Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33426670›Full record

Trial reportClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2021

The Drug Titration Paradox: Correlation of More Drug With Less Effect in Clinical Data.

Thomas W Schnider, Charles F Minto, Miodrag Filipovic

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A tutorial on pharmacometric Markov models.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Response to "mixed-effects models and the drug titration paradox".CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2023
    Article
  13. Mixed-effects models and the drug titration paradox.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Thomas W SchniderDepartment of Anesthesia, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, Kantonsspital, St Gallen, Switzerland.
Charles F MintoDepartment of Anesthesia, North Shore Private Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Miodrag FilipovicDepartment of Anesthesia, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, Kantonsspital, St Gallen, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While analyzing clinical data where an anesthetic was titrated based on an objective measure of drug effect, we observed paradoxically that greater effect was associated with lesser dose. With this study we sought to find a mathematical explanation for this negative correlation between dose and effect, to confirm its existence with additional clinical data, and to explore it further with Monte Carlo simulations. Automatically recorded dosing and effect data from more than 9,000 patients was available for the analysis. The anesthetics propofol and sevoflurane and the catecholamine norepinephrine were titrated to defined effect targets, i.e., the processed electroencephalogram (Bispectral Index, BIS) and the blood pressure. A proportional control titration algorithm was developed for the simulations. We prove by deduction that the average dose-effect relationship during titration to the targeted effect will associate lower doses with greater effects. The finding of negative correlations between propofol and BIS, sevoflurane and BIS, and norepinephrine and mean arterial pressure confirmed the titration paradox. Monte Carlo simulations revealed two additional factors that contribute to the paradox. During stepwise titration toward a target effect, the slope of the dose-effect data for the population will be "reversed," i.e., the correlation between dose and effect will not be positive, but will be negative, and will be "horizontal" when the titration is "perfect." The titration paradox must be considered whenever data from clinical titration (flexible dose) studies are interpreted. Such data should not be used naively for the development of dosing guidelines.

Indexed as

AgedAnesthetics, InhalationBlood PressureDose-Response Relationship, DrugElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalMonte Carlo MethodNorepinephrinePropofolSevofluraneTertiary Care CentersAnesthetics, InhalationNorepinephrinePropofolSevoflurane

Identifiers

PMID33426670
PMCPMC8359232

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.