Skip Navigation LinksHome > June 2000 - Volume 92 - Issue 6 > Response Surface Model for Anesthetic Drug Interactions
Anesthesiology:
Clinical Investigations

Response Surface Model for Anesthetic Drug Interactions

Minto, Charles F. M.B., Ch.B.*; Schnider, Thomas W. M.D.†; Short, Timothy G. M.D.‡; Gregg, Keith M. Ph.D.§; Gentilini, Andrea M.S.∥; Shafer, Steven L. M.D.#

Free Access
Supplemental Author Material
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

Collapse Box

Abstract

Background: Anesthetic drug interactions traditionally have been characterized using isobolographic analysis or multiple logistic regression. Both approaches have significant limitations. The authors propose a model based on response-surface methodology. This model can characterize the entire dose–response relation between combinations of anesthetic drugs and is mathematically consistent with models of the concentration–response relation of single drugs.
Methods: The authors defined a parameter, θ, that describes the concentration ratio of two potentially interacting drugs. The classic sigmoid Emax model was extended by making the model parameters dependent on θ. A computer program was used to estimate response surfaces for the hypnotic interaction between midazolam, propofol, and alfentanil, based on previously published data. The predicted time course of effect was simulated after maximally synergistic bolus dose combinations.
Results: The parameters of the response surface were identifiable. With the test data, each of the paired combinations showed significant synergy. Computer simulations based on interactions at the effect site predicted that the maximally synergistic three-drug combination tripled the duration of effect compared with propofol alone.
Conclusions: Response surfaces can describe anesthetic interactions, even those between agonists, partial agonists, competitive antagonists, and inverse agonists. Application of response-surface methodology permits characterization of the full concentration–response relation and therefore can be used to develop practical guidelines for optimal drug dosing.
Back to Top | Article Outline

ArticlePlus

Click on the links below to access all the ArticlePlus for this article.
Please note that ArticlePlus files may launch a viewer application outside of your web browser.
* http://links.lww.com/ALN/A47
DRUG interactions are the basis of anesthetic practice. For example, induction of anesthesia may consist of intravenous administration of a benzodiazepine before induction, a hypnotic to achieve loss of consciousness, and an opioid to blunt the response to noxious stimulation. Similarly, anesthesia often is maintained with a combination of a hypnotic (e.g., propofol, isoflurane) and an analgesic (e.g., fentanyl, nitrous oxide). Anesthetic drugs are often combined because they interact synergistically to create the anesthetized state.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Image Tools
Pharmacodynamic drug interactions are typically described using mathematical models. The basic model is that of an isobole. Isoboles are iso-effect curves, curves that show dose combinations that result in equal effect. 1 The combination of two doses (d1 and d2) can be represented by a point on a graph, the axes of which are the dose axes of the individual drugs (fig. 1). The isobole connects isoeffective doses of the two drugs when administered alone, D1 and D2. If the isobole is straight (fig. 1A), then the relation is additive. If the isobole bows toward the origin (fig. 1B), then smaller amounts of both drugs are needed to produce the drug effect when administered together, so the relation is supraadditive or synergistic. If the isobole bows away from the origin (fig. 1C), then greater amounts of both drugs are needed to produce the drug effect when administered together, so the relation is infraadditive.
Table 1
Table 1
Image Tools
In table 1 we propose a set of criteria that pharmacodynamic models of drug interactions should meet. In this article we propose an interaction model that meets these criteria, based on response-surface methodology. Response surfaces are a powerful statistical methodology for estimating and interpreting the response of a dependent variable to multiple inputs. 2 Response-surface methodology is used for two principal purposes; to provide a description of the response pattern in the region of the observations studied and to assist in finding the region in which the optimal response occurs. Our model is a straightforward extension of the sigmoidal concentration–response relation for individual drugs. We test the proposed model using data from a study of the interaction of midazolam, propofol, and alfentanil with loss of consciousness. 3
This article only considers pharmacodynamic interactions, the type of interaction most relevant to the practice of anesthesia. Pharmacokinetic interactions are entirely different and will not be considered. Appendix 1 (which can be found on the Anesthesiology Web site at http://www.anesthesiology.com) reviews several commonly used pharmacodynamic models of drug interactions and shows areas in which existing models fail to meet the criteria in table 1.
Back to Top | Article Outline

Methods

Model Development and Mathematics
Equation 1
Equation 1
Image Tools
The effects of individual drugs are often modeled by relating drug effect (E) to drug concentration (C) using a sigmoid model:MATH 1 where E0 is the baseline effect when no drug is present, Emax is the peak drug effect, C50 is the concentration associated with 50% drug effect, and γ is a “sigmoidicity factor” that determines the steepness of the relation.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Image Tools
This relation is shown graphically in figure 2. The concentration term often is defined as the concentration at the site of drug effect, but the model can be generalized to any measure of exposure (e.g., dose, plasma concentration, or area under the curve). For models of probability, such as the probability of moving in response to surgical incision, E0 is 0 and Emax is the maximal probability (usually assumed to be 1).
Equation 2
Equation 2
Image Tools
Dividing the numerator and denominator of equation 1 by C50γ, we obtain an alternate form:MATH 2
In this model, concentration has been normalized to the concentration that results in 50% of maximal drug effect. This is a natural way to think about drug concentration—as a fraction of some measure of potency. For example, anesthesiologists are accustomed to thinking about volatile anesthetics in terms of minimum alveolar concentration (MAC), rather than in absolute concentration terms. This is precisely the concept of normalizing drug concentration to potency.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Image Tools
The basic concept of our proposed interaction model is simple. Consider two drugs, each of which has a sigmoidal concentration–response relation. We will think of any given ratio (i.e., B/(A + B), called θ herein) of the two drugs as behaving as a new drug. This new drug, which is actually a fixed ratio of the two drugs, has its own sigmoidal concentration–response relation, as shown in figure 3. This is the basic premise of our interaction model. The mathematics are simply an extension of the model for a single drug to a model that considers each ratio of two drugs as a drug in its own right.
Equation 3
Equation 3
Image Tools
Equation 4
Equation 4
Image Tools
We will express the concentrations of drugs A and B as [A] and [B]. As suggested by equation 2, we must first normalize each drug to its potency, C50, and express the results in units (U) of potency. MATH 3 where UA is the normalized concentration of drug A, and UB is the normalized concentration of drug B. We can define a family of “drugs,” each being a unique ratio of UA and UB. Each drug will be defined in terms of θ, where θ is defined as MATH 4
Equation 5
Equation 5
Image Tools
By definition, θ ranges from 0 (drug A only) to 1 (drug B only). The “drug concentration” is simply UA + UB. We can extend equation 2 to describe the concentration–response relation for any ratio, θ, of the two drugs in combination:MATH 5 where θ is the ratio of the two drugs, the drug concentration is UA + UB, γ(θ) is the steepness of the concentration–response relation at ratio θ, U50(θ) is the number of units (U) associated with 50% of maximum effect at ratio θ, and Emax(θ) is the maximum possible drug effect at ratio θ. Because Emax, C50, and γ in equation 2 have been replaced by functions of θ, each ratio has the potential to have its own Emax, C50, and γ. This allows each ratio of drug A and drug B to behave as its own drug, with its own sigmoidal concentration–response relation, which is the basic premise of the model.
The term “U50(θ)” is the potency of the drug combination at ratio θ relative to the normalized potency of each drug by itself. This requires careful explanation. Let us assume that only drug A is present, in a concentration of C50,A. In this case, the drug effect is half of the maximal effect, UA = 1, UB = 0, θ = 0, and the drug concentration is UA + UB = 1. Because we have 50% of the maximum drug effect, and 1 unit of drug, then the number of units associated with 50% drug effect when only drug A is present, U50(0), must be 1. Similarly, let us assume that only drug B is present and the concentration of drug B is C50,B. In this case, the drug effect is half of the maximal effect, UA = 0, UB = 1, θ = 1, and the drug concentration is UA + UB = 1. Because we have 50% of the maximum drug effect, and 1 unit of drug, then the number of units associated with 50% drug effect when only drug B is present, U50(1), must again be 1. By definition, if only drug A or drug B is present, U50(θ) = 1.
Now, let us assume that drug A and drug B both are present, each in exactly half of the concentration that would cause 50% of the drug effect when administered alone. In this case, UA = 0.5, UB = 0.5, θ = 0.5, and the drug concentration is UA + UB = 1. If this causes 50% of maximum effect, then the drugs are simply additive at θ = 0.5, and U50(0.5) = 1. However, if this combination produces more than a half-maximal effect, then 1 unit of this combination, at θ = 0.5, is more potent than 1 unit of either drug alone (i.e., synergistic). In this case, U50(0.5) < 1. Conversely, if this combination produces less than a half-maximal effect, then 1 unit of this combination, at θ = 0.5, is less potent than either drug alone (i.e., infraadditive). In this case, U50(0.5) > 1. Thus, U50(θ) is the potency of the combination compared with the potency of either drug alone, which is 1 by definition.
Thus, the units of U50(θ) are not concentration units, but rather the number of units, at ratio θ, associated with 50% of maximal drug effect. U50(θ) is 1 for θ = 0 and θ = 1. For all values of θ between 0 and 1 (i.e., all possible ratios of the two drugs), U50(θ) assumes a value determined by the data. If this value is 1, then the interaction is additive at θ. If the value is less than 1, then the drug effect is synergistic at θ. If the value is greater than 1, then the interaction is antagonistic at θ.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Image Tools
Figure 4 shows the relation between a three-dimensional response surface and a conventional two-dimensional isobolographic analysis. The two-dimensional isobologram is a cut through the three-dimensional surface, generally taken at the 50% response level. In this particular example, synergy is evident in the three-dimensional model as a bowing of the surface toward the reader. This bowing causes the conventional isobologram to deviate toward the origin from the straight line of additivity.
Equation 6
Equation 6
Image Tools
Much pharmacodynamic literature supports the sigmoid relation in equation 1, equation 2, and equation 5. There is only modest information specifying the functions Emax(θ), U50(θ), and γ(θ). Our choice is to use functions that are capable of taking a variety of shapes, so that good approximations to the true relations can be determined empirically. To provide these flexible functions we chose fourth-order polynomials of the form MATH 6 where f(θ) is Emax(θ), U50(θ), or γ(θ). The coefficients (β0, β1, β2, β3, β4) are model parameters that are either constrained by the model or estimated from the data. Fortunately, two of these terms, β0 and β1, can be replaced by other terms already defined.
We already defined the values Emax(θ), U50(θ), and γ(θ) when only drug A is present, Emax,A, U50,A, and γA, respectively. Note in equation 6 that when θ = 0 (only drug A is present), f(0) = β0. Therefore, when f(θ) is Emax(θ), U50(θ), or γ(θ), β0 must be Emax,A, U50,A, and γA, respectively.
Similarly, we also defined the values Emax(θ), U50(θ), and γ(θ) when only drug B is present, Emax,B, U50,B, and γB, respectively. Referring again to equation 6, when θ = 1 (only drug B is present), f(1) = β0 + β1 + β2 + β3 + β4. We can rearrange this as β1 = f(1) − β0 − β2 − β3 − β4. Thus, when f(θ) is Emax(θ), U50(θ), or γ(θ), β1 must be Emax,B − Emax,A − β2,Emax − β3,Emax − β4,Emax, U50,B − U50,A − β2, U50 − β3,U50 − β4,U50, or γB − γA − β2,γ − β4,γ, respectively.
Equation 7
Equation 7
Image Tools
This permits us to develop models that incorporate the individual drug parameters for Emax(θ), U50(θ), and γ(θ) as functions of θ. The equation for Emax(θ), using the substitutions previously mentioned for β0 and β1, is MATH 7
Equation 8
Equation 8
Image Tools
U50,A and U50,B, [equivalent to U50(θ) and U50(1)], are both 1 by definition. Thus, when f(θ) = U50(θ), the values of β0 and β1 in equation 6 are 1 and −β2−β3 −β4, respectively. Therefore, the equation for potency as a function of θ can be simplified to MATH 8
Equation 9
Equation 9
Image Tools
Many isobolograms have a simple inward or outward curvature, which can be readily encompassed with a simple quadratic form of equation 8 with just one coefficient:MATH 9
Equation 10
Equation 10
Image Tools
Equation 11
Equation 11
Image Tools
If β2,U50 is 0, then the value of U50(θ) will be 1 for all values of θ. This means that the interaction will be additive. If β2,U50 is a positive number, then U50(θ) will be less than 1 for all values of θ between 0 and 1. The effect is to magnify the term MATH 10 in equation 5, making it appear that there is more drug present. This will produce a greater than additive effect, i.e., synergy. If β2,U50 is a negative number, then U50(θ) will be greater than 1 for all values of θ between 0 and 1. This reduces the term MATH 11 in equation 5, making it appear that there is less drug present. This will produce a less than additive effect. This assumes that drugs A and B have the same maximal effect. It is possible for some approaches to synergy analysis to show apparent synergy if the maximal effects of drugs A and B are not identical, even if U50(θ) = 1 for all values of θ.
Equation 12
Equation 12
Image Tools
The model for the steepness term, γ(θ), can similarly be described from equation 6, with appropriate substitutions for β0 and β1. The resulting equation is MATH 12
Equations 6–10 describe straight lines (simple additivity) when the coefficients (i.e., β2, β3, β4) are 0. They are the equations for parabolas if the respective β2 coefficient is nonzero, and β3 and β4 are 0. More complex shapes are generated when β3 and β4 are nonzero.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Image Tools
Figure 5 shows Emax, U50, and γ as functions of θ for the synergistic interaction seen in figure 4. Emax and γ are constant, and thus have no interaction. U50 is necessarily 1 at θ = 0 and θ = 1, but is less than one between these extremes. This increases the potency of the drugs when administered in combination, resulting in the synergy seen in figure 4.
Equation 13
Equation 13
Image Tools
The model can be readily expanded to show the interaction of more than two drugs. In the case of three drugs (A, B, and C) the proportion of each drug present can be expressed by θA, θB, and θC, where MATH 13
Equation 14
Equation 14
Image Tools
We can define the ratio of three drugs from just two of these ratios because θABC=1. For our purposes here, we will use θB and θC. We again assume that for any fixed value of θB and θC, there is a sigmoidal relation between concentration and response. Therefore, if the three drugs could be administered to the effect site in an exactly fixed proportion, they would show a sigmoidal total concentration–response relation, where the “concentration” was the sum of the three normalized concentrations. This is precisely the notion that underlies the two-drug model. The equation for the three-drug model follows:MATH 14
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Image Tools
In the three-drug model the parameters of the sigmoidal relation, Emax, γ, and U50, are functions of θB and θC. The functions EmaxBC), U50BC), and γ(θBC) are described in Appendix 2 (which can be found on the Anesthesiology Web site at http://www.anesthesiology.com). The important point is that instead of describing a curve, as in equations 6–10, when three drugs are present, the parameters of the sigmoidal relation (equation 12) are themselves surfaces. Figure 6 shows representative surfaces for U50 as functions of θB and θC.
The response-surface model was written in the C programming language by the authors and compiled as a dynamic link library for Excel (Excel 7.0 for Windows; Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, CA).
We also implemented the model for NONMEM (NONMEM Project Group, University of California at San Francisco, CA). 3 This code is available on request to the authors. ** Graphs were prepared using Excel and Mathematica (Mathematica for Windows, Version 4.0; Wolfram Research, Champaign, IL).
Back to Top | Article Outline
Patients and Clinical Trial Design
Table 2
Table 2
Image Tools
To demonstrate the use of our response-surface model, we analyzed data previously published by Short et al.4 These data are also available via the Anesthesiology Web site (http://www.anesthesiology.org). Dose–response relations were established after intravenous bolus doses of midazolam, propofol, and alfentanil administered individually and in combination in 400 women patients undergoing elective gynecologic surgery. Patients were assessed for hypnosis (defined as failure to open the eyes to verbal command) 4 min after midazolam administration and 2 min after propofol or alfentanil injection (the approximate times to peak effect after an intravenous bolus). When the combination being tested included midazolam, it was administered 2 min before the other drugs. The doses of midazolam, propofol, and alfentanil used and the proportion of patients achieving hypnosis for each dose category are shown in table 2. This data set was selected because it provided three two-drug combinations that could be used to demonstrate response–surface relations. In addition, the data are notable for the relatively large number of subjects and the uniformity of the experimental conditions. Lastly, it provides the ability to include a three-drug interaction model, showing the flexibility of the proposed response-surface model.
Back to Top | Article Outline
Statistical Analysis
We assumed in the model that all subjects were awake when no drug was present; therefore, E0 was 0 by definition. In addition, we assumed that each drug was capable of causing complete hypnosis if administered in a high enough concentration.
Equation 15
Equation 15
Image Tools
Equation 16
Equation 16
Image Tools
These assumptions permitted a simplification of equation 12. E0 (no hypnosis) and EmaxB, θC) (complete hypnosis) can be constrained to 0 and 1 respectively, with no interaction across the EmaxB, θC) parameter surface. Thus, the probability of hypnosis for any combination is MATH 15 where UA, UB, and UC are the doses of midazolam, propofol, and alfentanil, respectively. The units are fractions of each drug’s dose necessary to cause hypnosis in 50% of the population (D50). Four separate analyses based on equation 13 were performed: (1) the data for the single and paired combination of midazolam and propofol were modeled; (2) the data for the single and paired combination of midazolam and alfentanil were modeled; (3) the data for the single and paired combination of propofol and alfentanil were modeled; and (4) the complete data set for the single, paired, and three-drug combinations (table 2) were modeled simultaneously. Model parameters and standard errors were estimated using NONMEM, by maximizing the log likelihood (LL) for all 400 observations:MATH 16 where Ri is the observed response of the ith individual, either 0 (respond to voice) or 1 (not respond to voice), and P is the probability of response to voice for each dose combination. Equation 14 can be expressed in words as the sum of the natural logarithm of the probabilities of “no response in the nonresponders” and “response in the responders.” The contribution of the polynomial coefficients to the model was evaluated by excluding the coefficients one at a time, by determining whether the model deteriorated significantly (likelihood ratio test), and by assessment of residuals (observed vs. predicted probability of hypnosis for each dose combination). Parameter estimates and standard errors were tabulated. The response surfaces for the paired interactions and the U50B, θC) parameter surface were graphed.
Back to Top | Article Outline
Computer Simulations
Excel Solver was used to find the maximally synergistic combinations of the paired and the three-drug interactions based on the parameter estimates obtained from the simultaneous analysis of the entire data set. The intravenous bolus doses necessary to achieve 95% probability of hypnosis in this population were tabulated for each drug alone, for each paired combination, and for the three-drug combination. To illustrate the application of the response-surface model with concentrations, the pharmacokinetic parameters of Bührer et al., 5 Schnider et al., 6,7 and Scott and Stanski 8 were used to calculate the C50 for hypnosis for midazolam, propofol, and alfentanil, respectively. This was calculated as the predicted effect-site concentration at the time of assessment after the respective D50 bolus. Equation 13 was then used to calculate the predicted time course of effect (probability of hypnosis in the population) after these maximally synergistic doses of midazolam, propofol, and alfentanil, administered alone and in combination. The pharmacokinetic parameters, the calculated C50 values and the time from hypnosis in 95% of the population to “no hypnosis” in 95% of the population were tabulated. The predicted time course of effect was graphed. All simulations were performed using PKPD Tools for Excel (PKPD Tools for Excel; written by C. Minto and T. Schnider, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA).
Back to Top | Article Outline
Response Surfaces
The shapes of the response surfaces generated by the aforementioned equations are not readily visualized. We therefore used three-dimensional graphics to illustrate the response surface for a variety of interactions between two drugs, by varying the model parameters of equation 5. These interactions include additive, synergistic, and antagonistic interactions between two agonists and interactions between full agonist–partial agonists, agonist–competitive antagonists, and agonist–inverse agonists.
Back to Top | Article Outline

Results

Midazolam–Propofol–Alfentanil Interaction
Table 3
Table 3
Image Tools
Table 4
Table 4
Image Tools
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Image Tools
We were able to include the data for all 400 patients in the analysis, in contrast to the method used by Short et al., 4 which necessitated the exclusion of the data for 120 patients. Parameter estimates and standard errors for the analysis of the three paired drug interactions are shown in table 3. Parameter estimates and standard errors for the simultaneous analysis of the entire data set are shown in table 4. There were no significant differences in the slope parameter of the three drugs, nor were there significant drug interactions across the γ(θB, θC) surface. The D50 values for each drug tended to be the same, regardless of the combination being modeled (tables 3 and 4). This is an expected result. Because the data for single administration was included in the interaction models, the D50 values were almost entirely determined from subjects receiving each drug alone. Figure 7 shows the response surfaces for each of the paired interactions. All paired drug interactions showed significant synergy. The triple synergy parameter in the three-drug model was not statistically significant (see Appendix 2 on the Anesthesiology Web site at http://www.anesthesiology.com). This indicates that, when all three drugs are present, there is not synergy beyond that expected from the paired interactions of all three drugs.
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
Image Tools
The U50B, θC) surface is shown in figure 8. The maximum decrease in U50B, θC) values for the paired combinations are represented by the midpoint of the three edges of the triangular surface. Values follow (expressed as a percentage decrease): midazolam–propofol = 35%; midazolam–alfentanil = 44%; propofol–alfentanil = 16%. The maximum decrease (45%) in U50B, θC) for the three-drug combination is found at the lowest point of the U50B, θC) surface, which is located at θB = 0.144 and θC = 0.396. This corresponds in figure 8 to θMid–Prop = 0.24, θMid–Alf = 0.47, and θAlf–Prop = 0.73, where the point appears as a dot on the axis plane.
Back to Top | Article Outline
Computer Simulations
Table 5
Table 5
Image Tools
Fig. 9
Fig. 9
Image Tools
Table 5 shows the doses for the single, paired, and three-drug combinations optimized for maximum synergy associated with 95% probability of hypnosis (in a population of 50-kg women) based on the parameters shown in figure 6. The time between 95% probability of hypnosis to 95% probability of no hypnosis for each combination was calculated based on the simulations shown in figure 9. Although the maximally synergistic three-drug combination enables administration of one tenth the propofol dose, this results in a threefold increase in the time for 95% to awaken. Propofol alone is the drug of choice when the desired end point is a brief period of hypnosis. A knowledge of the occurrence and time course of other effects, such as anxiolysis, amnesia, analgesia, bradycardia, hypotension, muscular rigidity, and respiratory depression is necessary to determine the optimum drug combinations for other clinical end points.
Table 6
Table 6
Image Tools
TABLE 6
Back to Top | Article Outline
Response Surfaces
Fig. 10
Fig. 10
Image Tools
Figure 10 shows our two-drug, response-surface model (equation 5) for an additive interaction (A), a synergistic interaction (B), and an antagonist interaction (C). It also shows the interaction between a full agonist and a partial agonist (D), a full agonist and a competitive antagonist (E), and a full agonist and an inverse agonist (F).
Back to Top | Article Outline

Discussion

One way to describe our model for two drugs, A and B, is that along the drug A axis and the drug B axis there are two one-drug sigmoid Emax equations (equation 1). Our proposed model connects these two sigmoid curves via polynomial functions of θ (equation 4). Drug interactions are then sought as coefficients of the polynomials that connect the “one-drug” sigmoids to each other. Although each value of θ can have its own Emax, C50, and γ, the model assumes that the underlying sigmoidal shape is preserved for all values of θ. This concept of a fixed ratio (θ) of two drugs having their own properties is not new. Carter et al.9 considered each drug ratio to be essentially similar to a single agent, whose response could be described by a single two-dimensional concentration–response curve. Short et al.4 proposed that when using combinations of sedatives “the combination should be regarded as a new ‘drug’ with individual properties, rather than merely reflecting the known properties of the individual agents.”
The use of functions (equations 7–10) to connect the parameters of drug A to drug B assumes that the response surface is smooth and continuous. Although the basic model (equation 5) contains the usual parameters estimated in sigmoid Emax models, the polynomials that underlie U50(θ), Emax(θ), and γ(θ) are more complex. The use of polynomial response functions to approximate complex response surfaces is common in many experimental situations. However, polynomial models with the independent variable present at powers higher than the second power are not often used because it becomes difficult to interpret the coefficients. 2 We proposed a very flexible model. Potentially, poor trial design, incomplete sampling of the response surface, or careless application of the curve-fitting procedures could result in estimation of parameters that provide a “good fit,” but when evaluated more closely generate an unrealistic shape for the surface. These concerns are not unique to this model and can be alleviated by proper model-selection techniques.
When evaluating the polynomial functions, one is particularly interested in whether the higher order terms can be dropped from the model. The statistical significance of the higher order terms should be tested against the simpler models using the likelihood ratio test. In addition to standard methods of model development, such as evaluation of standard errors and the pattern of residuals, the model should also be evaluated by graphing the entire response surface, and by graphing the individual model parameters as functions of θ (e.g., equations 7–10) to ensure that the pharmacodynamic parameters do not extrapolate to unreasonable values. For instance, it must be ensured that U50(θ) and γ(θ) are always positive in the range of 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1. In the case of three drugs, the parameter surface should be graphed as shown in figure 8.
Berenbaum 1 developed a mathematical proof showing that zero-interaction holds if and only if the isobolograms are straight lines. For this to be true, Emax must be constant with respect to θ. The case of γ(θ) is more complicated. Ifγ is constant with respect to θ, there is zero-interaction if Emax(θ) and U50(θ) are also constant. But ifγA is not equal to γB, there is no easy way to use our interaction model to test for zero-interaction (as defined by Berenbaum 1). Although we agree with Berenbaum’s 1 treatment of the zero-interactive surface, the description of an interaction as zero-interactive, synergistic, or antagonistic may be too simplistic. For example, a drug combination can be synergistic in certain regions and antagonistic in others. 10 To our thinking, the focus on whether drug interactions can be reduced to simple descriptors such as “additive,” “synergistic,” or “antagonistic” completely misses the point. The interaction has the potential to be highly dimensional and complex. Rather than worry about which descriptor applies to the relation, the goal should be to characterize the response surface. From the surface one can identify the best combination to produce the specified therapeutic effect.
Our model is empirical. It makes no assumptions about the mechanism of interaction between the drugs. However, we assume that the concentration–response relation for each of the interacting drugs is described by a direct pharmacodynamic model. We have not attempted to describe interactions between drugs that act directly and those that act indirectly, 11 although we are not aware of any reason that our approach could not be combined with the more kinetic approach of indirect interactions.
The fundamental model for each drug does not have to be the sigmoid Emax model (equation 1). For example, the model could be a linear, polynomial, or exponential response function. The model could also be a bimodal response function, as seen with some hypnotics. 6 In fact, the model can be any function, so long as it has parameters that permit connection among the individual single-drug models. Thus, the only constraint is that the interaction model reduces to the model for drug A when θ = 0 and to the model for drug B when θ = 1.
Despite the flexibility of response-surface approaches, difficulties can still arise. For example, the occurrence of adverse effects might prevent the collection of data in a sufficient range to identify the model parameters for one of the drugs. An alternative to specifying a administered function for the concentration–response relation is to use a semiparametric function, as described by Troconiz et al.12 These authors discuss the use of flexible nonparametric functions (splines) that are forced to obey certain constraints (for example, a spline can be constrained to resemble an Emax model). Although they illustrate their approach in the context of antagonistic interactions, it can be extended to model additive and synergistic drug interactions.
We used our response-surface model to analyze the drug interactions for the hypnotic end point between midazolam, propofol, and alfentanil. Based on this end point, a maximum effect of 100% for all three drugs described the data well. Although the high dose of propofol (alone) and alfentanil (alone) abolished the response to voice in 100% of patients, the high dose of midazolam (alone) abolished the response to voice in only 80% of patients (table 2). These results do not suggest that alfentanil will prevent purposeful movement or awareness in response to a surgical incision; nor do they prove that higher doses of midazolam will abolish response to voice in 100% of patients.
Our computer simulations showed the ability of our response-surface model to take into account potential interactions of two or three drugs at the effect site over time. We emphasize that these simulated effect-site concentrations are based on published information regarding pharmacokinetic parameters and do not take into account possible pharmacokinetic interactions between the three drugs. Notwithstanding this reservation, we were able to demonstrate that the maximally synergistic dose ratio is not necessarily advantageous if a brief hypnotic effect is the desired end point.
Although the three-dimensional view may aid in understanding and comparing different methods used to study drug interactions, it does not contain information that cannot be presented by a sequence of two-dimensional figures such as the isobologram (horizontal “slices” of the response surface, representing typical contour representations of three-dimensional graphs), the response to increasing concentration of one drug in the presence of fixed concentration of the other drug (vertical slices parallel to one axis), and the response to fixed concentration ratios of the two agents (radial slices). With any of these methods, a three-dimensional picture of the response surface can be constructed if sufficient slices are studied. In the case of three drugs, it is no longer possible to graph the response surface because it is a four-dimensional surface, although the model parameters themselves can be graphed in three dimensions (fig. 6). Development of techniques using parallel coordinate axes might prove to be useful aids in the visual interpretation of the interactions between three or more drugs. 13
Back to Top | Article Outline

