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.
Body Size Body Surface Area Nonlinear Relationship Basal Metabolic Rate Total Body Weight
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 is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Sarah C. McLeay was supported by a grant from Pfizer Global R&D. All authors declare no conflicts of interest. The authors wish to thank Karl Brendel, France Mentré and other contributing authors to Brendel et al. and Dartois et al. for kindly sharing their references, which were used to define and test the Boolean search used for this review.
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
Janmahasatian S, Duffull SB, Ash S, et al. Quantification of lean bodyweight. Clin Pharmacokinet 2005; 44(10): 1051–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Mosteller RD. Simplified calculation of body surface area [letter]. N Engl J Med 1987; 317(17): 1098PubMedGoogle Scholar
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
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
Anderson BJ, Holford NH. Mechanism-based concepts of size and maturity in pharmacokinetics. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2008; 48: 303–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleiber M. Body size and metabolism. Hilgardia 1932; 6: 315–53Google Scholar
Rubner M. Uber den Einfluss der Korpergrosse auf Stoff-und Kraftwechsel. Zeitscrift für Biologie (Munich) 1883; 19: 535–62Google Scholar
Miller AT, Blyth CS. Lean body mass as a metabolic reference standard. J Appl Physiol 1953; 5(7): 311–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
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
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]
Han PY, Kirkpatrick CM, Green B. Informative study designs to identify true parameter-covariate relationships. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 2009; 36: 147–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
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
Devine D. Case study number 25 gentamicin therapy. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1974; 8: 650–5Google Scholar
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
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
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
Agoram B, Sutjandra L, Sullivan JT. Population pharmacokinetics of darbepoetin alfa in healthy subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 63(1): 41–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Bastian G, Barrail A, Urien S. Population pharmacokinetics of oxaliplatin in patients with metastatic cancer. Anticancer Drugs 2003; 14(10): 817–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan E, Lee HS, Hue SS. Population pharmacokinetics of carbamazepine in Singapore epileptic patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 51(6): 567–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
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
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
James W. Research on obesity. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1976Google Scholar
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