Phenytoin and Enteral Feedings: Does Evidence Support an Interaction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the reported interaction between oral dosage forms of phenytoin and enteral feeding formulations with respect to the evidence supporting or refuting its existence, proposed mechanism(s) underlying the interaction, and recommended interventions. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a MEDLINE search (1966-April 2000) for English-language articles on phenytoin-enteral feeding interactions; the search terms used were phenytoin, enteral feeding, and/or interaction, and/or in vitro. This search was supplemented by a bibliographic review of all relevant articles. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective, randomized, controlled studies; prospective, nonrandomized, controlled studies; prospective, nonrandomized, uncontrolled studies; retrospective studies; clinical experience reports; case reports; in vitro studies; and letters were evaluated for relevant information. DATA EXTRACTION: Data elements abstracted from these articles were study design, type (patients or healthy volunteers) and number of subjects involved, method of administration of phenytoin and enteral feeding, formulation of phenytoin, type of feeding (and whether it was continuous or interrupted), major findings, and proposed mechanisms of the interaction. DATA SYNTHESIS: Although four prospective, randomized, controlled trials in healthy human volunteers refute the existence of the interaction, there are numerous reports and studies showing dramatic decreases of serum phenytoin concentrations in patients when it is coadministered with enteral feeding formulations. Therefore, evidence supports the existence of this interaction in patients and in vitro studies, but not in healthy volunteers. Unfortunately, the exact mechanisms underlying this interaction remain unknown. Many methods have been devised to prevent and treat the interaction once it has occurred; however, a single, generally accepted, and practical intervention strategy is still lacking. CONCLUSIONS: The exact role of enteral feeding in this interaction is unclear due to the lack of prospective, randomized, controlled trials performed in patients. However, decreased serum phenytoin concentrations associated with enteral feeding may increase the risk of seizures. Clinicians should be aware of this potential drug-nutrient interaction and design a patient-specific care plan that includes consideration of the enteral feeding formulation and method of administration, as well as the phenytoin dosage form, schedule of administration, and monitoring.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".