The Annals
home help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Drug Intelligence & Clinical Pharmacy: Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 227-231.
© 1988 Harvey Whitney Books Company.
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Articles Ahead of Print
Right arrow [Order Reprint]
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Browne, J.
Right arrow Articles by Hussey, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Browne, J.
Right arrow Articles by Hussey, B.


Research Articles

Comparison of pharmacokinetic procedures for dosing lithium based on analysis of prediction error

JL Browne, RA Patel, CS Huffman, and BK Hussey

Five pharmacokinetic methods for estimating maintenance dosage requirements of lithium carbonate were compared retrospectively in 20 inpatients with acute bipolar illness. Specific pharmacokinetic methods tested included the method of Cooper, the multiple-point method of Perry, the single-point method of Perry, the method of Zetin, and the method of Pepin. Data analysis was based on evaluation of prediction error or the difference between the predicted steady-state lithium concentration and the measured steady-state lithium concentration at equivalent daily doses. Each dosing method was assessed in regard to accuracy and bias of predicted steady-state serum lithium concentrations. Bias was assessed by comparison of the median value of the prediction error with zero. The dosing recommendation based on the Cooper nomogram resulted in a significant positive bias (p less than or equal to 0.05). Intermethod accuracy was assessed by comparison of the absolute prediction errors of each dosing method. Significant differences in accuracy were observed between the method of Pepin when compared with the single-point method of Perry (p less than or equal to 0.05, k-sample sign test). All other comparisons were nonsignificant.





homecopy help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
Copyright © 1988 by Harvey Whitney Books Company.