Platelet reactivity testing in peripheral artery disease.

PURPOSE: Oral antiplatelet therapy is routinely used to prevent adverse cardiovascular events in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Several laboratory tests are available to quantify the degree of platelet inhibition following antiplatelet therapy. This article aims to provide a review of the literature surrounding platelet functional testing in patients with PAD receiving oral P2Y12 inhibitors and to offer guidance to clinicians for the use and interpretation of these tests. SUMMARY: A literature search of PubMed and the Web of Science Core Collection database was conducted. All studies that performed platelet function testing and reported clinical outcomes in patients with PAD were included. Evaluation of the data suggests that, among the available testing strategies, the VerifyNow platelet reactivity unit (PRU) test is the most widely used. Despite numerous investigations attempting to define a laboratory threshold indicating suboptimal response to antiplatelet therapy, controversy exists about which PRU value best correlates with cardiovascular outcomes (ie, mortality, stent thrombosis, etc). In the PAD literature, the most commonly used PRU thresholds are 208 or higher and 235 or higher. Nonetheless, adjusting antiplatelet regimens based on suboptimal P2Y12 reactivity values has yet to be proven useful in reducing the incidence of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. This review examines platelet function testing in patients with PAD and discusses the interpretation and application of these tests when monitoring the safety and efficacy of P2Y12 inhibitors. CONCLUSION: Although platelet functional tests may be simple to use, clinical trials thus far have failed to show benefit from therapy adjustments based on test results. Clinicians should be cautioned against relying on this test result alone and should instead consider a combination of laboratory, clinical, and patient-specific factors when adjusting P2Y12 inhibitor therapy in clinical practice.

Predicting Unbound Phenytoin Concentrations: Effects of Albumin Concentration and Kidney Dysfunction.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Several methods are available to predict unbound (free) phenytoin concentrations in patients with hypoalbuminemia; however, predictive methods have not been evaluated in patients with concurrent hypoalbuminemia and kidney dysfunction or in patients with mild to moderate (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] 30-90 ml/min/1.73 m2 ) kidney dysfunction alone. Thus the objective was to evaluate the accuracy and precision of predictive methods to estimate free phenytoin concentrations in patients with varying albumin concentrations and/or kidney dysfunction. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Large academic medical center. PATIENTS: A total of 344 patients with free and total phenytoin, albumin, and serum creatinine concentrations obtained between November 2012 and May 2017. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Free phenytoin concentrations were estimated in patients without kidney dysfunction using the Winter-Tozer, Anderson, Kane, and Cheng equations. For the analysis in patients with eGFR lower than 90 ml/min/1.73 m2 , free phenytoin concentrations were estimated using the Shiner-Tozer derivation with adjusted affinity coefficients (C = 0.15, 0.20, 0.25, and 0.30). For both analyses, accuracy of predictive methods was evaluated by P20, the proportion of estimations within 20% of the measured free phenytoin concentration. In 158 patients with normal kidney function/normal albumin concentrations, 73 with normal kidney function/hypoalbuminemia, or 47 with mild kidney dysfunction/normal albumin concentrations, the Anderson method had the highest accuracy (86%, 82%, and 92%, respectively) and highest precision compared with the other methods. In 47 patients with normal albumin concentrations and mild kidney dysfunction or 13 with moderate kidney dysfunction, the free fraction was unchanged, and total phenytoin concentrations accurately reflected free concentrations. In 17 patients with hypoalbuminemia and mild or 17 with moderate kidney dysfunction, the Winter-Tozer (67% and 50%, respectively) and the Anderson (56% and 67%, respectively) methods had the highest accuracy compared with other methods with significantly lower accuracy compared with patients with normal kidney function. In the 14 patients with severe kidney dysfunction and hypoalbuminemia, none of the coefficients had a P20 accuracy greater than 45%. CONCLUSION: In patients with normal albumin concentrations, with or without mild or moderate kidney dysfunction and not receiving a protein-binding displacer, the free fraction of phenytoin is unchanged, and it is not necessary to measure a free phenytoin concentration. Free phenytoin concentrations should be measured directly in patients with hypoalbuminemia and kidney dysfunction.