Conclusion

In conclusion, the study of drug interactions in anesthesia traditionally has used isobolographic analysis or multiple logistic regression. Both approaches have significant limitations. In particular, the multiple logistic regression approach is so beset with flaws (as described in Appendix 1 in the web supplement), including fundamental incompatibility with accepted pharmacodynamic principles, that it should be abandoned. The application of response-surface methodology to the study of drug interactions has the potential to overcome the limitations of these models. We proposed a flexible model for drug interactions, which describes the full relation between the concentrations of two or three drugs and drug effect. We illustrated our new model using previously published data and showed that this model can also describe differing types of interaction between an agonist, a partial agonist, a competitive antagonist, and an inverse agonist. Application of response-surface methodology permits characterization of the full concentration–response relation and therefore can be used to develop practical guidelines for optimal drug dosing.
Back to Top | Article Outline

FOOTNOTES

** Dr. Shafer, via e-mail to sshafer@pharsight.com Cited Here...
Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. Berenbaum MC: What is synergy? Pharmacol Rev 1989; 41:93–141

2. Neter N, Wasserman W, Kutner MH: Applied Linear Statistical Models, 3rd edition. Homewood, IL, Richard D. Irwin, 1990

3. Beal SL, Sheiner LB: NONMEM User’s Guide, University of California, San Francisco, 1998

4. Short TG, Plummer JL, Chui PT: Hypnotic and anaesthetic interactions between midazolam, propofol and alfentanil. Br J Anaesth 1992; 69:162–7

5. Buhrer M, Maitre PO, Crevoisier C, Stanski DR: Electroencephalographic effects of benzodiazepines: II. Pharmacodynamic modeling of the electroencephalographic effects of midazolam and diazepam. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1990; 48:555–67

6. Schnider TW, Minto CF, Shafer SL, Gambus PL, Andresen C, Goodale DB, Youngs EJ: The influence of age on propofol pharmacodynamics. A nesthesiology 1999; 90:1502–16

7. Schnider TW, Minto CF, Gambus PL, Andresen C, Goodale DB, Shafer SL, Youngs EJ: The influence of method of administration and covariates on the pharmacokinetics of propofol in adult volunteers. A nesthesiology 1998; 88:1170–82

8. Scott JC, Stanski DR: Decreased fentanyl and alfentanil dose requirements with age. A simultaneous pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1987; 240:159–66

9. Carter WH Jr, Wampler GL, Stablein DM: Regression Analysis of Survival Data in Cancer Chemotherapy. New York, Marcel Decker, 1983

10. Norberg L, Wahlstrom G: Anaesthetic effects of flurazepam alone and in combination with thiopental or hexobarbital evaluated with an EEG-threshold method in male rats. Arch Int Pharmacodyn Ther 1988; 292:45–57

11. Dayneka NL, Garg V, Jusko WJ: Comparison of four basic models of indirect pharmacodynamic responses. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1993; 21:457–78

12. Troconiz IF, Sheiner LB, Verotta D: Semiparametric models for antagonistic drug interactions. J Appl Physiol 1994; 76:2224–33

13. Gennings C, Dawson KS, Carter WH Jr, Myers RH: Interpreting plots of a multidimensional dose-response surface in a parallel coordinate system. Biometrics 1990; 46:719–35

Cited By:

This article has been cited 76 time(s).

Advances in Modelling and Clinical Application of Intravenous Anaesthesia
Clinical application of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models
Billard, V
Advances in Modelling and Clinical Application of Intravenous Anaesthesia, 523(): 57-70.

Anaesthesist
Drug interactions and the anesthesiologist
Milde, AS; Motsch, J
Anaesthesist, 52(9): 839-857.
10.1007/s00101-003-0563-2
CrossRef
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
Modelling and multivariable control in anaesthesia using neural-fuzzy paradigms - Part I. Classification of depth of anaesthesia and development of a patient model
Nunes, CS; Mahfouf, M; Linkens, DA; Peacock, JE
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 35(3): 195-206.
10.1016/j.artmed.2004.12.004
CrossRef
International Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing
Progress of automatic drug delivery in anaesthesia-The 'Rostock assistant system for anaesthesia control (RAN)'
Simanski, O; Janda, M; Schubert, A; Bajorat, J; Hofmockel, R; Lampe, B
International Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, 23(5): 504-521.
10.1002/acs.1068
CrossRef
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
Parameter identification and sedative sensitivity analysis of an agitation-sedation model
Rudge, AD; Chase, JG; Shaw, GM; Lee, D; Hann, CE
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 83(3): 211-221.
10.1016/j.cmpb.2006.06.011
CrossRef
Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology
The Hill equation: a review of its capabilities in pharmacological modelling
Goutelle, S; Maurin, M; Rougier, F; Barbaut, X; Bourguignon, L; Ducher, M; Maire, P
Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology, 22(6): 633-648.
10.1111/j.1472-8206.2008.00633.x
CrossRef
Anesthesia and Analgesia
Does spectral entropy reflect the response to intubation or incision during propofol-remifentanil anesthesia?
Weil, G; Passot, S; Servin, F; Billard, V
Anesthesia and Analgesia, 106(1): 152-159.
10.1213/01.ane.0000296454.00236.fc
CrossRef
Anesthesia and Analgesia
Is synergy the rule? A review of anesthetic interactions a producing hypnosis and immobility
Hendrickx, JFA; Eger, EI; Sonner, JM; Shafer, SL
Anesthesia and Analgesia, 107(2): 494-506.
10.1213/ane.0b013e31817b859e
CrossRef
Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems
Neuro-fuzzy techniques to model pharmacodynamic interactions between anesthetic drugs on the bispectral index: A preliminary study
Nunes, CS; Ferreira, DA; Mendonca, TF; Amorim, P; Antunes, LM
Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 16(1): 15-22.

Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
A new model validation tool using kernel regression and density estimation
Lee, DS; Rudge, AD; Chase, JG; Shaw, GM
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 80(1): 75-87.
10.1016/j.cmpb.2005.06.004
CrossRef
Clinical Pharmacokinetics
Strategies to optimise propofol-opioid anaesthesia
Lichtenbelt, BJ; Mertens, M; Vuyk, J
Clinical Pharmacokinetics, 43(9): 577-593.

Optimal Dose Identification
Pharmacokinetic - Pharmacodynamic modeling in anesthesia
Gambus, PL; Troconiz, IF
Optimal Dose Identification, 1220(): 89-97.
PII S0531-5131(01)00289-8
CrossRef
2005 27th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Vols 1-7
Optimal infusion policy of intravenous morphine and ketamine - A mixed-integer linear programming application
Sartori, V; Zanderigo, E; Kvasnica, M; Morari, M
2005 27th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Vols 1-7, (): 2363-2366.

European Journal of Control
Introduction to automated drug delivery in clinical anesthesia
Bibian, S; Ries, CR; Huzmezan, M; Dumont, G
European Journal of Control, 11(6): 535-557.

Endocrinology
Combination therapy with amylin and peptide YY[3-36] in obese rodents: Anorexigenic synergy and weight loss additivity
Roth, JD; Coffey, T; Jodka, CM; Maier, H; Athanacio, JR; Mack, CM; Weyer, C; Parkes, DG
Endocrinology, 148(): 6054-6061.
10.1210/en.2007-0898
CrossRef
Statistics in Medicine
Quantifying synergism/antagonism using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling: A simulation study
Boik, JC; Newman, RA; Boik, RJ
Statistics in Medicine, 27(7): 1040-1061.
10.1002/sim.3005
CrossRef
Anesthesia and Analgesia
The interaction between propofol and clonidine for loss of consciousness
Higuchi, H; Adachi, Y; Dahan, A; Olofsen, E; Arimura, S; Mori, T; Satoh, T
Anesthesia and Analgesia, 94(4): 886-891.

Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Mechanism-based pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling: Biophase distribution, receptor theory, and dynamical systems analysis
Danhof, M; de Jongh, J; De Lange, ECM; Della Pasqua, O; Ploeger, BA; Voskuyl, RA
Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, 47(): 357-400.
10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.47.120505.105154
CrossRef
Epilepsia
Synergistic combinations of anticonvulsant agents: What is the evidence from animal experiments ?
Jonker, DM; Voskuyl, RA; Danhof, M
Epilepsia, 48(3): 412-434.
10.1111/j.1528-1167.2006.00952.x
CrossRef
Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Towards a mechanism-based analysis of pharmacodynamic drug-drug interactions in vivo
Jonker, DM; Visser, SAG; van der Graaf, PH; Voskuyl, RA; Danhof, M
Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 106(1): 1-18.
10.1016/j.pharmthera.2004.10.014
CrossRef
Medical Engineering & Physics
Physiological modelling of agitation-sedation dynamics
Rudge, AD; Chase, JG; Shaw, GM; Lee, D
Medical Engineering & Physics, 28(1): 49-59.
10.1016/j.medengphy.2005.03.005
CrossRef
Medical Engineering & Physics
Physiological modelling of agitation-sedation dynamics including endogenous agitation reduction
Rudge, AD; Chase, JG; Shaw, GM; Lee, D
Medical Engineering & Physics, 28(7): 629-638.
10.1016/j.medengphy.2005.10.008
CrossRef
Journal of Receptors and Signal Transduction
Nonlinear blending: A useful general concept for the assessment of combination drug synergy
Peterson, JJ; Novick, SJ
Journal of Receptors and Signal Transduction, 27(): 125-146.
10.1080/10799890701417576
CrossRef
2007 Annual International Conference of the Ieee Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Vols 1-16
Modeling state entropy of the EEG and auditory evoked Potentials - HYpnotic and analgesic interactions
Castro, A; Amorim, P; Nunes, CS
2007 Annual International Conference of the Ieee Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Vols 1-16, (): 1949-1952.

Pharmaceutical Research
Semi-mechanistic pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling of the antinociceptive response in the presence of competitive antagonism: The interaction between tramadol and its active metabolite on mu-opioid agonism and monoamine reuptake inhibition, in the rat
Beier, H; Garrido, MJ; Christoph, T; Kasel, D; Troconiz, IF
Pharmaceutical Research, 25(8): 1789-1797.
10.1007/s11095-007-9489-8
CrossRef
Advances in Modelling and Clinical Application of Intravenous Anaesthesia
Response surface modelling of drug interactions
Minto, C; Vuyk, J
Advances in Modelling and Clinical Application of Intravenous Anaesthesia, 523(): 35-43.

British Journal of Anaesthesia
Propofol sparing effect of remifentanil using closed-loop anaesthesia
Milne, SE; Kenny, GNC; Schraag, S
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 90(5): 623-629.
10.1093/bja/aeg115
CrossRef
Anesthesia and Analgesia
Drug interactions
Bovill, JG
Anesthesia and Analgesia, 94(3): 17-21.

British Journal of Anaesthesia
Influence of anaesthesia and analgesia on the control of breathing
Dahan, A; Teppema, LJ
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 91(1): 40-49.
10.1093/bja/aeg150
CrossRef
Intelligent Control Systems and Signal Processing 2003
A fuzzy patient model in anaesthesia
Nunes, CS; Mahfouf, M; Linkens, DA
Intelligent Control Systems and Signal Processing 2003, (): 487-492.

Ieee Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
Modeling and closed-loop control of hypnosis by means of bispectral index (BIS) with isoflurane
Gentilini, A; Rossoni-Gerosa, M; Frei, CW; Wymann, R; Morari, M; Zbinden, AM; Schnider, TW
Ieee Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 48(8): 874-889.

British Journal of Anaesthesia
Pharmacodynamic modelling of the bispectral index response to propofol-based anaesthesia during general surgery in children
Jeleazcov, C; Ihmsen, H; Schmidt, J; Ammon, C; Schwilden, H; Schuttler, J; Fechner, J
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 100(4): 509-516.
10.1093/bja/aem408
CrossRef
2008 30Th Annual International Conference of the Ieee Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Vols 1-8
Model Predictive Control of Depth of Anaesthesia: Guidelines for controller configuration
Cardoso, N; Lemos, JM
2008 30Th Annual International Conference of the Ieee Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Vols 1-8, (): 5822-5825.

Naunyn-Schmiedebergs Archives of Pharmacology
Biphasic characteristic of interactions between stiripentol and carbamazepine in the mouse maximal electroshock-induced seizure model: a three-dimensional isobolographic analysis
Luszczki, JJ; Czuczwar, SJ
Naunyn-Schmiedebergs Archives of Pharmacology, 374(1): 51-64.
10.1007/s00210-006-0100-3
CrossRef
Anesthesia and Analgesia
General anesthetics have additive actions on three ligand gated ion channels
Jenkins, A; Lobo, IA; Gong, D; Trudell, JR; Solt, K; Harris, RA; Eger, EI
Anesthesia and Analgesia, 107(2): 486-493.
10.1213/ane.0b013e31817b70c1
CrossRef
Ieee Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine
Multitasked closed-loop control in anesthesia
Gentilini, A; Frei, CW; Glattfedler, AH; Morari, M; Sieber, TJ; Wymann, R; Schnider, TW; Zbinden, AM
Ieee Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 20(1): 39-53.

Aaps Journal
Population pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of anesthetics
Olofsen, E; Dahan, A
Aaps Journal, 7(2): -.

2005 27th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Vols 1-7
A new model for drug interactions and optimal drug dosing
Zanderigo, E; Sartori, V; Sveticic, G; Bouillon, T; Schumacher, P; Curatolo, M; Morari, M
2005 27th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Vols 1-7, (): 2353-2356.

2007 Mediterranean Conference on Control & Automation, Vols 1-4
Predictive adaptive control of the Bispectral Index of the EEG (BIS): Exploring electromyography as an accessible disturbance
Nunes, CS; Mendonca, T; Lemos, JM; Amorim, P
2007 Mediterranean Conference on Control & Automation, Vols 1-4, (): 102-106.

2007 Mediterranean Conference on Control & Automation, Vols 1-4
Automatic drug delivery in anesthesia: From the beginning until now
Simanski, O; Schubert, A; Kaehler, R; Janda, M; Bajorat, J; Hofmockel, R; Lampe, B
2007 Mediterranean Conference on Control & Automation, Vols 1-4, (): 223-228.

Control Engineering Practice
Fuzzy modelling for controlled anaesthesia in hospital operating theatres
Nunes, CS; Mahfouf, M; Linkens, DA
Control Engineering Practice, 14(5): 563-572.
10.1016/j.conengprac.2004.08.004
CrossRef
Anesthesia and Analgesia
The contribution of remifentanil to middle latency auditory evoked potentials during induction of propofol anesthesia
Schraag, S; Flaschar, J; Schleyer, M; Georgieff, M; Kenny, GNC
Anesthesia and Analgesia, 103(4): 902-907.
10.1213/01.ane.0000237282.76394.6b
CrossRef
Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems, Pt 2, Proceedings
Predictive adaptive control of the Bispectral Index of the EEG (BIS) - Using the intravenous anaesthetic drug propofol
Nunes, CS; Mendonca, TF; Magalhaes, H; Lemos, JM; Amorim, P
Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems, Pt 2, Proceedings, 4252(): 1248-1255.

Proceedings of the 2006 Ieee International Conference on Control Applications, Vols 1-4
Predictive adaptive control of unconsciousness - Exploiting remifentanil as an accessible disturbance
Mendonca, T; Nunes, C; Magalhaes, H; Lemos, JM; Arnorim, P
Proceedings of the 2006 Ieee International Conference on Control Applications, Vols 1-4, (): 64-69.

Frontiers in Modeling and Control of Breathing
Response surface modeling of drug interactions on cardiorespiratory control
Olofsen, E; Nieuwenhuijs, DJF; Sarton, EY; Teppema, LJ; Dahan, A
Frontiers in Modeling and Control of Breathing, 499(): 303-308.

Proceedings of the 26Th Annual International Conference of the Ieee Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Vols 1-7
Physiologically-based minimal model of agitation-sedation dynamics
Rudge, AD; Chase, JG; Shaw, GA; Lee, D
Proceedings of the 26Th Annual International Conference of the Ieee Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Vols 1-7, 26(): 774-777.

Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Contributions of PK/PD modeling to intravenous anesthesia
Minto, CF; Schnider, TW
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 84(1): 27-38.
10.1038/clpt.2008.100
CrossRef
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Analysis of pharmacodynamic interaction of sevoflurane and propofol on bispectral index during general anaesthesia using a response surface model
Diz, JC; Del Rio, R; Lamas, A; Mendoza, M; Duran, M; Ferreira, LM
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 104(6): 733-739.
10.1093/bja/aeq081
CrossRef
Chemical Senses
Revisiting sugar-fat mixtures: Sweetness and creaminess vary with phenotypic markers of oral sensation
Hayes, JE; Duffy, VB
Chemical Senses, 32(3): 225-236.
10.1093/chemse/bjl050
CrossRef
Anesthesia and Analgesia
Isoflurane antagonizes the capacity of flurothyl or 1,2-dichlorohexafluorocyclobutane to impair fear conditioning to context and tone
Eger, EI; Xing, YL; Pearce, R; Shafer, S; Laster, MJ; Zhang, Y; Fanselow, MS; Sonner, JM
Anesthesia and Analgesia, 96(4): 1010-1018.
10.1213/01.ANE.0000055360.30078.FF
CrossRef
Epilepsia
Pharmacodynamic analysis of the anticonvulsant effects of tiagabine and lamotrigine in combination in the rat
Jonker, DM; Voskuyl, RA; Danhof, M
Epilepsia, 45(5): 424-435.

Proceedings of the 26Th Annual International Conference of the Ieee Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Vols 1-7
Automated agitation management accounting for saturation dynamics
Rudge, AD; Chase, JG; Shaw, GM; Lee, D
Proceedings of the 26Th Annual International Conference of the Ieee Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Vols 1-7, 26(): 3459-3462.

Biometrical Journal
Design and analysis of drug combination experiments
Straetemans, R; O'Brien, T; Wouters, L; Van Dun, J; Janicot, M; Bijnens, L; Burzykowski, T; Aerts, M
Biometrical Journal, 47(3): 299-308.
10.1002/bimj.200410124
CrossRef
American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism
Understanding synergy
Geary, N
American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism, 304(3): E237-E253.
10.1152/ajpendo.00308.2012
CrossRef
Comprehensive Physiology
Effects of Anesthetics, Sedatives, and Opioids on Ventilatory Control
Stuth, EAE; Stucke, AG; Zuperku, EJ
Comprehensive Physiology, 2(4): 2281-2367.
10.1002/cphy.c100061
CrossRef
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Remifentanil-sevoflurane interaction models of circulatory response to laryngoscopy and circulatory depression
Bi, SS; Deng, CH; Zhou, TY; Guan, Z; Li, L; Li, HQ; Zhang, LP; Yang, L; Lu, W
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 110(5): 729-740.
10.1093/bja/aes504
CrossRef
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Pharmacokinetic parameter sets of alfentanil revisited: optimal parameters for use in target controlled infusion and anaesthesia display systems
Sigmond, N; Baechtold, M; Schumacher, PM; Hartwich, V; Schnider, TW; Luginbuhl, M
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 111(2): 197-208.
10.1093/bja/aet049
CrossRef
2012 25Th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (Cbms)
Contributions to a Decision Support System Based on Depth of Anesthesia Signals
Sebastiao, R; Silva, MM; Gama, J; Mendonca, T
2012 25Th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (Cbms), (): -.

