; 53: 387–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Johnston A, Sketris I, Marsden JT, et al. A limited sampling strategy for the measurement of cyclosporine AUC. Transplant Proc 1990; 22: 1345–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Egorin MJ, Forrest A, Belani CP, et al. A limited sampling strategy for cyclophosphamide pharmacokinetics. Cancer Res 1989; 49: 3129–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Grevel J, Kahan BD. Abbreviated kinetic profiles in area-under-the-curve monitoring of cyclosporine therapy. Clin Chem 1991; 37: 1905–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shaw LM, Bonner HS, Fields L, et al. The use of concentration measurements of parent drug and metabolite during clinical trials. Ther Drug Monk 1994; 15: 483–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cipolle RJ, Zaske DE, Crossley K. Gentamicin/tobramycin: therapeutic use and serum concentration monitoring. In: Taylor WJ, Finn AL, editors. Individualizing drug therapy: practical applications of drug monitoring. New York: Gross Townsend Frank Inc., 1981; 4: 113–48Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smith DB, Ewen C, Mackintosh J, et al. A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of amphethinile. Br J Cancer 1988; 57: 623–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hantel A, Donehower RC, Rowinsky EK, et al. Phase I study and pharmacodynamics of piroxantrone (NSC 349174), a new anthrapyrazole. Cancer Res 1990; 50: 3284–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Graham MA, Bissett D, Setanoians A, et al. Preclinical and phase I studies with rhizoxin to apply a pharmacokinetically guided dose-escalation scheme. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992; 84: 494–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gianni L, Vigano L, Surbone A, et al. Pharmacology and clinical toxicity of 4′-iodo-4′-deoxydoxorubicin: an example of successful application of pharmacokinetics to dose escalation in phase I trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990; 82: 469–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Johnston A, Holt DW. Calibration of the CYCLO-Trac SP cyclosporine radioimmunoassay. Clin Chem 1993; 39(12): 2532–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Johnston A, Holt DW. External quality assessment scheme for cyclosporin in body fluids. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1993; 212: 48–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Levy G. Variability in animal pharmacodynamic studies. In: Rowland M, Sheiner LB, Steimer JL, editors. Variability in drug therapy: description, estimation and control. New York: Raven Press, 1985: 125–38Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Levy G, Ebling WF, Forrest A. Concentration- or effect-controlled clinical trials with sparse data. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1994; 56(1): 1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Endrenyi L, Zha J. Comparative efficiencies of randomized concentration- and dose-controlled clinical trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1993; 56: 331–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sheiner LB. The intellectual health of clinical drug evaluation. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1991; 50: 4–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Peck CC, Barr WH, Benet LZ, et al. Opportunities for integration of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and toxicokinetics in rational drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1992; 51: 465–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    β-Blocker Heart Attack Trial Research Group. A randomized trial of propranolol in patients with acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 1982; 247(12): 1707–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mattson RH, Cramer JA, Collins JF. A comparison of valproate with carbamazepine for the treatment of complex partial seizures and secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures in adults. The Department of Veterans Affairs Epilepsy Cooperative Study No. 264 Group. N Engl J Med 1992; 327: 765–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mueller EA, Kovarik JM, van Bree JB, et al. Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of a microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine in renal allograft recipients — a concentration-controlled comparison with the commercial formulation. Transplantation 1994; 57(8): 1178–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Eisenberger MA, Reyno LM, Jodrell DI, et al. Suramin, an active drug for prostate cancer: interim observations in a phase I trial [published erratum appears in J Natl Cancer Inst 1994 Apr; 86 (8): 639–40]. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 611–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Scher HI, Jodrell DI, Iversen JM, et al. Use of adaptive control with feedback to individualize suramin dosing. Cancer Res 1992; 52: 64–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Treiman DM, Pledger GW, DeGiorgio C, et al. Increasing plasma concentration tolerability study of flunarizine in comedicated epileptic patients. Epilepsia 1993; 34: 944–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Volavka J, Cooper TB, Meisner M, et al. Haloperidol blood levels and effects in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder: a progress report. Psychopharmacol Bull 1990; 26: 13–7PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Atholl Johnston
    • 1
  • David W. Holt
    • 2
  1. 1.Clinical PharmacologySt Bartholomew’s HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.The Analytical Unit, Cardiological SciencesSt George’s Hospital Medical SchoolLondonUK

Personalised recommendations