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


     


DICP, The Annals of Pharmacotherapy: Vol. 24, No. 12, pp. 1185-1190.
© 1990 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 Smith, C.
Right arrow Articles by Hampton, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Smith, C.
Right arrow Articles by Hampton, E.


Research Articles

Using estimated creatinine clearance for individualizing drug therapy: a reassessment

CL Smith and EM Hampton

Estimates of renal function are frequently used to design individual dosing regimens. The accuracy of these estimates naturally influences their ability to predict certain pharmacokinetic parameters and appropriate drug dosages. Creatinine clearance is the most widely used estimate of renal function. Many formulas have been developed to provide a quick, relatively accurate prediction of creatinine clearance and, supposedly, the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). However, an understanding of the limitations associated with creatinine clearance estimations raises questions concerning their reliability as an aid in individualizing drug therapy. Many factors such as disease states, age, diet, analytical variations, and drug interactions affect the relationship between estimates and measures of creatinine clearance and GFR. As a result, creatinine clearance estimates using these formulas are often poor reflections of measured creatinine clearance or GFR. Also, studies comparing measured creatinine clearance with more accurate methods of assessing renal function (i.e., inulin) reveal errors that are often exaggerated as renal function declines. Therefore, estimated creatinine clearance is twice removed from the associated pharmacokinetic parameter. Despite these limitations, no other clinically relevant and convenient assessment of renal function is available. The authors recommend that the appropriate caveats be considered when using these tools clinically. For drugs with narrow therapeutic indices, estimates of creatinine clearance should only be used to establish initial dosing regimens, with subsequent therapy based on parameters generated from concentration determinations.





homecopy help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
Copyright © 1990 by Harvey Whitney Books Company.