(51)Cr EDTA clearance (CL) from plasma is used to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR). We propose that current methods for analysing the raw (51)Cr EDTA measurements over-simplifies the disposition of (51)Cr EDTA and therefore could produce biased GFR estimates. The aim of this study was to develop a population pharmacokinetic model for (51)Cr EDTA disposition and to compare model-predicted GFR to other methods of estimating renal function.
Data from 40 individuals who received ~7.4 MBq of (51)Cr EDTA, as an intravenous bolus, were available for analysis. Plasma radioactivity (counts/min) was measured from timed collection points at 2, 4, 6 and 24 h after the dose. A population analysis was conducted using NONMEM(®) version 7.2. Model-predicted GFR was compared with other methods for estimating renal function using mean prediction error (MPE).
A two-compartment pharmacokinetic model with first-order elimination best fit the data. Compared with the model predictions, creatinine CL from 24 h urine data was unbiased. The commonly used 'slope-intercept' method for estimating isotopic GFR was positively biased compared with the model (MPE 15.5 mL/min/1.73 m(2) [95% confidence interval {CI} 8.9-22.2]. The Cockcroft Gault, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-Epi) equations led to negatively biased GFR estimates (MPE -19.0 [95% CI -25.4 to -12.7], -20.1 [95% CI -27.2 to -13.1] and -16.5 [95% CI -22.2 to -10.1] mL/min/1.73 m(2), respectively).
The biased GFR estimates were most obvious in patients with relatively normal renal function. This may lead to inaccurate dosing in patients who are receiving drugs with a narrow therapeutic range where dosing is adjusted according to GFR estimates (e.g. carboplatin).
The study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), number: ACTRN 12611000035921.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
5
19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
3
11%
Medicine and Dentistry
3
11%
Arts and Humanities
1
4%
Nursing and Health Professions
1
4%
Other
3
11%
Unknown
11
41%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 December 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Pharmacokinetics
#1,298
of 1,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#265,307
of 420,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Pharmacokinetics
#18
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,602 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,110 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
