Clinical Pharmacokinetics

, Volume 51, Issue 5, pp 319–330 | Cite as

The Relationship between Drug Clearance and Body Size

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature Published from 2000 to 2007
  • Sarah C. McLeay
  • Glynn A. Morrish
  • Carl M. J. Kirkpatrick
  • Bruce Green
Systematic Review

Abstract

Background: A variety of body size covariates have been used in population pharmacokinetic analyses to describe variability in drug clearance (CL), such as total body weight (TBW), body surface area (BSA), lean body weight (LBW) and allometric TBW. There is controversy, however, as to which body size covariate is most suitable for describing CL across the whole population. Given the increasing worldwide prevalence of obesity, it is essential to identify the best size descriptor so that dosing regimens can be developed that are suitable for patients of any size.

Aim: The aim of this study was to explore the use of body size covariates in population pharmacokinetic analyses for describing CL. In particular, we sought to determine if any body size covariate was preferential to describe CL and quantify its relationship with CL, and also identify study design features that result in the identification of a nonlinear relationship between TBW and CL.

Methods: Population pharmacokinetic articles were identified from MEDLINE using defined keywords. A database was developed to collect information about study designs, model building and covariate analysis strategies, and final reported models for CL. The success of inclusion for a variety of covariates was determined. A meta-analysis of studies was then performed to determine the average relationship reported between CL and TBW. For each study, CL was calculated across the range of TBW for the study population and normalized to allow comparison between studies. BSA, LBW, and allometric TBW and LBW relationships with exponents of 3/4, 2/3, and estimated values were evaluated to determine the relationship that best described the data overall. Additionally, joint distributions of TBW were compared between studies reporting a ‘nonlinear’ relationship between CL and TBW (i.e. LBW, BSA and allometric TBW-shaped relationships) and those reporting ‘other’ relationships (e.g. linear increase in CL with TBW, ideal body weight or height).

Results: A total of 458 out of 2384 articles were included in the analysis, from which 484 pharmacokinetic studies were reviewed. Fifty-six percent of all models for CL included body size as a covariate, with 52% of models including a nonlinear relationship between CL and TBW. No single size descriptor was more successful than others for describing CL. LBW with a fixed exponent of 2/3, i.e. (LBW/50.45)2/3, or estimated exponent of 0.646, i.e. ∼2/3, was found to best describe the average reported relationship between CL and TBW. The success of identifying a nonlinear increase in CL with TBW was found to be higher for those studies that included a wider range of subject TBW.

Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to have performed a meta-analysis of covariate relationships between CL and body size. Although many studies reported a linear relationship between CL and TBW, the average relationship was found to be nonlinear. LBW with an allometric exponent of ∼2/3 may be most suitable for describing an increase in CL with body size as it accounts for both body composition and allometric scaling principles concerning differences in metabolic rates across size.

