Clinical Pharmacokinetics

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 237–244 | Cite as

All Half-Lives Are Wrong, But Some Half-Lives Are Useful

  • James G. Wright
  • Alan V. Boddy
Current Opinion


The half-life of a drug, which expresses a change in concentration in units of time, is perhaps the most easily understood pharmacokinetic parameter and provides a succinct description of many concentration-time profiles. The calculation of a half-life implies a linear, first-order, time-invariant process. No drug perfectly obeys such assumptions, although in practise this is often a valid approximation and provides invaluable quantitative information. Nevertheless, the physiological processes underlying half-life should not be forgotten. The concept of clearance facilitates the interpretation of factors affecting drug elimination, such as enzyme inhibition or renal impairment. Relating clearance to the observed concentration-time profile is not as naturally intuitive as is the case with half-life. As such, these 2 approaches to parameterising a linear pharmacokinetic model should be viewed as complementary rather than alternatives.

The interpretation of pharmacokinetic parameters when there are multiple disposition phases is more challenging. Indeed, in any pharmacokinetic model, the half-lives are only one component of the parameters required to specify the concentration-time profile. Furthermore, pharmacokinetic parameters are of little use without a dose history. Other factors influencing the relevance of each disposition phase to clinical end-points must also be considered. In summarising the pharmacokinetics of a drug, statistical aspects of the estimation of a half-life are often overlooked. Half-lives are rarely reported with confidence intervals or measures of variability in the population, and some approaches to this problem are suggested.

Half-life is an important summary statistic in pharmacokinetics, but care must be taken to employ it appropriately in the context of dose history and clinically relevant pharmacodynamic end-points.


Pharmacokinetic Parameter Pharmacokinetic Model Effect Site Pharmacodynamic Effect Suxamethonium 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work was supported by the Cancer Research Campaign.


  1. 1.
    Greenblatt DJ. Elimination half-life of drugs: value and limitations. Annu Rev Med 1985; 36: 421–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jacobs JR, Shafer SL, Larsen JL, et al. Two equally valid interpretations of the linear multicompartment mammillary pharmacokinetic model. J Pharm Sci 1990; 79: 331–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Houston JB. Drug metabolite kinetics. Pharmacol Ther 1981; 15: 521–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ronfeld RA, Benet LZ. Interpretation of plasma concentrationtime curves after oral dosing. J Pharm Sci 1977; 66: 178–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lind MJ, Margison M, Cerny T, et al. The effect of age on the pharmacokinetics of ifosfamide. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1990; 30: 140–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sheiner LB, Wakefield J. Population modelling in drug development. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8: 183–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rescigno A. Terminal half-life. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1993; 21: 125–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chabner BA, Stoller RG, Hande KR. Methotrexate disposition in humans: case studies in ovarian cancer and following high dose infusion. Drug Metab Rev 1978; 8: 107–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dokoumetzidis A, Iliadis A, Macheras P. An alternative method for the estimation of the terminal slope when a few data points are available. J Pharm Sci 1999; 88: 557–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bryan M, Zimmerman JJ, Berry WJ. The use of half-lives and associated confidence intervals in biological research. Vet Res Commun 1990; 14: 235–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lacey LF, Keene ON, Pritchard JF, et al. Common non-compartmental pharmacokinetic parameters: are they normally or log-normally distributed? J Biopharm Stat 1997; 7: 171–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Julious SA, Debarnot CAM. Why are pharmacokinetic data summarized by arithmetic means? J Biopharm Stat 2000; 10: 55–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lam FC, Hung CT, Perrier DG. Estimation of variance for harmonic mean half-lives. J Pharm Sci 1985; 74: 229–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Holford NH, Sheiner LB. Kinetics of pharmacologic response. Pharmacol Ther 1982; 18: 143–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Warwick NR, Graham GG, Torda TA. Pharmacokinetic analysis of the effect of vecuronium in surgical patients: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling without plasma concentrations. Anesthesiology 1998; 88: 874–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Levy G. Kinetics of pharmacological activity of succinylcholine in man. J Pharm Sci 1967; 56(12): 1687–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schafer AI. Effects of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs on platelet function and systemic hemostasis. J Clin Pharmacol 1995; 35(3): 209–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Calvert AH, Newell DR, Gumbrell LA, et al. Carboplatin dosage: prospective evaluation of a simple formula based on renal function. J Clin Oncol 1989; 7: 1748–56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weiss M, Sziegoleit W, Fahr A, et al. Rapid achievement of a serum concentration plateau of digoxin through controlled infusion. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1983; 25: 455–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shafer SL, Stanski DR. Improving the clinical utility of anesthetic drug pharmacokinetics. Anesthesiology 1992; 76: 327–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gamelin E, Allain P, Maillart P, et al. Long-term pharmacokinetic behaviour of platinum after cisplatin administration. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1995; 37: 97–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schierl R, Rohrer B, Hohnloser J. Long-term platinum excretion in patients treated with cisplatin. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1995; 36: 75–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bruno R, Hille D, Riva A, et al. Population pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of docetaxel in phase II studies in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 187–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Benet LZ. Pharmacokinetic parameters: which are necessary to define a drug substance? Eur J Respir Dis 1984; Suppl. 134: 45–61Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shafer SL, Varvel JR. Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and rational opioid selection. Anesthesiology 1991; 74: 58–63Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hughes MA, Glass PSA, Jacobs JR. Context-sensitive half-time in multicompartment pharmacokinetic models for intravenous anesthetic drugs. Anesthesiology 1992; 76: 334–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bailey JM. Technique for quantifying the duration of intravenous anesthetic effect. Anesthesiology 1995; 83: 1095–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kapila A, Glass PSA, Jacobs JR, et al. Measured context-sensitive half-times of remifentanil and alfentanil. Anesthesiology 1995; 83: 968–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Minto C, Schnider T. Expanding clinical applications of population pharmacodynamic modelling. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 46: 321–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Holford NH, Kimko HC, Monteleone JP, et al. Simulation of clinical trials. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2000; 40: 209–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schnider TW, Shafer SL. Evolving clinically useful predictors of recovery from intravenous anesthetics. Anesthesiology 1995; 83: 902–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thomson AH, Whiting B. Bayesian parameter estimation and population pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacokinet 1992; 22: 447–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Box GEP. Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. In: Launer RL, Wilkinson GN, editors. Robustness in statistics. New York: Academic Press, 1979Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cancer Research UnitUniversity of Newcastle, Medical SchoolNewcastle upon TyneEngland

Personalised recommendations