Medication guide for dose adjustment and management of cardiotoxicity and lipid metabolic adverse events of oral antineoplastic therapy.

Objective: The management of cardiotoxicity concerning the use of oral antineoplastic agents (OAAs) is a challenge for healthcare professionals. Our objective was to create a comprehensive medication management guide with dose adjustment recommendations on OAAs concerning cardiotoxic and lipid metabolic adverse events (AEs) to assist healthcare professionals when prescribing OAAs. Materials and methods: A review of the available information on all dose adjustments necessary to safely prescribe and dispense OAAs concerning cardiotoxicity was conducted. In January 2023, we identified all OAAs authorized by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). For each drug, the latest summary of product characteristics (SPC) approved by the EMA and the tertiary data source Lexicomp® were reviewed. Cardiotoxic AEs were recorded, namely, QT interval prolongation, decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), imbalances in blood pressure (hypertension and hypotension), alterations in heart rate (tachycardia and bradycardia), and thrombosis. Any available dose adjustment recommendations in case of an occurrence of these adverse events were collected. Results: In all, 93 different OAAs had been approved by the EMA and were reviewed. Among them, 51.6% have recognized cardiotoxic AEs and 10.8% can cause alterations in lipid metabolism. A total of 27 (29.0%) OAAs had specific recommendations regarding QT prolongation; 88.9% were listed in the SPC and 59.3% in Lexicomp®. Eight OAAs (9.68%) have reported a decrease in LVEF, and four of these drugs, namely, encorafenib, lorlatinib, ripretinib, and sunitinib, have specific management recommendations. Almost half (49.5%) of currently approved OAAs can potentially alter blood pressure; 34 (36.6%) of them have been reported to cause hypertension and 12 (12.9%) are related to hypotension. Tachycardia and/or bradycardia are associated with 22.6% and 8.6% of the evaluated drugs, respectively. Regarding thrombosis, 30 (32.3%) of the drugs analyzed included the appearance of a thrombus as a possible AE. Conclusions: More than half of the OAAs can produce cardiotoxic effects, with the most frequent being blood pressure alteration and QT interval prolongation with a non-depreciable incidence of LV dysfunction or thrombosis. Before starting the treatment, it is necessary to stratify baseline cardiovascular risk, plan a surveillance schedule, and consider referral to cardio-oncology units.

Antimicrobial Defined Daily Dose in Neonatal Population: Validation in the Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is no validated method for estimating antimicrobial consumption in the neonatal population, as it exists for adults using Defined Daily Doses (DDD). In neonatology, although there are different methods, each one with advantages and disadvantages, there is no unified criterion for use. The aim of this study is to validate the neonatal DDD designed as a new standardised form of antimicrobial consumption over this population. METHODS: The validation of the neonatal DDD, Phase II of the research project, was carried out through a descriptive observational study. Periodic cut-offs were performed to collect antimicrobial prescriptions of neonates admitted to the neonatology and intensive care units of nine Spanish hospitals. The data collected included demographic variables (gestational age, postnatal age, weight and sex), antimicrobial dose, frequency and route of administration. The selection of the optimal DDD value takes into account power value, magnitude obtained from the differences in the DDD, statistical significance obtained by the Wilcoxon test and degree of agreement in the stipulated doses. RESULTS: Set of 904 prescriptions were collected and finally 860 were analysed based on the established criteria. The antimicrobials were mostly prescribed in the intensive care unit (63.1%). 32 different antimicrobials were collected, and intravenous administration was the most commonly used route. Neonatal DDD were defined for 11 different antimicrobials. A potency > 80% was obtained in 7 antibiotics. The 57.1% of the selected DDD correspond to phase I and 21.4% from phase II. CONCLUSION: DDD validation has been achieved for the majority of intravenously administered antimicrobials used in clinical practice in the neonatal population. This will make it possible to have an indicator that will be used globally to estimate the consumption of antimicrobials in this population, thus confirming its usefulness and applicability.

Complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients: characteristics of use and interactions with antineoplastic agents.

