Gentamicin pharmacokinetics in old age and frailty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT • Gentamicin pharmacokinetics show wide inter‐individual variability across all age groups and impaired gentamicin clearance is associated with impaired creatinine clearance in older people. • Changes in body composition and renal function with old age and frailty are likely to affect the pharmacokinetics of gentamicin. • There is current debate on whether the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation estimate of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) should replace the Cockcroft Gault equation estimate of creatinine clearance for calculation of doses of renally excreted drugs. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS • The volume of distribution of gentamicin is not significantly lower in frail than in non frail older people. • The correlation between volume of distribution of gentamicin and actual bodyweight is poor in frail and moderate in non frail older people. • Gentamicin clearance is significantly lower in frail than in non frail older people. • The Cockcroft Gault calculation of creatinine clearance, calculated using ideal bodyweight, gave the best estimate of gentamicin clearance in this population of frail and non frail older people. • The MDRD estimate of GFR and Cockcroft Gault estimate of creatinine clearance, calculated using actual bodyweight, overestimate gentamicin clearance in frail and non frail older people. AIMS Frailty, a syndrome of decreased physiological reserve that is prevalent in old age, impacts on clinical pharmacology. The aims of the study were to (1) determine whether frailty affects the pharmacokinetics of gentamicin and (2) assess the accuracy of different estimates of body size and renal clearance as estimates of gentamicin pharmacokinetics in older inpatients. METHODS This was an observational study of gentamicin pharmacokinetics in a cohort of Australian hospital inpatients aged ≥65 years, who were administered prophylactic intravenous gentamicin. RESULTS Of the 31 participants, 14 were frail and 17 non frail on the Reported Edmonton Frail Scale. The mean volume of distribution of gentamicin was 14.8 ± 1.4 l in frail participants and 15.3 ± 2.2 l in non frail (NS). Volume of distribution correlated best with lean bodyweight. Gentamicin clearance was significantly lower in frail participants (46.6 ± 10.7 ml min−1) than in non frail (58.2 ± 12.4 ml min−1, P= 0.01). The Cockcroft Gault estimate of creatinine clearance calculated using ideal bodyweight gave the best estimate of gentamicin clearance (mean error – 0.15 ml min−1, 95% CI −2.67, 2.39). The Cockcroft Gault creatinine clearance calculated using actual bodyweight and the estimated glomerular filtration rate from the modified diet in renal disease equation overestimated gentamicin clearance, with mean errors of −10.15 ml min−1 (95%CI −13.60, −6.71) and −18.86 ml min−1 (95% CI −22.45, −15.27), respectively. The Cockcroft Gault creatinine clearance calculated using lean bodyweight underestimated gentamicin clearance (mean error 6.54 ml min−1, 95% CI 4.18, 8.90). CONCLUSIONS Frail older people have significantly lower gentamicin clearance than non frail. The best estimate of gentamicin clearance is obtained from the Cockcroft Gault creatinine clearance calculated using ideal bodyweight.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".