Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Oct;85(10):2187-2193.
doi: 10.1111/bcp.13949. Epub 2019 May 17.

Translating the dose response into risk and benefit

Affiliations
Review

Translating the dose response into risk and benefit

John B Warren. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2019 Oct.

Abstract

When choosing a medicine two aspects determine the balance between benefit and harm (risk-benefit), matching the medicine to the individual and the choice of dose. Knowing the relationship between dose and response allows a calculation of the dose that causes 50% of the maximal effect, the ED50 . Rational drug dosing depends on defining the ratio of the dose to the ED50 . The ED50 of each drug has two scales, whether the effect measured is for efficacy, or safety. Quantifying efficacy is comparatively straightforward. A fall in blood pressure, combined with a statistical and clinically significant reduction in cardiovascular events, might justify the efficacy of an antihypertensive. Measuring a drug's effect on safety is more complex, as this is so often a subjective assessment of a collection of adverse events. Though a science-based therapeutic window defined from in vitro efficacy and safety dose response curves is reassuring, this review discusses how to translate this into dose-dependent risk-benefit based on clinical trial data. Some of the limitations of our knowledge about the choice of dose that optimizes an individual's risk-benefit, or whether no drug is a better option, are discussed. It is important to define these limitations when educating the consumer/patient about the clinical pharmacology that justifies their treatment dose options.

Keywords: EMA; FDA; Phase 1-3; clinical trials; mortality; safety.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author has no competing interests for this paper. He receives personal dividends from Medicines Assessment Ltd; is Executive Editor of the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology; and is member of the Joint Speciality Committee for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics at the Royal College of Physicians, London.

References

    1. Warren JB. Composite endpoints and the distortion of risk‐benefit analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;83(2):221‐223. - PMC - PubMed
    1. McNeil JJ, Nelson MR, Woods RL, et al. Effect of aspirin on all‐cause mortality in the healthy elderly. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(16):1519‐1528. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ritter JM, Harding I, Warren JB. Precaution, cyclooxygenase inhibition, and cardiovascular risk. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2009;30(10):503‐508. - PubMed
    1. Lamanna C, Monami M, Marchionni N, Mannucci E. Effect of metformin on cardiovascular events and mortality: A meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2011;13(3):221‐228. - PubMed
    1. Boussageon R, Supper I, Bejan‐Angoulvant T, et al. Reappraisal of metformin efficacy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: A meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials. PLoS Med. 2012;9(4):e1001204. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

Substances