References

  1. 1.
    Global database on body mass index (BMI) [online database]. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://apps.who.int/bmi/index.jsp?introPage=intro_3.html [Accessed 2012 Mar 5]
  2. 2.
    Han PY, Duffull SB, Kirkpatrick CM, et al. Dosing in obesity: a simple solution to a big problem. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007; 82(5): 505–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roubenoff R, Kehayias JJ. The meaning and measurement of lean body mass. Nutr Rev 1991; 49: 163–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Green B, Duffull SB. What is the best size descriptor to use for pharmacokinetic studies in the obese? Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004; 58(2): 119–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Janmahasatian S, Duffull SB, Ash S, et al. Quantification of lean bodyweight. Clin Pharmacokinet 2005; 44(10): 1051–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Du Bois D, Du Bois EF. A formula to estimate the approximate surface area if height and weight be known. Arch Intern Med 1916; 17: 863–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mosteller RD. Simplified calculation of body surface area [letter]. N Engl J Med 1987; 317(17): 1098PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sardinha LB, Silva AM, Minderico CS, et al. Effect of body surface area calculations on body fat estimates in non-obese and obese subjects. Physiol Meas 2006; 27: 1197–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dooley M, Singh S, Poole S, et al. Distribution and discordance of body surface area (BSA) and body mass index (BMI) in 4514 patients with malignancy [abstract no. 356]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2002; 21Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anderson BJ, Holford NH. Mechanism-based concepts of size and maturity in pharmacokinetics. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2008; 48: 303–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holford N. A size standard for pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharm 1996; 30(5): 329–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kleiber M. Body size and metabolism. Hilgardia 1932; 6: 315–53Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rubner M. Uber den Einfluss der Korpergrosse auf Stoff-und Kraftwechsel. Zeitscrift für Biologie (Munich) 1883; 19: 535–62Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller AT, Blyth CS. Lean body mass as a metabolic reference standard. J Appl Physiol 1953; 5(7): 311–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    White CR, Seymour RS. Mammalian basal metabolic rate is proportional to body mass 2/3. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003; 100: 4046–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mahmood I. Prediction of drug clearance in children: Impact of allometric exponents, body weight, and age. Ther Drug Monit 2007; 29(3): 271–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mahmood I. Application of fixed exponent 0.75 to the prediction of human drug clearance: an inaccurate and misleading concept. Drug Metabol Drug Interact 2009; 24(1): 57–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tang H, Hussain M, Leal E, et al. Controversy in the allometric application of fixed- versus varying-exponent models: a statistical and mathematical perspective. J Pharm Sci 2011; 100(2): 402–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services. Prevalence of overweight, obesity and extreme obesity among adults: United States, trends 1960–62 through 2005–2006. 2009: statistics on overweight and obesity in the US [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/overweight/overweight_adult.htm [Accessed 2012 Mar 5]
  20. 20.
    Han PY, Kirkpatrick CM, Green B. Informative study designs to identify true parameter-covariate relationships. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 2009; 36: 147–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ribbing J, Jonsson EN. Power, selection bias and predictive performance of the Population Pharmacokinetic Covariate Model. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 2004; 31(2): 109–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brendel K, Dartois C, Comets E, et al. Are population pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic models adequately evaluated? A survey of the literature from 2002 to 2004. Clin Pharmacokinet 2007; 46(3): 221–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang DD, Zhang S, Zhao H, et al. Fixed dosing versus body size-based dosing of monoclonal antibodies in adult clinical trials. J Clin Pharmacol 2009; 49(9): 1012–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dartois C, Brendel K, Comets E, et al. Overview of model-building strategies in population PK/PD analyses: 2002–2004 literature survey. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 64(5): 603–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Devine D. Case study number 25 gentamicin therapy. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1974; 8: 650–5Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bulitta JB, Duffull SB, Kinzig-Schippers M, et al. Systematic comparison of the population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of piperacillin in cystic fibrosis patients and healthy volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2007; 51(7): 2497–507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jorga K, Fotteler B, Banken L, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of tolcapone in parkinsonian patients in dose finding studies. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 49: 39–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Acosta E, Brundage R, King J, et al., for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Collaborative Antiviral Study Group. Ganciclovir population pharmacokinetics in neonates following intravenous administration of ganciclovir and oral administration of a liquid valganciclovir formulation. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007; 81(6): 867–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Agoram B, Sutjandra L, Sullivan JT. Population pharmacokinetics of darbepoetin alfa in healthy subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 63(1): 41–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Al Za’abi M, Donovan T, Tudehope D, et al. Orogastric and intravenous indomethacin administration to very premature neonates with patent ductus arteriosus: population pharmacokinetics, absolute bioavailability, and treatment outcome. Ther Drug Monit 2007; 29: 807–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bastian G, Barrail A, Urien S. Population pharmacokinetics of oxaliplatin in patients with metastatic cancer. Anticancer Drugs 2003; 14(10): 817–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chan E, Lee HS, Hue SS. Population pharmacokinetics of carbamazepine in Singapore epileptic patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 51(6): 567–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fukuda T, Yukawa E, Kondo G, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of theophylline in very premature Japanese infants with apnoea. J Clin Pharm Ther 2005; 30: 591–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Judson I, Ma P, Peng B, et al. Imatinib pharmacokinetics in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumour: a retrospective population pharmacokinetic study over time: EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2005; 55: 379–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lanao J, Calvo M, Mesa J, et al. Pharmacokinetic basis for the use of extended interval dosage regimens of gentamicin in neonates. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004; 54: 193–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Van Obbergh LJ, Roelants FA, Veyckemans F, et al. In children, the addition of epinephrine modifies the pharmacokinetics of ropivacaine injected caudally. Can J Anesth 2003; 50(6): 593–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yukawa E, Mamiya K. Effect of CYP2C19 genetic polymorphism on pharmacokinetics of phenytoin and phenobarbital in Japanese epileptic patients using non-linear mixed effects model approach. J Clin Pharm Ther 2006; 31: 275–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    James W. Research on obesity. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1976Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Green B, Duffull S. Caution when lean body weight is used as a size descriptor for obese subjects. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2002; 72(6): 743–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bouillon T, Shafer SL. Does size matter? Anesthesiology 1998; 89(3): 557–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah C. McLeay
    • 1
  • Glynn A. Morrish
    • 2
  • Carl M. J. Kirkpatrick
    • 1
    • 3
  • Bruce Green
    • 2
  1. 1.School of PharmacyUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Model Answers Pty LtdBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical SciencesMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations