Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Between-Group Disparities in Drug Response

  • Chapter
Human Experimentation

Abstract

Background.In crossover clinical trials comparing completely different treatments patients tend to fall apart into different populations: those who respond better to treatment 1 and those who do so to treatment 2. The correlation between treatment response in such trials is negative. The current ANCOVA analysis for crossover studies does not allow for correlations being negative, and is, therefore, not adequate to test this kind of trials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Grizzle JE. The two-period change-over design and its use in clinical trials. Biometrics 1965; 22: 469–480.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brown BW. The crossover experiment for clinical trials. Biometrics 1980; 36: 69–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Grieve A. A bayesian analysis of the two-period crossover design for clinical trials. Biometrics 1985; 41: 979–990.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Willan AR, Pater JL. Carryover and the two-period crossover clinical trial. Biometrics 1986; 42: 593–599.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Freeman PR. The performance of the two-stage analysis of two-treatment, two-period crossover trials. Stat Med 1989; 8: 1421–1432.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Fleiss JA. A critique of recent research on the two-treatment crossover design. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 237–244.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Nies AS, Spielberg SP. Individualization of drug therapy. In: Hardman JL et al. editors. Goodman and Gilman’s Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, pp 43–63.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Scheffé H. Mixed models. In: Scheffé H, editor. The analysis of variance. New York, Wiley & Sons, 1959, pp 261–291.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cleophas TJ. Clinical trials: relevance of correlation between treatment responses. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1996; 50: 1–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jackson PR, Yeo WW, Cleophas TJ. Crossover trials. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1996; 42: 399–404.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cleophas TJ. Crossover studies: a modified analysis with more power. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1993; 53: 515–520.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Diploma of Pharmaceutical Medicine, Albert Schweitzer Hospital Dordrecht, Netherlands

    Ton J. Cleophas M.D., Ph.D (President -elect American College of Angiology, F.A.C.A., Co-chairman basic module Medical Statistics)

Authors
  1. Ton J. Cleophas M.D., Ph.D
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cleophas, T.J. (1999). Between-Group Disparities in Drug Response. In: Human Experimentation. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4663-0_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4663-0_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-5827-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-4663-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation