Literature DB >> 2721089

Phenytoin dosage predictions in paediatric patients.

G J Yuen1, P T Latimer, L C Littlefield, R W Mackey.   

Abstract

Phenytoin dosing in paediatric patients is complicated both by alterations in patient requirements due to growth and maturation changes and by the capacity-limited characteristics of phenytoin metabolism. This study examines 2 pharmacokinetic methods to adjust phenytoin dosage based on a single dosing-rate/steady-state serum phenytoin concentration pair. A Bayesian forecaster and a fixed parameter [rate of metabolism (Vmax)] method were examined with previously published sets of a priori parameter estimates. The fixed Vmax method was utilised with the parameter derived from native Japanese (method 1), US Caucasian (method 2) and European (method 3) patients. The Bayesian forecaster used a priori parameter estimates obtained from native Japanese (method 4) and European (method 5) patients. Each method was examined retrospectively in 34 paediatric patients with a total of 48 predictions possible. Measures of absolute predictability, bias (mean error, % dose) and precision (root mean squared error, % dose), were -3.58/12.2, -1.51/12.2, 4.06/9.96, -4.38/13.2, and -3.10/11.5, for methods 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. There was no significant difference among the 5 methods. However, the Bayesian algorithm tended to be more robust over a broad range of situations, providing predictions in all cases. The fixed Vmax methods could not provide predictions in every case. Finally, all methods had a significant number of overpredictions of dosage. Poorer results were observed when prediction of steady-state serum concentrations were performed, partly due to the retrospective nature of the study. We conclude that close monitoring of patients, regardless of the method chosen to adjust dosage, is recommended.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2721089     DOI: 10.2165/00003088-198916040-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet        ISSN: 0312-5963            Impact factor:   6.447


  23 in total

1.  Explanation of dose-dependent decline of diphenylhydantoin plasma levels by fitting to the integrated form of the Michaelis-Menten equation.

Authors:  N Gerber; J G Wagner
Journal:  Res Commun Chem Pathol Pharmacol       Date:  1972-05

2.  Predicting phenytoin dose - a revised nomogram.

Authors:  B Rambeck; H E Boenigk; A Dunlop; P W Mullen; J Wadsworth; A Richens
Journal:  Ther Drug Monit       Date:  1979       Impact factor: 3.681

3.  Predicting phenytoin dosages using Bayesian feedback: a comparison with other methods.

Authors:  G J Yuen; J W Taylor; T M Ludden; M J Murphy
Journal:  Ther Drug Monit       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 3.681

4.  Predicting phenytoin serum concentrations.

Authors:  G Koren
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 9.910

5.  Bayesian individualization of pharmacokinetics: simple implementation and comparison with non-Bayesian methods.

Authors:  L B Sheiner; S L Beal
Journal:  J Pharm Sci       Date:  1982-12       Impact factor: 3.534

6.  Is phenytoin metabolism dose-dependent by enzyme saturation or by feedback inhibition?

Authors:  E Perucca; K Makki; A Richens
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  1978-07       Impact factor: 6.875

7.  The clinical pharmacokinetics of phenytoin.

Authors:  E Martin; T N Tozer; L B Sheiner; S Riegelman
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1977-12

8.  Steady-state pharmacokinetics of phenytoin from routinely collected patient data.

Authors:  T H Grasela; L B Sheiner; B Rambeck; H E Boenigk; A Dunlop; P W Mullen; J Wadsworth; A Richens; T Ishizaki; K Chiba
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1983 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 6.447

9.  Michaelis-Menten pharmacokinetics of diphenylhydantoin and application in the pediatric age patient.

Authors:  K Chiba; T Ishizaki; H Miura; K Minagawa
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  1980-03       Impact factor: 4.406

10.  Evaluation of a Bayesian regression-analysis computer program for predicting phenytoin concentration.

Authors:  T M Ludden; S L Beal; C C Peck; P J Godley
Journal:  Clin Pharm       Date:  1986-07
View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Therapeutic drug monitoring of phenytoin. Rationale and current status.

Authors:  M Levine; T Chang
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 2.  Bayesian parameter estimation and population pharmacokinetics.

Authors:  A H Thomson; B Whiting
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 6.447

3.  Evaluation of a bayesian pharmacokinetic program for phenytoin concentration predictions in outpatient population.

Authors:  J M Gaulier; R Boulieu; C Fischer
Journal:  Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet       Date:  1998 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.441

Review 4.  Bayesian forecasting in paediatric populations.

Authors:  M M Fernández de Gatta; M J García; J M Lanao; A Domínguez-Gil
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 5.  Optimisation of antiepileptic drug therapy. The importance of serum drug concentration monitoring.

Authors:  E Yukawa
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 6.  An updated comparison of drug dosing methods. Part I: Phenytoin.

Authors:  R D Pryka; K A Rodvold; S M Erdman
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 7.  Clinical pharmacokinetics of antiepileptic drugs in paediatric patients. Part II. Phenytoin, carbamazepine, sulthiame, lamotrigine, vigabatrin, oxcarbazepine and felbamate.

Authors:  D Battino; M Estienne; G Avanzini
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 8.  Pharmacokinetic optimisation of anticonvulsant therapy.

Authors:  A H Thomson; M J Brodie
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 6.447

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.