Literature DB >> 8013162

Lean body mass as a predictor of drug dosage. Implications for drug therapy.

D J Morgan1, K M Bray.   

Abstract

There is mounting evidence to suggest that lean body mass (LBM) may be a better predictor of drug dosage than either total bodyweight (TBW) or body surface area (BSA), although the rationale for this is not clear. LBM, which is similar but not identical to fat-free mass, can be determined by many different methods. A simple equation based on TBW and height, or determination by bioelectrical impedance are probably the most suitable for use in drug disposition studies. Volume of distribution of relatively hydrophilic drugs correlates very well with LBM, with correlation coefficients of up to 0.9. LBM can be used to accurately predict the loading dose required for these drugs to attain a target peak plasma concentration. For lipophilic drugs, volume of distribution correlates better with TBW than with LBM. Investigation of the relationship between renal drug clearance and LBM has received little attention, probably because creatinine clearance is a useful and readily available marker of renal function. However, limited data suggest that creatinine clearance and LBM together may account function. However, limited data suggest that creatinine clearance and LBM together may account for more variability in renal clearance than creatinine clearance alone. For many drugs eliminated predominantly by the liver, there is a good correlation between systemic clearance and LBM. Such a correlation could be due to a correlation between systemic clearance and liver size or liver blood flow, which has been demonstrated for a few drugs, and a correlation between LBM and liver size and blood flow. The presence of a relationship between LBM and organ size and blood flow has, however, not been investigated to date. A good correlation between drug clearance and LBM indicates that LBM may be an accurate predictor of maintenance dosage, especially in obese patients, in whom there is a large discrepancy between LBM and TBW. BSA is an accurate predictor of drug dosage in infants and children, but whether LBM is superior to BSA in this population remains to be determined. In most studies in adults in which dosage based on LBM has been evaluated prospectively, LBM has been shown to be superior to other measures of body size as a predictor of drug dosage.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8013162     DOI: 10.2165/00003088-199426040-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet        ISSN: 0312-5963            Impact factor:   6.447


  111 in total

1.  DIPHENYLHYDANTOIN AND PHENOBARBITAL. SERUM LEVELS IN CHILDREN.

Authors:  O SVENSMARK; F BUCHTHAL
Journal:  Am J Dis Child       Date:  1964-07

Review 2.  Principles of drug biodisposition in the neonate. A critical evaluation of the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic interface (Part II).

Authors:  J B Besunder; M D Reed; J L Blumer
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1988-05       Impact factor: 6.447

3.  A Bayesian feedback method of aminoglycoside dosing.

Authors:  M E Burton; D C Brater; P S Chen; R B Day; P J Huber; M R Vasko
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  1985-03       Impact factor: 6.875

4.  Body fatness, relative weight and frame size in young adults.

Authors:  J A Baecke; J Burema; P Deurenberg
Journal:  Br J Nutr       Date:  1982-07       Impact factor: 3.718

5.  Should clearance be normalised to body surface or to lean body mass?

Authors:  T H Hallynck; H H Soep; J A Thomis; J Boelaert; R Daneels; L Dettli
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1981-05       Impact factor: 4.335

6.  Population pharmacokinetics of lithium.

Authors:  D M Jermain; M L Crismon; E S Martin
Journal:  Clin Pharm       Date:  1991-05

7.  Ceftazidime disposition in acute and stable cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  J S Leeder; M Spino; A F Isles; A M Tesoro; R Gold; S M MacLeod
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  1984-09       Impact factor: 6.875

8.  The association of age and frailty with paracetamol conjugation in man.

Authors:  H A Wynne; L H Cope; B Herd; M D Rawlins; O F James; K W Woodhouse
Journal:  Age Ageing       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 10.668

9.  A multicenter evaluation of variables affecting the predictability of creatinine clearance.

Authors:  W T Sawyer; B R Canaday; T E Poe; C E Webb; R S Porter; P Gal; P U Joyner; J Berry; S W Shearer; C U Paoloni
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  1982-12       Impact factor: 2.493

Review 10.  Principles of drug biodisposition in the neonate. A critical evaluation of the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic interface (Part I).

Authors:  J B Besunder; M D Reed; J L Blumer
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 6.447

View more
  82 in total

Review 1.  Effects of obesity on pharmacokinetics implications for drug therapy.

Authors:  G Cheymol
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 6.447

2.  Lean body mass-based standardized uptake value, derived from a predictive equation, might be misleading in PET studies.

Authors:  Michael Hentschel; Ingo Brink
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2003-01-09       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Usefulness of standardized uptake value normalized by individual CT-based lean body mass in application of PET response criteria in solid tumors (PERCIST).

Authors:  Atsushi Narita; Susumu Shiomi; Yutaka Katayama; Takashi Yamanaga; Hiromitsu Daisaki; Kazuo Hamada; Yasuyoshi Watanabe
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2016-02-12

4.  Can lean body mass be used to reduce the dose of heparin and protamine for obese patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass?

Authors:  Mya S Baker; Julian R Skoyles; Frca Matt Shajar; Henry Skinner; David Richens; Ian M Mitchell
Journal:  J Extra Corpor Technol       Date:  2005-06

5.  Population pharmacokinetics and site of action exposures of veliparib with topotecan plus carboplatin in patients with haematological malignancies.

Authors:  Shailly Mehrotra; Mathangi Gopalakrishnan; Jogarao Gobburu; Jacqueline M Greer; Richard Piekarz; Judith E Karp; Keith Pratz; Michelle A Rudek
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2017-03-19       Impact factor: 4.335

6.  Factors affecting the pharmacokinetic profile of MS-275, a novel histone deacetylase inhibitor, in patients with cancer.

Authors:  Milin R Acharya; Judith E Karp; Edward A Sausville; Kyunghwa Hwang; Qin Ryan; Ivana Gojo; Jurgen Venitz; William D Figg; Alex Sparreboom
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 3.850

Review 7.  What is the best size descriptor to use for pharmacokinetic studies in the obese?

Authors:  Bruce Green; Stephen B Duffull
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.335

8.  18F-FDG PET/CT as a prognostic factor in penile cancer.

Authors:  André Salazar; Eduardo Paulino Júnior; Paulo Guilherme O Salles; Raul Silva-Filho; Edna A Reis; Marcelo Mamede
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2018-08-24       Impact factor: 9.236

9.  The relationship between body composition and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with operable breast cancer.

Authors:  Egidio Del Fabbro; Henrique Parsons; Carla L Warneke; Kalyan Pulivarthi; Jennifer K Litton; Rony Dev; Shana L Palla; Abenaa Brewster; Eduardo Bruera
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2012-08-17

10.  Population-based input function and image-derived input function for [¹¹C](R)-rolipram PET imaging: methodology, validation and application to the study of major depressive disorder.

Authors:  Paolo Zanotti-Fregonara; Christina S Hines; Sami S Zoghbi; Jeih-San Liow; Yi Zhang; Victor W Pike; Wayne C Drevets; Alan G Mallinger; Carlos A Zarate; Masahiro Fujita; Robert B Innis
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2012-08-10       Impact factor: 6.556

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.