The Target Concentration Approach to Clinical Drug Development

How is science involved in clinical drug development? From the perspective of many of the readers of Clinical Pharmacokinetics, I am sure that science has a clear contribution to the process by which information is gathered about a drug. However, a broader view provides a fuzzier picture. It is widely held that a substantial fraction of clinical trials submitted to support drug registration provide little or no useful information. It is common for drugs to reach the market with a recommended dose that is often too high. And it costs hundreds of millions of dollars and a decade or more to bring a drug through the discovery and development process. The reasons for this expensive and inefficient and misleading process are complex. I contend that the lack of appropriate application of available science methodologies to the process of drug development is a major factor.

[1]  Opportunities for integration of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and toxicokinetics in rational drug development , 1992 .

[2]  G. Alván,et al.  The In Vivo Study of Drug Action , 1994 .

[3]  G. Levy,et al.  Concentration‐controlled versus concentration‐defined clinical trials , 1993, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[4]  C C Peck,et al.  The randomized concentration-controlled trial: an evaluation of its sample size efficiency. , 1991, Controlled clinical trials.

[5]  B. Chabner,et al.  Pharmacologically guided phase I clinical trials based upon preclinical drug development. , 1990, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[6]  L B Sheiner,et al.  The intellectual health of clinical drug evaluation , 1991, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[7]  L. Endrenyi,et al.  Comparative efficiencies of randomized concentration‐ and dose‐controlled clinical trials , 1994, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[8]  F. Follath,et al.  Theophylline serum concentration and therapeutic effect in severe acute bronchial obstruction: the optimal use of intravenously administered aminophylline. , 1982, American Review of Respiratory Disease.

[9]  L B Sheiner,et al.  Time and Theophylline Concentration Help Explain the Recovery of Peak Flow Following Acute Airways Obstruction , 1993, Clinical pharmacokinetics.

[10]  R Couch,et al.  Theophylline Target Concentration in Severe Airways Obstruction — 10 or 20 mg/L? , 1993, Clinical pharmacokinetics.

[11]  N. Holford,et al.  Population pharmacodynamics of romazarit. , 1995, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[12]  G Levy,et al.  Concentration‐ or effect‐controlled clinical trials with sparse data , 1994, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.