确定依诺肝素的最佳肥胖调整剂量重量。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Gregory W Roberts, Viviane De Menezes Caceres, Anthony Damiani, Nicholas Scarfo, Desmond B Williams, Patrick T Russell
{"title":"确定依诺肝素的最佳肥胖调整剂量重量。","authors":"Gregory W Roberts, Viviane De Menezes Caceres, Anthony Damiani, Nicholas Scarfo, Desmond B Williams, Patrick T Russell","doi":"10.1111/bcp.16338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The ideal dosing weight metric for enoxaparin remains elusive. Dosing remains focused on actual body weight, which may inadvertently increase the risk of bleeding in those with obesity, or ideal weight, which may underdose those with obesity. Our aim was to determine the optimal obesity-adjusted enoxaparin dosing weight.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multisite retrospective data were collected over a 2.0-year period for those with minimum 48 h of in-hospital twice-daily enoxaparin and factor anti-Xa level 3-5 h postdose (n = 220). Multiple linear regression calculated the associated variance between a range of nominal dosing weights and factor anti-Xa levels, adjusted for renal function. Dosing weights were calculated as ideal body weight (IBW) and then adjusted for increasing percentages of weight above IBW, i.e. IBW + 10% above IBW, IBW + 20% etc. up to actual body weight. A similar approach was used for lean body weight (LBW).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For body mass index ≥30 kg/m<sup>2</sup> optimal variance explained by dosing weight metrics was at IBW + 40% (23%) and similarly for LBW + 40% (23%). Using actual body weight (ABW) had lowest associated variance with factor anti-Xa levels (18%) followed by unadjusted IBW (13%) or unadjusted LBW (19%). In those with body mass index <30 kg/m<sup>2</sup> there was similar associated variance in the ranges of IBW + 20-50% and LBW 10-40% (21%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to IBW + 40% or LBW + 40% use of ABW to calculate dose was poorly associated with factor anti-Xa levels, as was IBW or LBW. IBW + 40% and LBW + 40% require further study as a dosing weight metric and may provide a more consistent factor anti-Xa response in those with obesity.</p>","PeriodicalId":9251,"journal":{"name":"British journal of clinical pharmacology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Determination of the optimal obesity-adjusted dosing weight for enoxaparin.\",\"authors\":\"Gregory W Roberts, Viviane De Menezes Caceres, Anthony Damiani, Nicholas Scarfo, Desmond B Williams, Patrick T Russell\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bcp.16338\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The ideal dosing weight metric for enoxaparin remains elusive. Dosing remains focused on actual body weight, which may inadvertently increase the risk of bleeding in those with obesity, or ideal weight, which may underdose those with obesity. Our aim was to determine the optimal obesity-adjusted enoxaparin dosing weight.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multisite retrospective data were collected over a 2.0-year period for those with minimum 48 h of in-hospital twice-daily enoxaparin and factor anti-Xa level 3-5 h postdose (n = 220). Multiple linear regression calculated the associated variance between a range of nominal dosing weights and factor anti-Xa levels, adjusted for renal function. Dosing weights were calculated as ideal body weight (IBW) and then adjusted for increasing percentages of weight above IBW, i.e. IBW + 10% above IBW, IBW + 20% etc. up to actual body weight. A similar approach was used for lean body weight (LBW).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For body mass index ≥30 kg/m<sup>2</sup> optimal variance explained by dosing weight metrics was at IBW + 40% (23%) and similarly for LBW + 40% (23%). Using actual body weight (ABW) had lowest associated variance with factor anti-Xa levels (18%) followed by unadjusted IBW (13%) or unadjusted LBW (19%). In those with body mass index <30 kg/m<sup>2</sup> there was similar associated variance in the ranges of IBW + 20-50% and LBW 10-40% (21%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to IBW + 40% or LBW + 40% use of ABW to calculate dose was poorly associated with factor anti-Xa levels, as was IBW or LBW. IBW + 40% and LBW + 40% require further study as a dosing weight metric and may provide a more consistent factor anti-Xa response in those with obesity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9251,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of clinical pharmacology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of clinical pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.16338\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of clinical pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.16338","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:依诺肝素的理想剂量体重指标仍未确定。给药仍以实际体重或理想体重为标准,前者可能会无意中增加肥胖患者的出血风险,后者可能会使肥胖患者用药不足。我们的目的是确定经肥胖调整的依诺肝素最佳剂量:我们收集了 2.0 年来的多站点回顾性数据,这些数据针对院内每日两次使用依诺肝素且用药后 3-5 h 抗 Xa 因子水平至少达到 48 h 的患者(n = 220)。经肾功能调整后,多元线性回归计算了一系列名义给药重量与因子抗-Xa水平之间的相关方差。给药重量按理想体重(IBW)计算,然后根据高于 IBW 的体重百分比的增加进行调整,即 IBW + 高于 IBW 的 10%、IBW + 20% 等,直至实际体重。瘦体重(LBW)也采用了类似的方法:结果:对于体重指数≥30 kg/m2 的人,配料体重指标解释的最佳方差为 IBW + 40% (23%),同样,对于 LBW + 40% (23%),配料体重指标解释的最佳方差为 IBW + 40% (23%)。使用实际体重(ABW)与因子抗 Xa 水平的相关方差最小(18%),其次是未经调整的 IBW(13%)或未经调整的 LBW(19%)。在体重指数为 2 的人群中,IBW + 20-50% 和 LBW 10-40% 的相关方差相似(21%):结论:使用 ABW 计算剂量与 IBW + 40% 或 LBW + 40% 相比,与 IBW 或 LBW 相比,与因子抗 Xa 水平的相关性较差。IBW + 40% 和 LBW + 40% 作为剂量体重指标需要进一步研究,它们可能会为肥胖症患者提供更一致的抗 Xa 因子反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Determination of the optimal obesity-adjusted dosing weight for enoxaparin.

