PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Robert Greenwood

Publications and source records attributed to Robert Greenwood.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Feasibility and acceptance of salivary monitoring of antiepileptic drugs via the US Postal Service.

Salivary and serum levels of phenobarbital, carbamazepine, and phenytoin are closely correlated. Salivary monitoring of antiepileptic drugs has a number of advantages including the potential for home collection if measured levels are unaffected by transit in the mail. Saliva was collected from 60 adult and 42 pediatric patients in the clinic. A control aliquot was immediately frozen, and a second aliquot was packaged and mailed to the laboratory. Patients were also asked to collect another sample at the same time on the following day and mail it to the laboratory. On receipt, all samples were held frozen and analyzed as a single batch by fluorescence polarization immunoassay. The effects of mailing, the duration in transit, and the season were assessed by multivariable, repeated-measures analysis of variance. One hundred two saliva samples were collected in a mean of 2.6 minutes, and the mailed aliquot was received in a mean of 6.4 days. Two children and 3 adults (4.9% of total) preferred blood collection, but the rest preferred saliva collection or had no preference. There was no significant difference between the control sample and the clinic mailed samples for any of the 3 medications. There were no significant effects of the duration in transit or the season on reliability. Transit of saliva samples in the mail does not adversely affect accuracy of antiepileptic drug measurement. Patients prefer and can successful collect saliva samples at home. Home monitoring of salivary antiepileptic drug levels is a cost-effective technique that deserves additional study.

Adolescent↗

Evaluation of potential losartan-phenytoin drug interactions in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Phenytoin, a cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C9 substrate, has a narrow therapeutic index and nonlinear pharmacokinetics. Therefore there is the potential for significant concentration-related adverse effects when phenytoin is coadministered with other CYP2C9 substrates. Losartan, an antihypertensive agent, is also a substrate for CYP2C9. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess the effects of losartan on the pharmacokinetics of phenytoin and the effects of phenytoin on the pharmacokinetics of losartan in a healthy population of volunteers. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, 3-period crossover study was conducted in 16 healthy volunteers with phenytoin alone, phenytoin in combination with losartan, and losartan alone. Each treatment was given for 10 days with a 3-week washout period between treatments. On day 10, plasma concentrations of phenytoin and plasma and urine concentrations of losartan and its active carboxylic-acid metabolite E3174 were measured to determine steady-state pharmacokinetic parameters. RESULTS: Coadministration of losartan had no effect on the pharmacokinetics of phenytoin. Coadministration of phenytoin increased the mean area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 24 hours [AUC(0-24)] of losartan by 17% (355 +/- 220 ng x h/mL versus 427 +/- 177 ng x h/mL; P =.1), but this difference was not statistically significant. In the 14 CYP2C9*1/*1 subjects, the mean AUC(0-24) of losartan was increased by 29% (284 +/- 84 ng x h/mL versus 402 +/- 128 ng x h/mL; P =.008). Coadministration of phenytoin significantly reduced the AUC(0-24) of E3174 by 63% (1254 +/- 256 ng x h/mL versus 466 +/- 174 ng x h/mL; P =.0001) and the formation clearance of losartan to E3174 (1.91 +/- 0.8 mL/h per kilogram versus 0.62 +/- 0.4 mL/h per kilogram; P =.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Losartan, a CYP2C9 substrate, had no effect on the pharmacokinetics of phenytoin. However, phenytoin inhibited the CYP2C9-mediated conversion of losartan to E3174.

Adult↗