Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33026608›Full record

ArticleDrugs in R&D2020

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

Heajin Jun, Yan Rong, Catharina Yih, Jordan Ho, Wendy Cheng, Tony K L Kiang

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Drugs in R&D, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Mechanisms of altered hepatic drug disposition during pregnancy: small molecules.Expert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Heajin JunCollege of Pharmacy, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Yan RongFaculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Alberta, Katz Group Centre for Pharmacy and Health Research, Room 3-142D, 11361-87 Avenue, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2E1, Canada.
Catharina YihDepartment of Pharmacy, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Jordan HoDepartment of Pharmacy, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Wendy ChengDepartment of Pharmacy, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Tony K L KiangFaculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Alberta, Katz Group Centre for Pharmacy and Health Research, Room 3-142D, 11361-87 Avenue, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2E1, Canada. tkiang@ualberta.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4548-9746
Vancouver General Hospital · CAUniversity of Alberta · CASeoul National University · KR

Funding

Mitacs Globalink #FR41232National Research Foundation of Korea #2019K1A3A1A73079569
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivePhenytoin 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.

methodsNon-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.

resultsA 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.

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnticonvulsantsDrug MonitoringFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, BiologicalNonlinear DynamicsPhenytoinProtein BindingRetrospective StudiesSerum AlbuminYoung AdultAnticonvulsantsPhenytoinSerum Albumin

Identifiers

PMID33026608
PMCPMC7691416
OpenAlexW3092259600

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.