Objective To develop a revised equation reflecting the current practice of measuring unbound phenytoin at room temperature, and to evaluate the revised Winter–Tozer method of predicting normalized total phenytoin concentrations in two groups of patients with hypoalbuminemia — elderly nursing home patients and critically ill head trauma patients. Design Albumin, unbound phenytoin, and total phenytoin concentrations were obtained from two sources: prospectively from a group of elderly nursing home patients and by a retrospective chart review of trauma patients enrolled in a previous double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Setting Community nursing homes; a university-affiliated urban teaching hospital. Participants Elderly nursing home patients (n = 46) taking chronic phenytoin therapy and patients enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study (n = 58) evaluating the use of phenytoin to prevent posttraumatic seizures. Main Outcome Measures Prediction error analysis was performed by using the methods proposed by Sheiner and Beal. Bias and precision were evaluated by calculating the mean prediction error (MPE) and root mean squared error (RMSE), respectively. Results The Winter–Tozer equation consistently overpredicted the normalized phenytoin concentration in the elderly nursing home population (MPE = 3.2, RMSE = 5.9) and the trauma patients (MPE = 3.3, RMSE = 4.8). The equation was revised to reflect the increased protein binding of phenytoin with decreased temperature and resulted in significantly decreased bias in both groups of patients. Conclusions The revised equation is useful in predicting normalized phenytoin concentrations in both elderly nursing home patients and critically ill trauma patients.

No abstract

The bioavailability of oral GCV in transplant patients was similar to that observed in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. However, levels between 0.5 and 1 microg/ml (within the IC50 of most cytomegalovirus isolates) could be achieved with tolerable oral doses. The proposed dosing algorithm resulted in adequate levels for patients with CrCl greater than 50 ml/min and for patients on dialysis. For patients with CrCl between 10 and 50 ml/min, the levels achieved were low and these patients would likely benefit from increased doses.

The aim of this study was to determine whether oral ganciclovir interacted pharmacokinetically with zidovudine (AZT), didanosine (ddI), or probenecid. A multicenter, open-label, randomized, crossover pharmacokinetic study with four phases was undertaken at an outpatient private research center and at university research clinics. Twenty-six HIV-infected adults (23 men, 3 women) with cytomegalovirus (CMV) seropositivity and CD4+ T-lymphocyte count > or =100 cells/microl were studied. Patients had to be stable on antiretroviral therapy for at least 4 weeks. Patients with a history of opportunistic infection or gastrointestinal symptoms were excluded. Measurements included serial blood and urine samples during the dosing intervals at steady state. The steady-state pharmacokinetics of ganciclovir were determined after the participants had stabilized and were tolerating AZT or ddI therapy. When a 1000-mg dose of oral ganciclovir was taken every 8 hours, there was a significant mean increase in Cmax and dosing interval area under the serum concentration time curve over a dosing interval (AUC) for the two antiretroviral drugs: for AZT, 61.6% and 19.5%, respectively; for ddI when administered sequentially (2 hours before ganciclovir), 116.0% and 114.6%; and for ddI administered simultaneously with ganciclovir, 107.9% and 107.1%, respectively. There was no significant change in renal clearance for either antiretroviral drug, suggesting that the interaction did not occur through a renal mechanism. There was no significant change in mean ganciclovir Cmax and AUC(0-8) when coadministered with AZT. Mean increases in Cmax and AUC(0-8) of oral ganciclovir averaged 40.1% and 52.5%, respectively, when coadministered with probenecid, but decreased by 22.1% and 22.7%, respectively, when oral ganciclovir was administered 2 hours after ddI. There was no change in the mean ganciclovir Cmax or AUC(0-8) when administered simultaneously with ddI. The mean renal clearance of oral ganciclovir was not affected by AZT or ddI coadministration intake, but there was a mean decrease of 19% when coadministered with probenecid. We conclude the increased serum concentration and reduced renal clearance of ganciclovir suggests competition with probenecid for secretion at the renal tubule. The mechanism of the interaction of oral ganciclovir with either AZT or ddI remains to be determined. The magnitude of the effect of oral ganciclovir on ddI pharmacokinetics may result in an increase in ddI concentration-related toxicities. Similarly, the small but significant decrease in ganciclovir concentration with sequential combination ddl therapy may impair the efficacy of oral ganciclovir. For HIV-infected patients receiving ganciclovir and ddI, clinicians should recommend administering the two drugs simultaneously, and patients should be monitored closely for ddI-associated toxicities.