Comparisons of Four Protein-Binding Models Characterizing the Pharmacokinetics of Unbound Phenytoin in Adult Patients Using Non-Linear Mixed-Effects Modeling

Background and objective

Phenytoin is extensively protein bound with a narrow therapeutic range. The unbound phenytoin is pharmacologically active, but total concentrations are routinely measured in clinical practice. The relationship between free and total phenytoin has been described by various binding models with inconsistent findings. Systematic comparison of these binding models in a single experimental setting is warranted to determine the optimal binding behaviors.

Methods

Non-linear mixed-effects modeling was conducted on retrospectively collected data (n = 37 adults receiving oral or intravenous phenytoin) using a stochastic approximation expectation–maximization algorithm in MonolixSuite-2019R2. The optimal base structural model was initially developed and utilized to compare four binding models: Winter–Tozer, linear binding, non-linear single-binding site, and non-linear multiple-binding site. Each binding model was subjected to error and covariate modeling. The final model was evaluated using relative standard errors (RSEs), goodness-of-fit plots, visual predictive check, and bootstrapping.

Results

A one-compartment, first-order absorption, Michaelis–Menten elimination, and linear protein-binding model best described the population pharmacokinetics of free phenytoin at typical clinical concentrations. The non-linear single-binding-site model also adequately described phenytoin binding but generated larger RSEs. The non-linear multiple-binding-site model performed the worst, with no identified covariates. The optimal linear binding model suggested a relatively high binding capacity using a single albumin site. Covariate modeling indicated a positive relationship between albumin concentration and the binding proportionality constant.

Conclusions

The linear binding model best described the population pharmacokinetics of unbound phenytoin in adult subjects and may be used to improve the prediction of free phenytoin concentrations.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40268-020-00323-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Benefits and Pitfalls of Point-of-Care Coagulation Testing for Anticoagulation Management: An ACLPS Critical Review

Objectives

Point-of-care (POC) testing is generally less precise and has higher reagent costs per test than laboratory-based assays. However, POC hemostasis testing can offer significant advantages in particular situations: patient-managed warfarin therapy as well as rapid turnaround time heparin management for intraoperative patients. Of note, POC hemostasis testing is generally approved for the purposes of anticoagulation monitoring and is inferior to laboratory coagulation testing for the diagnosis of congenital or acquired coagulopathy.

Methods

The frequently used POC coagulation instruments for POC international normalized ratio and activated clotting time are reviewed, as well as their typical performance relative to central laboratory testing (where available).

Results

Several cases are discussed that highlight the benefits, as well as pitfalls, of POC coagulation testing.

Conclusions

POC coagulation testing for anticoagulation monitoring offers advantages in particular situations. Clear policies and protocols must be developed to guide proper use of POC versus central laboratory hemostasis testing.

Critical laboratory values in hemostasis: toward consensus

The term "critical values" can be defined to entail laboratory test results that significantly lie outside the normal (reference) range and necessitate immediate reporting to safeguard patient health, as well as those displaying a highly and clinically significant variation compared to previous data. The identification and effective communication of "highly pathological" values has engaged the minds of many clinicians, health care and laboratory professionals for decades, since these activities are vital to good laboratory practice. This is especially true in hemostasis, where a timely and efficient communication of critical values strongly impacts patient management. Due to the heterogeneity of available data, this paper is hence aimed to analyze the state of the art and provide an expert opinion about the parameters, measurement units and alert limits pertaining to critical values in hemostasis, thus providing a basic document for future consultation that assists laboratory professionals and clinicians alike. KEY MESSAGES Critical values are laboratory test results significantly lying outside the normal (reference) range and necessitating immediate reporting to safeguard patient health. A broad heterogeneity exists about critical values in hemostasis worldwide. We provide here an expert opinion about the parameters, measurement units and alert limits pertaining to critical values in hemostasis.

Policies and practices in haemostasis testing among laboratories in Croatia: a survey on behalf of a Working Group for Laboratory Coagulation of the Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this survey was to assess current policies and practice in haemostasis testing among both hospital and outpatient laboratories in Republic of Croatia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A questionnaire with seventy questions divided into nine sections was created in May 2015. Participants were asked about their practice related to test request form, sample collection, prothrombin time (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin time assays, other individual haemostasis assays, point-of-care testing (POCT), reporting of coagulation tests results and quality assurance of procedures, the personnel and other laboratory resources, as well as on issues related to education and implementation of additional coagulation assays in their laboratory. The survey was administered and data were collected between June and September 2015.

RESULTS

A total survey response rate was 104/170 (61.2%). Most respondents were faced with incomplete information on prescribed therapy and diagnosis on the test request or inappropriate samples withdrawn on distant locations, but also do not have protocols for handling samples with high haematocrit values. Reporting of PT-INR and D-dimer results was different between laboratories. Although almost all laboratories developed a critical value reporting system, reporting a value to general practitioners is still a problem. Result on coagulation POCT testing showed that not all devices were supervised by laboratories, which is not in compliance with Croatian Chamber of Medical Biochemistry acts.

CONCLUSION

Obtained results highlighted areas that need improvement and different practice patterns in particular field of haemostasis testing among laboratories. A harmonization of the overall process of haemostasis testing at national level should be considered and undertaken.