PURPOSE: Our objectives were to analyze the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in cancer patients and to describe the incidence and characteristics of interactions between CAM and antineoplastic agents. METHODS: We performed an observational study in cancer outpatients at a university hospital. Variables were collected through a 22-item questionnaire. Potential interactions between CAM and antineoplastic agents were analyzed using the Lexicomp®, the About Herbs®, and the summary of product characteristics. Mechanism of action, reliability, and the potential clinical effect of interactions were analyzed. RESULTS: The study population comprised 937 patients, of whom 65% used CAM (70.6% herbal products, 25.8% dietary supplements, and 3.6% homeopathy). Female sex, younger age, and breast cancer were associated with more frequent use of CAM. The primary source of information about CAM was friends and family (43.5%). A total of 335 (57.1%) patients did not tell their doctor that they took CAM. The five most common CAM were chamomile, green tea, pennyroyal mint, linden, and rooibos. At least one interaction between CAM and antineoplastic agents was reported by 65.0% of CAM users (33.9% of all patients). Depending on the mechanism of action, 80% of CAM diminished the metabolism of the antineoplastic agents. CONCLUSION: Our results reveal a high incidence of interactions between CAM and antineoplastic agents. The most frequent CAM were herbal products. Family and friends were the primary sources of information that led patients to start taking CAM, and more than half of the patients did not tell their doctor that they were taking CAM.

Possible heart failure caused by osimertinib in a lung cancer patient.

INTRODUCTION: Osimertinib is a third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) indicated for the treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). It has demonstrated better results concerning effectiveness than other TKIs for the same indication. However, despite a good safety profile, it could produce some cardiotoxicity that does not occur with other drugs of the same group. CASE REPORT: We report the evolution and management of a female patient diagnosed with NSCLC who developed a grade 3 cardiotoxicity due to treatment with osimertinib. This patient suffered from a left bundle branch block, dyslipidemia, and hypertension as cardiovascular risk factors. After a long period of treatment with osimertinib, she developed a severe heart failure (HF) with an important decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which triggered an admission to the oncology unit for eight days. MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOMES: Treatment with osimertinib was first suspended and then resumed after stabilization of the HF. She also developed atrial fibrillation during admission and has required narrow cardiac monitoring and management since the debut of the HF. After evaluating the benefit-risk balance, osimertinib was reintroduced and the patient continues in treatment at the moment, although the baseline LVEF is not recovered. DISCUSSION: There is scarce evidence in the literature concerning HF and important LVEF decrease due to osimertinib. However, its severity and repercussion for the patient justify the thorough screening of cardiovascular risk factors before starting the therapy.

Implementation and evaluation of a home pharmaceutical care model through Telepharmacy.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the impact of a Specialized Pharmaceutical Care model  that includes pharmacotherapeutic monitoring of patients through an  Telepharmacy platform and home medication dispensing. METHOD: A descriptive and retrospective study conducted in the Pharmacy Service of a tertiary hospital, between 23 March 2020 and 31  December 2021. A new pharmaceutical care model for chronic ambulatory  patients was developed, including: (i) definition of criteria for selecting  Telepharmacy candidate patients; (ii) stratification of patients by risk level; (iii)  definition of individualized pharmacotherapeutic monitoring; (iv)  adaptation of the Pharmacy Service app platform to ensure continuous pharmacotherapeutic monitoring and patient monitoring (e- Oncohealth, e-Midcare and farMcuida), (v) implementation of an appointment  system; and (vi) development of a software module for the management of  home medication delivery. The impact of this pharmaceutical care model was assessed by analyzing indicators of activity, safety, adherence and  perceived quality. Moreover, an additional study on the impact of COVID­19 was developed in order to assess the accessibility of medical care  and continuity of treatment through a survey conducted on a random sample of 100 patients. RESULTS: During the study period, 2,737 patients benefited from the new  remote pharmaceutical care model. A total of 7,758 Telepharmacy consultations were performed. Pharmacotherapeutic monitoring  prevented 1,043 adverse drug reactions, which affected 10.4% of patients  (3.6 adverse drug reactions/patient). Mean adherence to treatment  was 95.2%. Overall satisfaction with the new model was 9.8/10. All patients would recommend this model to other patients. CONCLUSIONS: The new Pharmaceutical care model increases patient safety and  improves treatment adherence, with a high perceived quality. Patient  stratification and individualized follow-up via an Telepharmacy platform were  crucial to the development of this model.

OBJETIVO: Describir el impacto de un modelo de atención farmacéutica especializada que incluye el seguimiento farmacoterapéutico de  los pacientes mediante una plataforma de Telefarmacia y la dispensación de  la medicación en el domicilio.Método: Estudio descriptivo, retrospectivo, llevado a cabo en un servicio de  farmacia de un hospital terciario entre el 23 marzo de 2020 y el 31 de  diciembre de 2021. Se desarrolló un nuevo modelo de atención farmacéutica para la atención de los pacientes crónicos ambulatorios, que incluye: i) definición de los criterios de selección de los pacientes  candidatos a Telefarmacia, ii) estratificación de los pacientes según el nivel de riesgo, iii) definición del seguimiento farmacoterapéutico individualizado, iv)  adaptación de la plataforma de apps del servicio de  farmacia para garantizar el seguimiento farmacoterapéutico continuo y la  monitorización de los pacientes (e-Oncosalud, e-Midcare y farMcuida), v)  implantación de un sistema de citación, y vi) el desarrollo de un módulo  informático para la gestión de la dispensación y entrega de la medicación en el  domicilio. El impacto de este modelo de atención se evaluó mediante el análisis  de indicadores de actividad, seguridad, adherencia y calidad percibida.  Asimismo, se incluyó un estudio adicional sobre el impacto de la  COVID­19 en  la accesibilidad de la atención médica y la continuidad de los  tratamientos, mediante una encuesta a una muestra aleatoria de 100  pacientes. RESULTADOS: Durante el periodo de estudio, 2.737 pacientes se han beneficiado del nuevo modelo de atención farmacéutica a distancia. El número de consultas de Telefarmacia realizadas fue 7.758. El seguimiento  farmacoterapéutico evitó 1.043 eventos adversos asociados a la  medicación, que afectaron al 10,4% de los pacientes atendidos (3,6 eventos  adversos asociados a la medicación/paciente). La adherencia media al  tratamiento de los pacientes fue del 95,2%. La satisfacción global con el nuevo  modelo de atención farmacéutica fue de 9,8/10. El 100% de los  pacientes lo recomendaría a otros pacientes. CONCLUSIONES: Este nuevo modelo de atención farmacéutica aumenta la  seguridad del paciente y mejora su adherencia al tratamiento, con unos índices  de calidad percibida elevados. La estratificación de pacientes y el  seguimiento personalizado mediante la plataforma Telefarmacia resultaron clave en su desarrollo.

A smartphone app to improve the safety of patients undergoing treatment with oral antineoplastic agents: 4 years of experience in a university hospital.

Objective: This study aims to analyze the impact of the eOncosalud app on the management and follow-up of adverse effects (AE) in patients receiving oral antineoplastic agents. Material and methods: We performed an observational, prospective study of cancer outpatients treated with oral antineoplastic agents (OAA), monitored by the eOncosalud app between August 2017 and October 2021. Safety variables were collected from eOncosalud: the number of AE; severity of the AE according to CTCAE, version 4.03; timelapse from app installation to first recorded AE; automatic recommendations issued; and the patient's acceptance of the recommendations made. To assess the impact of the recommendations generated by the algorithm, we calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) as the number of recommendations accepted out of the total number of recommendations generated. Safety-related patient messages were also analyzed (AE, drug-drug interactions, drug administration). Result: The app was downloaded and used by 186 patients (58.0% women), with a mean age of 59.0 years. A total of 1,368 AE were recorded, the most frequent being fatigue (19.37%), diarrhea (18.20%), and skin changes (9.21%). Regarding the recommendations issued by the app algorithm, 102 patients received 344 information brochures, 39 patients received 51 recommendations for supportive care to control AE, 60 patients received 240 recommendations to visit their primary care doctor, 14 patients received 16 recommendations to contact their specialist pharmacist or oncologist-hematologist, and 34 patients received 73 recommendations to go to the emergency room. The suggestion to go to the emergency room and contact the specialist pharmacist or oncologist-hematologist had a PPV of 0.51 and 0.35, respectively. Half of the patients (50.4%) used the messaging module. A total of 1,668 messages were sent. Of these, 47.8% were related to treatment safety: AE, 22.7%; drug-drug interactions, 20.6%; drug administration, 3.6%; and missing a dose, 1.0%. Conclusions: The eOncosalud app enables close, real-time monitoring of patients treated with OAA. The automatic recommendations through the app's algorithm have optimized available healthcare resources. The app facilitated early detection of AE, thus enabling patients themselves to improve the safety of their treatment.

