Ciprofloxacin Pharmacokinetics in Patients with Normal and Impaired Renal Function

  • Thomas C. Gasser
  • Steven C. Ebert
  • Peder H. Graversen
  • Paul O. Madsen
Part of the Fortschritte der Urologie und Nephrologie book series (2824, volume 27)


The pharmacokinetics of ciprofloxacin following single oral doses of 500 and 750 mg in 32 parents with various degrees of renal function impairment were investigated in an open, randomized crossover fashion. Ciprofloxacin was administered after overnight fasting; the washout time between the two doses was 1 week. Serum and urine samples were collected serially between 0 and 24 h and subjected to bioassay and high-performance liquid chromatography. Pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed, assuming an open two-compartment model with first-order input and elimination. A distinct difference was observed in pharmacokinetic parameters between patients with impaired renal function (creatinine clearance, <50 ml/min per 1.73 m2) and those with normal renal function (creatinine clearance, 2=50 ml/min per 1.73 m2). For the former group, the area under the curve of serum concentration versus time was doubled, the renal clearance of ciprofloxacin was cut to one-fourth, the total and nonrenal ciprofloxacin clearance was reduced by 50%, and the elimination half-life was prolonged by a factor of approximately 1.7. The correlation between renal drug clearance and creatinine clearance was highly significant (r = 0.890; P < 0.001). On the basis of these findings, it appears that a 50% dose reduction of ciprofloxacin in patients with impaired renal function (creatinine clearance, <50 ml/min per 1.73 m2) may be indicated to achieve concentrations in serum similar to those observed in normal individuals. As the concentration of ciprofloxacin in urine after 24 h remained above the MIC for most urinary pathogens, this drug appears to be of potential benefit for the treatment of urinary tract infections in patients with impaired renal function.


Creatinine Clearance Single Oral Dose Impaired Renal Function Washout Time Urinary Pathogen 
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.


  1. 1.
    Bauemfeind, A., and C. Petermüller. 1983. In vitro activity of ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin and nalidixic acid. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2:111–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boelaert, J., Y. Valcke, M. Schurgers, R. Daneels, M. Rosseneu, M. T. Rosseel, and M. G. Bogaert. 1985. The pharmacokinetics of ciprofloxacin in patients with impaired renal function. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 16:87–93.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Crump, B., R. Wise, and J. Dent. 1983. Pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration of ciprofloxacin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 24:784–786.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gau, W., H. J. Ploschke, K. Schmidt, and B. Weber. 1985. Determination of ciprofloxacin (Bay 0 9867) in biological fluids by high-performance liquid chromatography. J. Liq. Chroma- togr. 8:485–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gonzalez, M. A., F. Uribe, S. D. Moisen, A. P. Fuster, A. Selen, P. G. Welling, and B. Painter. 1984. Multiple-dose pharmacokinetics and safety of ciprofloxacin in normal volunteers. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 26:741–744.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greenblatt, D. J., arid J. Koch-Weser. 1975. Drug therapy. Clinical pharmacokinetics (part 1). N. Engl. J. Med. 293:702–705.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Höffken, G., H. Lode, C. Prinzing, K. Boraer, and P. Koeppe. 1985. Pharmacokinetics of ciprofloxacin after oral and parenteral administration. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 27:375–379.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Höffler, D., A. Dalhoff, W. Gau, D. Beermann, and A. Michl. 1984. Dose- and sex-independent disposition of ciprofloxacin. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. 3:363–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jobs, B., B. Ledergerber, M. Flepp, J;-D. Bettex, R. Lüthy, and W. Siegenthaler. 1985. Comparison of high-pressure liquid chromatography and bioassay for determination of ciprofloxacin in serum and urine. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 27:353–356.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Washington, J. A., II, and V. L. Sutter. 1980. Dilution susceptibility test: agar and macro-broth dilution procedures, p. 453–458. In E. H. Lennette, A. Balows, W. J. Hausler, Jr., arid j. P. Truant (ed.), Manual of clinical microbiology, 3rd ed. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wingender, W., K.-H. Graefe, W. Gau, D. Förster, D. Beermann, and P. Schacht. 1984. Pharmacokinetics of ciprofloxacin after oral and intravenous administration in healthy volunteers. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. 3:355–359.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wise, R., J. M. Andrews, and L. J. Edwards. 1983. In vitro activity of Bay 09867, a new quinoline derivative, compared with those of other antimicrobial agents. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 23:559–564.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. Dietrich SteinkopffVerlag & Co. KG, Darmstadt 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas C. Gasser
    • 1
  • Steven C. Ebert
    • 2
  • Peder H. Graversen
    • 1
  • Paul O. Madsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Urology Section, Surgical ServiceWilliam S. Middleton Memorial Veterans HospitalMadisonUSA
  2. 2.School of PharmacyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations