Cited by 1,115Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsComputational Drug Discovery MethodsPharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism

Analysis of drug combinations: current methodological landscape

Open access
Foucquier, Julie, Guedj, Mickael·2015·Pharmacology Research & Perspectives

Abstract

Combination therapies exploit the chances for better efficacy, decreased toxicity, and reduced development of drug resistance and owing to these advantages, have become a standard for the treatment of several diseases and continue to represent a promising approach in indications of unmet medical need. In this context, studying the effects of a combination of drugs in order to provide evidence of a significant superiority compared to the single agents is of particular interest. Research in this field has resulted in a large number of papers and revealed several issues. Here, we propose an overview of the current methodological landscape concerning the study of combination effects. First, we aim to provide the minimal set of mathematical and pharmacological concepts necessary to understand the most commonly used approaches, divided into effect‐based approaches and dose–effect‐based approaches, and introduced in light of their respective practical advantages and limitations. Then, we discuss six main common methodological issues that scientists have to face at each step of the development of new combination therapies. In particular, in the absence of a reference methodology suitable for all biomedical situations, the analysis of drug combinations should benefit from a collective, appropriate, and rigorous application of the concepts and methods reviewed here.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/prp2.149

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Experimental studies can effectively demonstrate networked mechanisms of action, synergistic or additive activity, and acceptable safety at clinically achievable drug concentrations.

    “As an alternative to the in silico modeling, purposely addressed experimental studies can effectively demonstrate networked mechanisms of action, synergistic or additive activity, and acceptable safety at clinically achievable drug concentrations.45”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Wang Y Zuo J Wientjes MG Annual international conference; 22nd, SAS USers Group 1997 Quantitation of interactive effects between anticancer agents using SAS Macros and SAS/GRAPH, in

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Foucquier, J., & Guedj, M.
Affiliations
  • Pharnext (France) (FR)
  • Department of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics Pharnext Issy‐Les‐Moulineaux France
Corresponding author
Foucquier, Julie
Venue
Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-05-20
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
e00149-e00149
ISSN
2052-1707 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1578932543
Cited by
1,115
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 111 · 2025: 98 · 2024: 105 · 2023: 114 · 2022: 121 · 2021: 119 · 2020: 126 · 2019: 124 · 2018: 114 · 2017: 64 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 1
FWCI
11.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Pharmacology Research & Perspectives (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Strong
  • National Cancer Institute (F31CA260794)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
Keywords
combination therapy, synergistic effect, effects-based approach, drug resistance, methodological issues

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review