Statistical analysis of drug-drug and site-site interactions with isobolograms.

The use of more than one drug to achieve a desired effect has been a common practice in pharmacologic testing and in clinical practice. For example, combinations of analgesics are frequently prescribed with a view to enhancing pain relief and reducing adverse effects. It is also well established that administration of more than one drug may give effects that are greater than, or less than, the additive effect of each drug given individually. A non-mechanistic method of characterizing the effect resulting from the administration of two compounds is the isobologram. It is relatively simple to draw and interpret isobolograms. However, this graphical technique, which employs equieffective concentrations of individual drugs and combinations of these, obtains the concentrations as random variables from concentration-effect data, usually transformed to a parallel line assay. Thus, statistical confidence limits from such assays, as well as from non-parallel designs, must be expressed on the isobologram if this diagram is to establish superadditive, subadditive, or merely additive effects. We now present a detailed statistical analysis of the isobolographic method illustrated with examples of the statistical procedures, a rational basis for selecting proportions of each drug in the combination, and a relatively novel application of the isobolographic concept, i.e., interactions involving different anatomical sites.

[1]  R. Tallarida,et al.  On the analysis of straight line data in pharmacology and biochemistry. , 1981, Journal of theoretical biology.

[2]  F. Porreca,et al.  A comparison of the central gastrointestinal antitransit effects of morphine and bombesin in the mouse. , 1987, Life sciences.

[3]  F. Porreca,et al.  Sites of clonidine action to inhibit gut propulsion in mice: demonstration of a central component. , 1988, Gastroenterology.

[4]  R. Tallarida,et al.  pA2 and receptor differentiation: a statistical analysis of competitive antagonism. , 1979, Life sciences.

[5]  S. Loewe,et al.  Antagonisms and antagonists. , 1957, Pharmacological reviews.

[6]  T. Rudy,et al.  Multiplicative interaction between narcotic agonisms expressed at spinal and supraspinal sites of antinociceptive action as revealed by concurrent intrathecal and intracerebroventricular injections of morphine. , 1980, The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics.

[7]  G. W. Snedecor Statistical Methods , 1964 .

[8]  B. Cabana,et al.  A study of the interaction of the hypnotic effects and of the toxic effects of chloral hydrate and ethanol. , 1970, The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics.

[9]  F. Wilcoxon,et al.  A simplified method of evaluating dose-effect experiments. , 1948, The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics.

[10]  J. Fujimoto,et al.  Comparisons of descending pain inhibitory pathways activated by beta-endorphin and morphine as characterized by supraspinal and spinal antinociceptive interactions in mice. , 1988, The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics.

[11]  J. Fujimoto,et al.  Morphine antinociception in different strains of mice: relationship of supraspinal-spinal multiplicative interaction to tolerance. , 1988, The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics.

[12]  J. Fujimoto,et al.  Tolerance to morphine analgesia: decreased multiplicative interaction between spinal and supraspinal sites , 1984, Brain Research.

[13]  C. Dunnett,et al.  The Interpretation of Quantal Responses in Biology. , 1983 .