John Lawrence

Dr. John Lawrence

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

25Years (2002-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
18 December 2002 in Statistics in Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
HHH. M. James Hung
H. M. James Hung
SWSue‐Jane Wang
Sue‐Jane Wang
YTYi Tsong
Yi Tsong
JLJohn Lawrence
John Lawrence
RORobert T. O'NEil
Robert T. O'NEil

8 August 2006 in Biometrical Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
HHH. M. James Hung
H. M. James Hung
RORobert T. O'Neill
Robert T. O'Neill
SWSue‐Jane Wang
Sue‐Jane Wang
JLJohn Lawrence
John Lawrence

1 December 2014 in American Journal of Kidney Diseases
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ATAliza Thompson
Aliza Thompson
JLJohn Lawrence
John Lawrence
NSNorman Stockbridge
Norman Stockbridge

31 May 2016 in ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ASAndrew G. Scheuermann
Andrew G. Scheuermann
JLJohn Lawrence
John Lawrence
AMAndrew C. Meng
Andrew C. Meng
KTKechao Tang
Kechao Tang
OHOlivia L. Hendricks
Olivia L. Hendricks
PMPaul C. McIntyre
Paul C. McIntyre

1 September 2012 in Annals of Pharmacotherapy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
EPEun Jung Park
Eun Jung Park
KWKunyi Wu
Kunyi Wu
ZMZenghui Mi
Zenghui Mi
TDTing Dong
Ting Dong
JLJohn Lawrence
John Lawrence
NXNancy N Xu
Nancy N Xu
BACKGROUND: The dosing of drugs in patients with kidney dysfunction is often based on the estimates of kidney function. OBJECTIVE: To systematically compare the performance of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and Cockcroft-Gault (CG) equations for dosage adjustment. METHODS: We assessed agreement (concordance, kappa statistics [κ,κ ω ]) between CG and MDRD using a Food and Drug Administration database to evaluate the effect of renal function on the pharmacokinetics of 36 approved drugs. Across the approved drugs, we compared the correlation between these 2 equations for renal drug clearance (Cl ren ) and area under the concentration-time curve. For 26 approved drugs that require renal dose adjustment, we also compared dosing regimens and expected exposure using these equations. Sensitivity analyses were performed by adjusting the MDRD estimates for individualized body surface area and/or range of serum creatinine assay calibration errors. RESULTS: In the pharmacokinetic database with 973 subjects (age 18-95 years, weight 35-153 kg, female 33%), we found that the CG and the MDRD classification of renal function generally agreed (64.2%, κ = 0.54, κ ω = 0.73). Among the subjects studied for drugs requiring renal dose adjustment, dosages in 12% were changed to a higher or lower dosing category by the MDRD compared to the CG equation. In particular, using MDRD in place of CG for dosage modification yielded higher dosing recommendations for subjects with a combination of age >80 years, weight 0.7 and ≤1.5 mg/dL; the coefficient of determination was also higher by CG than MDRD in trials that enrolled these or similar patients. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with advanced age, low weight, and modestly elevated serum creatinine, further work is needed before the MDRD equations can replace the CG equation for dose adjustment in the labeling.

6 March 2003 in Biometrical Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
JLJohn Lawrence
John Lawrence
HHH.M. James Hung
H.M. James Hung