A BAYESIAN APPROACH TO DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT AND DRUG-DRUG INTERACTION ANALYSIS: APPLICATION TO IN VITRO STUDIES

The considerable search for synergistic agents in cancer research is motivated by the therapeutic benefits achieved by combining anti-cancer agents. Synergistic agents make it possible to reduce dosage while maintaining or enhancing a desired effect. Other favorable outcomes of synergistic agents include reduction in toxicity and minimizing or delaying drug resistance. Dose-response assessment and drug-drug interaction analysis play an important part in the drug discovery process, however analysis are often poorly done. This dissertation is an effort to notably improve dose-response assessment and drug-drug interaction analysis. The most commonly used method in published analysis is the Median-Effect Principle/Combination Index method (Chou and Talalay, 1984). The Median-Effect Principle/Combination Index method leads to inefficiency by ignoring important sources of variation inherent in dose-response data and discarding data points that do not fit the Median-Effect Principle. Previous work has shown that the conventional method yields a high rate of false positives (Boik, Boik, Newman, 2008; Hennessey, Rosner, Bast, Chen, 2010) and, in some cases, low power to detect synergy. There is a great need for improving the current methodology. We developed a Bayesian framework for dose-response modeling and drug-drug interaction analysis. First, we developed a hierarchical meta-regression dose-response model that accounts for various sources of variation and uncertainty and allows one to incorporate knowledge from prior studies into the current analysis, thus offering a more efficient and reliable inference. Second, in the case that parametric dose-response models do not fit the data, we developed a practical and flexible nonparametric regression method for meta-analysis of independently repeated dose-response experiments. Third, and lastly, we developed a method, based on Loewe additivity that allows one to quantitatively assess interaction between two agents combined at a fixed dose ratio. The proposed method makes a comprehensive and honest account of uncertainty within drug interaction assessment. Extensive simulation studies show that the novel methodology improves the screening process of effective/synergistic agents and reduces the incidence of type I error. We consider an ovarian cancer cell line study that investigates the combined effect of DNA methylation inhibitors and histone deacetylation inhibitors in human ovarian cancer cell lines. The hypothesis is that the combination of DNA methylation inhibitors and histone deacetylation inhibitors will enhance antiproliferative activity in human ovarian cancer cell lines compared to treatment with each inhibitor alone. By applying the proposed Bayesian methodology, in vitro synergy was declared for DNA methylation inhibitor, 5-AZA-2'-deoxycytidine combined with one histone deacetylation inhibitor, suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid or trichostatin A in the cell lines HEY and SKOV3. This suggests potential new epigenetic therapies in cell growth inhibition of ovarian cancer cells.

A discourse-theoretic approach to negotiated rulemaking

In 1996 and in 1997, Congress ordered the Secretary of Health and Human Services to undertake a process of negotiated rulemaking, which is authorized under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, on three separate rulemaking matters. Other Federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, have also made use of this procedure. As part of the program to reinvent government, President Clinton has issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to engage in some negotiated rulemaking procedures. I present an analytic, interpretative and critical approach to looking at the statutory and regulatory provisions for negotiated rulemaking as related to issues of democratic governance surrounding the problem of delegation of legislative power. The paradigm of law delineated by Jürgen Habermas, which sets law the task of achieving social or value integration as well as integration of systems, provides the background theory for a critique of such processes. My research questions are two. First, why should a citizen obey a regulation which is the result of negotiation by directly interested parties? Second, what is the potential effect of negotiated rulemaking on other institutions for deliberative democracy? For the internal critique I argue that the procedures for negotiated rulemaking will not produce among the participants the agreement and cooperation which is the legislative intent. For the external critique I argue that negotiated rulemaking will not result in democratically-legitimated regulation. In addition, the practice of negotiated rulemaking will further weaken the functioning of the public sphere, as Habermas theorizes it, as the central institution of deliberative democracy. The primary implication is the need to mitigate further development of administrative agencies as isolated, self-regulating systems, which have been loosened from the controls of democratic governance, through the development of a robust public sphere in which affected persons may achieve mutual understanding. ^

Design of a systematic approach to workplace exposure medical surveillance protocols

Current toxic tort cases have increased national awareness of health concerns and present an important avenue in which public health scientists can perform a vital function: in litigation, and in public health initiatives and promotions which may result. This review presents a systematic approach, using the paradigm of interactive public health disciplines, for the design of a matrix framework for medical surveillance of workers exposed to toxic substances. The matrix framework design addresses the required scientific bases to support the legal remedy of medical monitoring for workers injured as a result of their exposure to toxic agents. A background of recent legal developments which have a direct impact on the use of scientific expertise in litigation is examined in the context of toxic exposure litigation and the attainment of public health goals. The matrix model is applied to five different workplace exposures: dental mercury, firefighting, vinyl chloride manufacture, radon in mining and silica. An exposure matrix designed by the Department of Energy for government nuclear workers is included as a reference comparison to the design matrix. ^