Aims: The ideal dosing weight metric for enoxaparin remains elusive. Dosing remains focused on actual body weight, which may inadvertently increase the risk of bleeding in those with obesity, or ideal weight, which may underdose those with obesity. Our aim was to determine the optimal obesity-adjusted enoxaparin dosing weight.

Methods: Multisite retrospective data were collected over a 2.0-year period for those with minimum 48 h of in-hospital twice-daily enoxaparin and factor anti-Xa level 3-5 h postdose (n = 220). Multiple linear regression calculated the associated variance between a range of nominal dosing weights and factor anti-Xa levels, adjusted for renal function. Dosing weights were calculated as ideal body weight (IBW) and then adjusted for increasing percentages of weight above IBW, i.e. IBW + 10% above IBW, IBW + 20% etc. up to actual body weight. A similar approach was used for lean body weight (LBW).

Results: For body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 optimal variance explained by dosing weight metrics was at IBW + 40% (23%) and similarly for LBW + 40% (23%). Using actual body weight (ABW) had lowest associated variance with factor anti-Xa levels (18%) followed by unadjusted IBW (13%) or unadjusted LBW (19%). In those with body mass index <30 kg/m2 there was similar associated variance in the ranges of IBW + 20-50% and LBW 10-40% (21%).

Conclusion: Compared to IBW + 40% or LBW + 40% use of ABW to calculate dose was poorly associated with factor anti-Xa levels, as was IBW or LBW. IBW + 40% and LBW + 40% require further study as a dosing weight metric and may provide a more consistent factor anti-Xa response in those with obesity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
8.80%
发文量
419
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Published on behalf of the British Pharmacological Society, the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology features papers and reports on all aspects of drug action in humans: review articles, mini review articles, original papers, commentaries, editorials and letters. The Journal enjoys a wide readership, bridging the gap between the medical profession, clinical research and the pharmaceutical industry. It also publishes research on new methods, new drugs and new approaches to treatment. The Journal is recognised as one of the leading publications in its field. It is online only, publishes open access research through its OnlineOpen programme and is published monthly.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信