. Single-dose pharmacokinetics of indinavir and the effect of food. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1998; 42:332-8.
5. Hsu A, Granneman GR, Cao G, Carothers L, Japour A, El-Shourbagy T, et al. Pharmacokinetic interaction between ritonavir and indinavir in healthy volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1998; 42:2784-91.
6. The United States Pharmacopoeial Convention, Inc. The United States Pharmacopeia 26 / National Formulary 21. Rockville, USA; 2003.
7. Drug Control Division. Thailand Guidelines for the Conduct of
Monchana Jullangkoon, Sutep Jaruratanasirikul and Nanchanit Aeinlang
1. Mutnick AH, Rhomberg PR, Sader HS, Jones RN. Antimicrobial usage and resistance trend relationships from the MYSTIC Programme in North America (1999-2001). J Antimicrob Chemother. 2004; 53:290-6.
2. Barradell LB, Bryson HM. Cefepime: a review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic use. Drugs. 1994; 47:471-505.
3. Yahav D, Paul M, Fraser A, Sarid N, Leibovici L. Efficacy and safety of cefepime: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2007; 7
1 Richards M, Williams M, Chalmers E et al. A United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre Doctors’ Organization guideline approved by the British Committee for Standards in Haematology: guideline on the use of prophylactic factor VIII concentrate in children and adults with severe haemophilia A. Br J Haematology 2010; 149: 498;507.
2 Morfini M. Pharmacokinetics of factor VIII and factor IX. Haemophilia 2003; 9 <Suppl 1=: 94;9..
3 Bjorkman S. Prophylactic dosing of factor VIII and factor IX from a clinical
methods: report from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2006; 54:231-6.
11. Paterson DL. Resistance in Gram-negative bacteria: Enterobacteriaceae. Am J Med. 2006; 119 Suppl 1:S20-S8.
12. Frei CR, Wiederhold NP, Burgess DS. Antimicrobial breakpoints for gram-negative aerobic bacteria based on pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic models with Monte Carlo simulation. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008; 61:621-8.
13. Kahlmeter G. Breakpoints for intravenously used cephalosporins in
Kreetachon Veerakikosol, Pajaree Chariyavilaskul, Natavudh Townamchai and Supeecha Wittayalertpanya
interindividual variability is found in tacrolimus pharmacokinetics, particularly in the dosage required to achieve target blood concentrations [ 2 ]. The recommended C 0 levels of tacrolimus are 10 to 20 ng/mL during the first 3 months after transplantation (induction phase), followed by C 0 levels of 5 to10 ng/mL during the maintenance phase. Significant toxicity is seen with C 0 levels of 15 ng/mL [ 3 ]. Subsequent trials often used for C 0 ranged between 7 to 8 ng/mL in the early post-transplantation period, and 5 to 7 ng/mL during the maintenance phase. An
antihistamines, while astemizole and terfenadine have been removed from the market in most countries because of their potential to the prolong QT interval, and cause serious polymorphic ventricular arrhythmias, such as torsades de pointes [ 3 ].
Various types of H 1 -receptor antagonists have various pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics properties. To date, fexofenadine, levocetirizine. and desloratadine are considered third generation antihistamines. Each drug has an advantage over the others. Among these three, desloratadine has the highest affinity for binding receptors
pharmacokinetics in Thai patients [ 6 ]. The study illustrated that creatinine clearance (CL cr ) calculated by the Cockcroft–Gault equation and age were covariates of vancomycin clearance (CL v ) and volume of the central compartment ( V c ), respectively. Thus, suitable vancomycin dosage could vary depending on CL cr and age. In addition, MRSA susceptibility data to vancomycin is a crucial factor for evaluating proper vancomycin dosing. Canut et al. determined suitable vancomycin dosages for European patients with MRSA infection [ 7 ]. The study revealed that Belgian patients
. A general method for calculating the dosage scheme in linear pharmacokinetics. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1981; 20:379-86.
9. Shafer SL, Gregg KM. Algorhithms to rapidly achieve and maintain stable drug concentrations at the site of drug effect with a computer-controlled infusion pump. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1992; 20:147-69.
10. Schnider T, Minto C, Shafer SL, Gambus PL, Andresen C, Goodale DB, Youngs EJ. The influence of age on propofol pharmacodynamics. Anesthesiology.1999; 90:1502-16.
11. Struys MMRF, De Smet T
VIII Fc fusion protein in severe hemophilia A. Blood 2014; 123(3): 317-25. doi: 10.1182/blood-2013-10-529974.
9. Collins PW, Fischer K, Morfini M, et al. Implications of coagulation factor VIII and IX pharmacokinetics in the prophylactic treatment of haemophilia. Haemophilia 2011; 17: 2-10.
10. Chowdary P, Lethagen S, Friedrich U, et al. Safety and pharmacokinetics of anti-TFPI antibody (concizumab) in healthy volunteers and patients with hemophilia: a randomized first human dose trial. J Thromb Haemost 2015; 13(5): 743-54. doi: 10
Pakawadee Sermsappasuk, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk, Manupat Lohitnavy and Chagriya Kitiyakara
caused by coadministration of decoctions of the fruits of Citrus aurantium and the pericarps of Citrus grandis. Planta Med. 2000; 66:653-5.
20. Grenier J, Fradette C, Morelli G, Merritt GJ, Vranderick M, Ducharme MP. Pomelo juice, but not cranberry juice, affects the pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine in humans. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2006; 79:255-62.
21. Castillo JREd, Elsener J, Martineau GP. Pharmacokinetic modeling of in-feed tetracyclines in pigs using a meta-analytic compartmental approach. Swine Health Prod. 1998; 6