Dataset Information

A Novel Correction Equation Avoids High-Magnitude Errors in Interpreting Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Phenytoin Among Critically Ill Patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Phenytoin has a narrow therapeutic index and the potential of under-treatment or toxicity. Available equations are used to correct for the impact of hypoalbuminemia on unbound (free) phenytoin levels. The authors aimed to determine the accuracy of equations used to estimate free phenytoin in hospitalized patients and assess the impact of using additional clinical data.

Methods

Concurrently measured total and free phenytoin levels in hospitalized patients (2014-2018) were retrospectively evaluated, excluding those from patients on renal replacement therapy and valproic acid. Differences between actual and estimated free phenytoin levels by the original (Original WTZ), Anderson-modified, and Kane-modified Winter-Tozer equations were assessed using Pearson correlations and Bland-Altman analysis. Thereafter, a population-derived formula was developed and validated in a testing cohort.

Results

In the 4-year training cohort (n = 81), the Original WTZ equation had the smallest mean difference of all equations. A higher mean difference [-0.362 mcg/mL (95% CI -0.585 to -0.138) vs. -0.054 mcg/mL (95% CI -0.186 to 0.078)] was observed in intensive care unit (ICU) patients compared with non-ICU patients. A cross-validated multivariable model improved the accuracy of free phenytoin estimation in ICU and non-ICU patients, even in the separate testing cohort (n = 52) with respective mean differences of -0.322 mcg/mL (95% CI -0.545 to -0.098) and -0.025 mcg/mL (95% CI -0.379 to 0.329) and was superior to the Original WTZ [mean difference -0.858 mcg/mL (95% CI -1.069 to -0.647) vs. -0.106 mcg/mL (95% CI -0.362 to 0.151), respectively].

Conclusions

Free phenytoin levels in hospitalized patients cannot be accurately determined using available estimation equations, particularly in critically ill patients. Combining ICU status and other available clinical data can improve therapeutic drug monitoring and prevent high-magnitude errors, particularly when free phenytoin assays are not readily available.

SUBMITTER: Barra ME

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7377971 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesHypernatremia is common in hospitalized, critically ill patients. Although there are no clear guidelines on sodium correction rate for hypernatremia, some studies suggest a reduction rate not to exceed 0.5 mmol/L per hour. However, the data supporting this recommendation and the optimal rate of hypernatremia correction in hospitalized adults are unclear.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsWe assessed the association of hypernatremia correction rates with neurologic outcomes and mortality in critically ill patients with hypernatremia at admission and those that developed hypernatremia during hospitalization. We used data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-III and identified patients with hypernatremia (serum sodium level >155 mmol/L) on admission (n=122) and hospital-acquired (n=327). We calculated different ranges of rapid correction rates (>0.5 mmol/L per hour overall and >8, >10, and >12 mmol/L per 24 hours) and utilized logistic regression to generate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) to examine association with outcomes.ResultsWe had complete data on 122 patients with severe hypernatremia on admission and 327 patients who developed hospital-acquired hypernatremia. The difference in in-hospital 30-day mortality proportion between rapid (>0.5 mmol/L per hour) and slower (≤0.5 mmol/L per hour) correction rates were not significant either in patients with hypernatremia at admission with rapid versus slow correction (25% versus 28%; P=0.80) or in patients with hospital-acquired hypernatremia with rapid versus slow correction (44% versus 40%; P=0.50). There was no difference in aOR of mortality for rapid versus slow correction in either admission (aOR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.5 to 3.7) or hospital-acquired hypernatremia (aOR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8 to 2.3). Manual chart review of all suspected chronic hypernatremia patients, which included all 122 with hypernatremia at admission, 128 of the 327 hospital-acquired hypernatremia, and an additional 28 patients with ICD-9 codes for cerebral edema, seizures and/or alteration of consciousness, did not reveal a single case of cerebral edema attributable to rapid hyprnatremia correction.ConclusionsWe did not find any evidence that rapid correction of hypernatremia is associated with a higher risk for mortality, seizure, alteration of consciousness, and/or cerebral edema in critically ill adult patients with either admission or hospital-acquired hypernatremia.

Project description:Background: Systemic inflammation is a whole body reaction that can have an infection-positive (i.e. sepsis) or infection-negative origin. It is important to distinguish between septic and non-septic presentations early and reliably, because this has significant therapeutic implications for critically ill patients. We hypothesized that a molecular classifier based on a small number of RNAs expressed in peripheral blood could be discovered that would: 1) determine which patients with systemic inflammation had sepsis; 2) be robust across independent patient cohorts; 3) be insensitive to disease severity; and 4) provide diagnostic utility. The overall goal of this study was to identify and validate such a molecular classifier. Methods and Findings: We conducted an observational, non-interventional study of adult patients recruited from tertiary intensive care units (ICU). Biomarker discovery was conducted with an Australian cohort (n = 105) consisting of sepsis patients and post -surgical patients with infection-negative systemic inflammation. Using this cohort, a four-gene classifier consisting of a combination of CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLA2G7 and PLAC8 RNA biomarkers was identified. This classifier, designated SeptiCyteÂ® Lab, was externally validated using RT-qPCR and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in five cohorts (n = 345) from the Netherlands. Cohort 1 (n=59) consisted of unambiguous septic cases and infection-negative systemic inflammation controls; SeptiCyteÂ® Lab gave an area under curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-1.00). ROC analysis of a more heterogeneous group of patients (Cohorts 2-5; 249 patients after excluding 37 patients with infection likelihood possible) gave an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93). Disease severity, as measured by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score or the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score, was not a significant confounding variable. The diagnostic utility o f SeptiCyteÂ® Lab was evaluated by comparison to various clinical and laboratory parameters that would be available to a clinician within 24 hours of ICU admission. SeptiCyteÂ® Lab was significantly better at differentiating sepsis from infection-negative systemic inflammation than all tested parameters, both singly and in various logistic combinations. SeptiCyteÂ® Lab more than halved the diagnostic error rate compared to PCT in all tested cohorts or cohort combinations. Conclusions: SeptiCyteÂ® Lab is a rapid molecular assay that may be clinically useful in the management of ICU patients with systemic inflammation. SIRS and Sepsis ICU patients, admission samples Retrospective, mutli-site sutdy using retrospective physician adjudication as a comparator