AIMS: Frailty, a syndrome of decreased physiological reserve that is prevalent in old age, impacts on clinical pharmacology. The aims of the study were to (1) determine whether frailty affects the pharmacokinetics of gentamicin and (2) assess the accuracy of different estimates of body size and renal clearance as estimates of gentamicin pharmacokinetics in older inpatients. METHODS: This was an observational study of gentamicin pharmacokinetics in a cohort of Australian hospital inpatients aged ≥65 years, who were administered prophylactic intravenous gentamicin. RESULTS: Of the 31 participants, 14 were frail and 17 non frail on the Reported Edmonton Frail Scale. The mean volume of distribution of gentamicin was 14.8 ± 1.4 l in frail participants and 15.3 ± 2.2 l in non frail (NS). Volume of distribution correlated best with lean bodyweight. Gentamicin clearance was significantly lower in frail participants (46.6 ± 10.7 ml min(-1)) than in non frail (58.2 ± 12.4 ml min(-1), P=0.01). The Cockcroft Gault estimate of creatinine clearance calculated using ideal bodyweight gave the best estimate of gentamicin clearance (mean error -0.15 ml min(-1), 95% CI -2.67, 2.39). The Cockcroft Gault creatinine clearance calculated using actual bodyweight and the estimated glomerular filtration rate from the modified diet in renal disease equation overestimated gentamicin clearance, with mean errors of -10.15 ml min(-1) (95%CI -13.60, -6.71) and -18.86 ml min(-1) (95% CI -22.45, -15.27), respectively. The Cockcroft Gault creatinine clearance calculated using lean bodyweight underestimated gentamicin clearance (mean error 6.54 ml min(-1), 95% CI 4.18, 8.90). CONCLUSIONS: Frail older people have significantly lower gentamicin clearance than non frail. The best estimate of gentamicin clearance is obtained from the Cockcroft Gault creatinine clearance calculated using ideal bodyweight.
AIMS: Frailty, a syndrome of decreased physiological reserve that is prevalent in old age, impacts on clinical pharmacology. The aims of the study were to (1) determine whether frailty affects the pharmacokinetics of gentamicin and (2) assess the accuracy of different estimates of body size and renal clearance as estimates of gentamicin pharmacokinetics in older inpatients. METHODS: This was an observational study of gentamicin pharmacokinetics in a cohort of Australian hospital inpatients aged ≥65 years, who were administered prophylactic intravenous gentamicin. RESULTS: Of the 31 participants, 14 were frail and 17 non frail on the Reported Edmonton Frail Scale. The mean volume of distribution of gentamicin was 14.8 ± 1.4 l in frail participants and 15.3 ± 2.2 l in non frail (NS). Volume of distribution correlated best with lean bodyweight. Gentamicin clearance was significantly lower in frail participants (46.6 ± 10.7 ml min(-1)) than in non frail (58.2 ± 12.4 ml min(-1), P=0.01). The Cockcroft Gault estimate of creatinine clearance calculated using ideal bodyweight gave the best estimate of gentamicin clearance (mean error -0.15 ml min(-1), 95% CI -2.67, 2.39). The Cockcroft Gault creatinine clearance calculated using actual bodyweight and the estimated glomerular filtration rate from the modified diet in renal disease equation overestimated gentamicin clearance, with mean errors of -10.15 ml min(-1) (95%CI -13.60, -6.71) and -18.86 ml min(-1) (95% CI -22.45, -15.27), respectively. The Cockcroft Gault creatinine clearance calculated using lean bodyweight underestimated gentamicin clearance (mean error 6.54 ml min(-1), 95% CI 4.18, 8.90). CONCLUSIONS: Frail older people have significantly lower gentamicin clearance than non frail. The best estimate of gentamicin clearance is obtained from the Cockcroft Gault creatinine clearance calculated using ideal bodyweight.
Authors: Jeremy Walston; Mary Ann McBurnie; Anne Newman; Russell P Tracy; Willem J Kop; Calvin H Hirsch; John Gottdiener; Linda P Fried Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2002-11-11
Authors: S J Mitchell; S N Hilmer; C M J Kirkpatrick; R D Hansen; D A Williamson; N A Singh; T P Finnegan; B J Allen; T H Diamond; A D Diwan; B D Lloyd; E U R Smith; M A Fiatarone Singh Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Michael G Shlipak; Catherine Stehman-Breen; Linda F Fried; Xiao Song; David Siscovick; Linda P Fried; Bruce M Psaty; Anne B Newman Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Josef Coresh; Ethan Balk; Annamaria T Kausz; Adeera Levin; Michael W Steffes; Ronald J Hogg; Ronald D Perrone; Joseph Lau; Garabed Eknoyan Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-07-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: M Gutiérrez-Valencia; M Izquierdo; M Cesari; Á Casas-Herrero; M Inzitari; N Martínez-Velilla Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Stephen D Persell; Tiffany Brown; Jason N Doctor; Craig R Fox; Noah J Goldstein; Steven M Handler; Joseph T Hanlon; Ji Young Lee; Jeffrey A Linder; Daniella Meeker; Theresa A Rowe; Mark D Sullivan; Mark W Friedberg Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Claire Johnston; Sarah N Hilmer; Andrew J McLachlan; Slade T Matthews; Peter R Carroll; Carl M Kirkpatrick Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Seon Ha Baek; Sung Woo Lee; Sun-Wook Kim; Shin Young Ahn; Mi-Yeon Yu; Kwang-Il Kim; Ho Jun Chin; Ki Young Na; Dong-Wan Chae; Sejoong Kim Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 3.240