Clinical Pharmacokinetics

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 493–500 | Cite as

Aminoglycoside Dosages and Nephrotoxicity

Quantitative Relationships
  • Florent Rougier
  • Michel Ducher
  • Michel Maurin
  • Stéphane Corvaisier
  • Daniel Claude
  • Roger Jelliffe
  • Pascal Maire
Original Research Article



To develop a model that relates the probability of occurrence of nephrotoxicity to the cumulative area under the curve (AUC) of amikacin serum concentration.

Design and patients

This was a retrospective study of two groups of patients in whom nephrotoxicity was observed after administration of amikacin. The first group consisted of patients treated with once-daily administration (ODA) [n = 13]. The second group consisted of patients treated with twice-daily administration (TDA) [n = 22].

Main outcome measure

The probability of nephrotoxicity occurrence.


The model is a powerful tool to represent and describe the influence of the dosage regimen on aminoglycoside nephrotoxicity. The onset of nephrotoxicity is delayed in the ODA group (p = 0.01) for the same total daily dose among the two groups. The cumulative serum AUC values at onset of nephrotoxicity were greater for the ODA group (p = 0.029). In addition, for the same probability of nephrotoxicity occurrence (50%), the cumulative AUC for the ODA dosage regimen is 2 613 mg · h/L versus only 1 521 mg · h/L for the TDA dosage regimen. The difference in nephrotoxicity between ODA and TDA is greatest for a cumulative AUC of 2 495 mg · h/L, which corresponds to standard therapy with amikacin 900 mg/day during a 7-day period, i.e. 15 mg/kg/day for a 60kg patient with normal renal function (initial creatinine clearance >80 mL/min). For an AUC above 2 495 mg · h/L, the difference in nephrotoxicity decreases slowly to zero. This result means that ODA is especially justified when the treatment is administered over a short duration, i.e. less than 7 days.


The utility of selecting ODA in order to obtain less nephrotoxicity in comparison with TDA is therefore not established when the treatment is prolonged. In clinical use, the choice of the dosage regimen is not clear-cut, and both expected efficacy and expected toxicity must be taken into account in order to obtain an overall optimisation of each patient’s therapy.


Dosage Regimen Amikacin Renal Cortex Serum Creatinine Concentration Tubuloglomerular Feedback 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This study was funded by Hospices Civils de Lyon, without any grant from Bristol-Myers Squibb; however ADCAPT was funded by this company several years ago.


  1. 1.
    Maire PH, Corvaisier S, Rougier F, et al. Pharmacocinétique/ pharmacodynamie clinique des antibiotiques. In: Freney J, Renaud F, Hansen W, Bollet C, editors. Précis de bactériologie clinique. Paris: Elsevier, 2000: 715–31Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murry KR, McKinnon PS, Mitrzyk B, et al. Pharmacodynamic characterization of nephrotoxicity associated with once-daily aminoglycoside. Pharmacotherapy 1999; 19: 1252–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rybak MJ, Abate BJ, Kang SL, et al. Prospective evaluation of the effect of an aminoglycoside dosing regimen on rates of observed nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1999; 43: 1549–55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Broe ME, Verpooten GA. Influence of dosage schedules on renal accumulation of amikacin and tobramycin in man. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 27 Suppl. C: 41–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Verpooten GA, Guiliano RA, Verbist L, et al. Once daily dosing decreases renal accumulation of gentamicin and netilmicin. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1989; 45: 22–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schmitz C, Hilpert J, Jacobsen C, et al. Megalin deficiency offers protection from renal aminoglycoside accumulation. J Biol Chem 2002; 277(1): 618–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lerner SA, Schmitt BA, Seligsohn R, et al. Comparative study of ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity in patients randomly assigned to treatment with amikacin or gentamicin. Am J Med 1986; 80 Suppl. 6B: 98–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    USC*PACK [computer program]. Version 10.7. Los Angeles, CA: Laboratory of Applied Pharmacokinetics, University of Southern California. School of Medicine; 1995. USC*PACK PC Collection Clinical Research ProgramsGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jelliffe RW, Jelliffe S. A computer program for estimation of creatinine clearance from unstable serum creatinine levels. Math Biosci 1972; 14: 17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schumitzky A. Non-parametric EM algorithms for estimating prior distributions. Los Angeles: Laboratory of Applied Pharmacokinetics, University of Southern California, School of Medicine; 1990. Technical Report: 90-2Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schentag JJ. Renal clearance and tissue accumulation of gentamicin. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1977; 22: 364–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jelliffe RW. The USC*PACK PC programs for population pharmacokinetic modeling of large kinetic/dynamic systems, and adaptive control of drug dosage regimens. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1991, 922-4Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maurin M, Rougier F, Maire P. Note de calcul sur les lois de Hill: aspects probabiliste, déterministe et épistémologique 2000. Edition INRETS-LTE 2026. ISRN: INRETS/NST/00-548-FRGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hill AV. The possible effects of the aggregation of hemoglobin on its dissociation curve. J Physiol 1910; 40: iv–viiGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Michaelis L, Menten ML. Die kinetik der Invertinwirkung. Biochem Z 1913; 49: 333–69Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clark AJ. The reaction between acetylcholine and muscle cells. J Physiol 1926; 61: 530–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McCullagh P, Neider JA. Generalized linear models. London: Chapman and Hall, 1983Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holford HG, Sheiner LB. Understanding the dose-effect relationship: clinical application of pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic models. Clin Pharm 1981; 6: 429–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guiliano RA, Verpooten GA, Verbist L, et al. In vivo uptake kinetics of aminoglycosides in the kidney cortex of rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1986; 236: 470–5Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kosek JC, Mazze RI, Cousins J. Nephrotoxicity of gentamicin. Lab Invest 1974; 30: 48–57PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tulkens PM. Nephrotoxicity of aminoglycosides. Toxicol Lett 1989; 46: 107–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Broe ME, Paulus GJ, Verpooten G, et al. Early effects of gentamicin, tobramycin and amikacin on the human kidney. Kidney Int 1984; 25: 643–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schnermann J, Häberle DA, Davis JM, et al. Tubuloglomerular feedback control of renal vascular resistance. In: Windhager E, editor. Handbook of renal physiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992: 1675–705Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van der Auwera P. Pharmacokinetic evaluation of single daily dose amikacin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 27 Suppl. C: 63–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Freeman CD, Nicolau DP, Belliveau PP, et al. Once-daily dosing of aminoglycosides: review and recommendations for clinical practice. J Antimicrob Chemother 1997; 39: 677–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gonzales LS, Spencer JP. Aminoglycosides: a practical review. Am Fam Physician 1998; 58: 1811–20Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florent Rougier
    • 1
  • Michel Ducher
    • 1
  • Michel Maurin
    • 2
  • Stéphane Corvaisier
    • 1
  • Daniel Claude
    • 3
  • Roger Jelliffe
    • 4
  • Pascal Maire
    • 4
  1. 1.UMR CNRS 5558-ADCAPT Service PharmaceutiqueHôpital Antoine CharialFranchevilleFrance
  2. 2.INRETSBronFrance
  3. 3.Université d’OrsayParis-SudFrance
  4. 4.Laboratory of Applied PharmacokineticsSchool of Medicine, University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations