OBJECTIVE: To describe a practical solution for addressing body weight when using the Cockcroft-Gault equation to determine drug dosing. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted using PubMed MEDLINE (1980-April 2013) using creatinine clearance, Cockcroft and Gault, Cockcroft-Gault, body weight, and obesity as search terms. Reference citations from publications reviewed were included. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All English-language articles identified by the search were reviewed. Studies comparing the accuracy and bias of the Cockcroft-Gault equation using a variety of body weight designations in adult populations were included in the analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: Study results indicated that, for obese patients, ideal body weight (IBW) underestimates creatinine clearance (CrCl) and total body weight (TBW) overestimates CrCl. Some studies suggest that adjusted body weight with a factor of 0.4 is most accurate, while others suggest the use of lean body weight. These studies have failed to produce a definitive resolution to the controversy. Despite many well-designed studies, the Cockcroft-Gault body weight controversy remains unresolved and uncertainty continues to exist as to which form of weight should be used in the equation. A different perspective is warranted. Since renal dosing guidelines are generally based on ranges of CrCl, applying a CrCl range to describe a patient's renal function might be more practical than relying on a specific CrCl value. Ultimately, CrCl-based drug dosing involves the use of an imperfect mathematical approximation, which is then applied as precisely as possible to the benefit versus risk analysis for a specific patient. CONCLUSIONS: We propose the use of a CrCl range for drug dosing purposes, with the lower boundary defined by using IBW in the Cockcroft-Gault equation and the upper boundary by using TBW.
OBJECTIVE: To describe a practical solution for addressing body weight when using the Cockcroft-Gault equation to determine drug dosing. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted using PubMed MEDLINE (1980-April 2013) using creatinine clearance, Cockcroft and Gault, Cockcroft-Gault, body weight, and obesity as search terms. Reference citations from publications reviewed were included. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All English-language articles identified by the search were reviewed. Studies comparing the accuracy and bias of the Cockcroft-Gault equation using a variety of body weight designations in adult populations were included in the analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: Study results indicated that, for obesepatients, ideal body weight (IBW) underestimates creatinine clearance (CrCl) and total body weight (TBW) overestimates CrCl. Some studies suggest that adjusted body weight with a factor of 0.4 is most accurate, while others suggest the use of lean body weight. These studies have failed to produce a definitive resolution to the controversy. Despite many well-designed studies, the Cockcroft-Gault body weight controversy remains unresolved and uncertainty continues to exist as to which form of weight should be used in the equation. A different perspective is warranted. Since renal dosing guidelines are generally based on ranges of CrCl, applying a CrCl range to describe a patient's renal function might be more practical than relying on a specific CrCl value. Ultimately, CrCl-based drug dosing involves the use of an imperfect mathematical approximation, which is then applied as precisely as possible to the benefit versus risk analysis for a specific patient. CONCLUSIONS: We propose the use of a CrCl range for drug dosing purposes, with the lower boundary defined by using IBW in the Cockcroft-Gault equation and the upper boundary by using TBW.
Authors: Elisa V Bandera; Valerie S Lee; Lorna Rodriguez-Rodriguez; C Bethan Powell; Lawrence H Kushi Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: J Trent Magruder; Todd C Crawford; Herbert Lynn Harness; Joshua C Grimm; Alejandro Suarez-Pierre; Chad Wierschke; Jim Biewer; Charles Hogue; Glenn R Whitman; Ashish S Shah; Viachaslau Barodka Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2016-09-19 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Daniel W Belsky; Avshalom Caspi; Renate Houts; Harvey J Cohen; David L Corcoran; Andrea Danese; HonaLee Harrington; Salomon Israel; Morgan E Levine; Jonathan D Schaefer; Karen Sugden; Ben Williams; Anatoli I Yashin; Richie Poulton; Terrie E Moffitt Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-07-06 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Todd A Miano; Wei Yang; Michael G S Shashaty; Athena Zuppa; Jeremiah R Brown; Sean Hennessy Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2020-03-26 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Kannayiram Alagiakrishnan; Patricia Wilson; Cheryl A Sadowski; Darryl Rolfson; Mark Ballermann; Allen Ausford; Karla Vermeer; Kunal Mohindra; Jacques Romney; Robert S Hayward Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 4.458