Anesthesiology
Efficient Trial Design for Eliciting a Pharmacokinetic– Pharmacodynamic Model–based Response Surface Describing the Interaction between Two Intravenous Anesthetic Drugs
Short, TG; Ho, TY; Minto, CF; Schnider, TW; Shafer, SL
Anesthesiology, 96(2): 400-408.

PDF (447)
Anesthesiology
Response Surface Modeling of Remifentanil–Propofol Interaction on Cardiorespiratory Control and Bispectral Index
Ward, D; Engbers, F; Vuyk, J; Mooren, R; Teppema, LJ; Dahan, A; Nieuwenhuijs, DJ; Olofsen, E; Romberg, RR; Sarton, E
Anesthesiology, 98(2): 312-322.

PDF (617)
Anesthesiology
Correlation of Approximate Entropy, Bispectral Index, and Spectral Edge Frequency 95 (SEF95) with Clinical Signs of “Anesthetic Depth” during Coadministration of Propofol and Remifentanil
Bruhn, J; Bouillon, TW; Radulescu, L; Hoeft, A; Bertaccini, E; Shafer, SL
Anesthesiology, 98(3): 621-627.

PDF (420)
Anesthesiology
When Is a Bispectral Index of 60 Too Low?: Rational Processed Electroencephalographic Targets Are Dependent on the Sedative–Opioid Ratio
Manyam, SC; Gupta, DK; Johnson, KB; White, JL; Pace, NL; Westenskow, DR; Egan, TD
Anesthesiology, 106(3): 472-483.

PDF (1101)
Anesthesiology
The Well-being Model: A New Drug Interaction Model for Positive and Negative Effects
Zanderigo, E; Sartori, V; Sveticic, G; Bouillon, T; Schumacher, P; Morari, M; Curatolo, M
Anesthesiology, 104(4): 742-753.

PDF (1850)
Anesthesiology
Response Surface Modeling of Alfentanil-Sevoflurane Interaction on Cardiorespiratory Control and Bispectral Index
Dahan, A; Nieuwenhuijs, D; Olofsen, E; Sarton, E; Romberg, R; Teppema, L
Anesthesiology, 94(6): 982-991.

PDF (254)
Anesthesiology
Pharmacodynamic Interaction between Propofol and Remifentanil Regarding Hypnosis, Tolerance of Laryngoscopy, Bispectral Index, and Electroencephalographic Approximate Entropy
Bouillon, TW; Bruhn, J; Radulescu, L; Andresen, C; Shafer, TJ; Cohane, C; Shafer, SL
Anesthesiology, 100(6): 1353-1372.

PDF (3318)
Anesthesiology
A Response Surface Analysis of Propofol–Remifentanil Pharmacodynamic Interaction in Volunteers
Kern, SE; Xie, G; White, JL; Egan, TD
Anesthesiology, 100(6): 1373-1381.

PDF (736)
Anesthesiology
Determination of the Pharmacodynamic Interaction of Propofol and Remifentanil during Esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Children
Drover, DR; Litalien, C; Wellis, V; Shafer, SL; Hammer, GB
Anesthesiology, 100(6): 1382-1386.

PDF (247)
Anesthesiology
Median Effective Dose (ED50) of Nefopam and Ketoprofen in Postoperative Patients: A Study of Interaction Using Sequential Analysis and Isobolographic Analysis
Delage, N; Maaliki, H; Beloeil, H; Benhamou, D; Mazoit, J
Anesthesiology, 102(6): 1211-1216.

PDF (313)
Anesthesiology
Interaction of Propofol and Sevoflurane on Loss of Consciousness and Movement to Skin Incision during General Anesthesia
Harris, RS; Lazar, O; Johansen, JW; Sebel, PS
Anesthesiology, 104(6): 1170-1175.

PDF (327)
Anesthesiology
Additive Effects of Sevoflurane and Propofol on γ-Aminobutyric Acid Receptor Function
Sebel, LE; Richardson, JE; Singh, SP; Bell, SV; Jenkins, A
Anesthesiology, 104(6): 1176-1183.

PDF (459)
Anesthesiology
Propofol Reduces Perioperative Remifentanil Requirements in a Synergistic Manner: Response Surface Modeling of Perioperative Remifentanil–Propofol Interactions
Mertens, MJ; Olofsen, E; Engbers, FH; Burm, AG; Bovill, JG; Vuyk, J
Anesthesiology, 99(2): 347-359.

PDF (1800)
Anesthesiology
Opioid–Volatile Anesthetic Synergy: A Response Surface Model with Remifentanil and Sevoflurane as Prototypes
Manyam, SC; Gupta, DK; Johnson, KB; White, JL; Pace, NL; Westenskow, DR; Egan, TD
Anesthesiology, 105(2): 267-278.

PDF (1477)
Anesthesiology
Flexible Interaction Model for Complex Interactions of Multiple Anesthetics
Fidler, M; Kern, SE
Anesthesiology, 105(2): 286-296.

PDF (897)
Anesthesiology
Response Surface Modeling of the Interaction between Propofol and Sevoflurane
Schumacher, PM; Dossche, J; Mortier, EP; Luginbuehl, M; Bouillon, TW; Struys, MM
Anesthesiology, 111(4): 790-804.
10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181b799ef
PDF (2382) | CrossRef
Anesthesiology
Picking Safe Combinations
Shafer, SL
Anesthesiology, 101(6): 1260-1261.

PDF (114)
Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology
No Difference in Emergence Time and Early Cognitive Function Between Sevoflurane-Fentanyl and Propofol-Remifentanil in Patients Undergoing Craniotomy for Supratentorial Intracranial Surgery
Magni, G; Baisi, F; Rosa, IL; Imperiale, C; Fabbrini, V; Pennacchiotti, ML; Rosa, G
Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology, 17(3): 134-138.

PDF (71)
Back to Top | Article Outline
Keywords:
Alfentanil; antagonist; infraadditive; logistic regression; midazolam; propofol; synergy; supraadditive.

Supplemental Digital Content

Back to Top | Article Outline

© 2000 American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc.

Publication of an advertisement in Anesthesiology Online does not constitute endorsement by the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc. or Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc. of the product or service being advertised.
Login

Article Tools

Images

Share

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.