NP-005 Estimating renal function for drug dosing: equations matter. (March 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rei, MJ; Fernandes, L; Pereira, C; Vilaverde, R; Rodrigues, R
• Is Part Of: European journal of hospital pharmacy. Volume 26(2019)Supplement 1
• Page Start: A292
• Page End: A293
• Publication Date: 2019-03
• Subjects: Pharmacy -- Periodicals; Hospital pharmacies -- Periodicals; 615.1
• DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2019-eahpconf.630
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2047-9956

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Suggestions for drug dose adjustments according to renal function are a significant part of pharmaceutical intervention (PI). The most commonly used equations for estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in adults are the Cockroft–Gault (CG) equation and, more recently, the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation. The latter is a more accurate estimate of actual GFR, and is now recommended for staging CKD. However, regarding drug dosing, there are some conflicting recommendations. Purpose: To assess the impact of the differences between the two GFR estimation formulas (CG and CKD-EPI) in drug dosing recommendations. Methods: PI of the first semester of 2017 aimed at drugdosing recommendations for renal impairment or renal function recovery, were selected from the PI database. The information collected included drug identification and dosing recommendation made (dose reduction/increase/drug suspension). Age, weight, height and creatinine were added and GFR was calculated using the above two equations. Finally, we analysed the impact of the result on the dosing suggestion made, according to the GFR cut-off value for each drug-dosing recommendation. Results: A total of 149 interventions were included, covering 115 patients with a median age of 85 years. The recommendations for dosing alteration or drug suspension focused mainly on antibiotics (Meropenem, Piperacillin/tazobactam, Co-amoxiclav), anticoagulants (Enoxaparin, Rivaroxaban, Dabigatran) and NSAIDs. The mean difference in estimated GFR between the two formulae was 8 ml/min. However, larger differences appear to be associated with older age and bodyweight limits. There were 36 (24%) cases of discrepancy between the recommendations to be made depending on the formula used. Conclusions: The choice of the GFR estimation formula may have a significant impact on the recommendations of dose adjustments, namely in the elderly and in extremes of bodyweight. Because each formula has its limitations, it is crucial to interpret the result as a range of probability rather than an absolute value, and consider the complete patient context in the decision. References and/or acknowledgements: None.