Implantación y evaluación de un modelo de atención farmacéutica domiciliaria mediante Telefarmacia / Implementation and evaluation of a home pharmaceutical care model through Telepharmacy

Objetivo: Describir el impacto de un modelo de atención farmacéutica especializada que incluye el seguimiento farmacoterapéutico de lospacientes mediante una plataforma de Telefarmacia y la dispensación dela medicación en el domicilio.Método: Estudio descriptivo, retrospectivo, llevado a cabo en un serviciode farmacia de un hospital terciario entre el 23 marzo de 2020 y el 31de diciembre de 2021. Se desarrolló un nuevo modelo de atención farmacéutica para la atención de los pacientes crónicos ambulatorios, queincluye: i) definición de los criterios de selección de los pacientes candidatos a Telefarmacia, ii) estratificación de los pacientes según el nivel deriesgo, iii) definición del seguimiento farmacoterapéutico individualizado,iv) adaptación de la plataforma de apps del servicio de farmacia paragarantizar el seguimiento farmacoterapéutico continuo y la monitorizaciónde los pacientes (e-Oncosalud, e-Midcare y farMcuida), v) implantación deun sistema de citación, y vi) el desarrollo de un módulo informático para lagestión de la dispensación y entrega de la medicación en el domicilio. Elimpacto de este modelo de atención se evaluó mediante el análisis deindicadores de actividad, seguridad, adherencia y calidad percibida. Asimismo, se incluyó un estudio adicional sobre el impacto de la COVID-19 en la accesibilidad de la atención médica y la continuidad de los tratamientos,mediante una encuesta a una muestra aleatoria de 100 pacientes.Resultados: Durante el periodo de estudio, 2.737 pacientes se hanbeneficiado del nuevo modelo de atención farmacéutica a distancia. Elnúmero de consultas de Telefarmacia realizadas fue 7.758. (AU)

Objective: To describe the impact of a Specialized PharmaceuticalCare model that includes pharmacotherapeutic monitoring of patientsthrough an Telepharmacy platform and home medication dispensing.Method: A descriptive and retrospective study conducted in the Pharmacy Service of a tertiary hospital, between 23 March 2020 and31 December 2021. A new pharmaceutical care model for chronicambulatory patients was developed, including: (i) definition of criteria forselecting Telepharmacy candidate patients; (ii) stratification of patients byrisk level; (iii) definition of individualized pharmacotherapeutic monitoring;(iv) adaptation of the Pharmacy Service app platform to ensure continuouspharmacotherapeutic monitoring and patient monitoring (e-Oncohealth,e-Midcare and farMcuida), (v) implementation of an appointment system;and (vi) development of a software module for the management of homemedication delivery. The impact of this pharmaceutical care model wasassessed by analyzing indicators of activity, safety, adherence and perceived quality. Moreover, an additional study on the impact of COVID-19was developed in order to assess the accessibility of medical care andcontinuity of treatment through a survey conducted on a random sampleof 100 patients. Results: During the study period, 2,737 patients benefited from thenew remote pharmaceutical care model. A total of 7,758 Telepharmacyconsultations were performed. Pharmacotherapeutic monitoring prevented 1,043 adverse drug reactions, which affected 10.4% of patients(3.6 adverse drug reactions/patient). Mean adherence to treatment was95.2%. Overall satisfaction with the new model was 9.8/10. (AU)

Patient-reported outcomes and mobile applications. A review of their impact on patients' health outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence of the mobile apps in collection patient- reported outcomes and their impact on health outcomes. Method: A review was conducted of the literature on apps aimed at collecting  patient-reported outcomes. Selected articles were required to consider the  apps' impact on patients' health outcomes. The search was carried out during  April 2021 in Pubmed and Embase using the search terms "app", "mobile  applications" , "patient-reported outcomes", "outcome assessment, health  care", and "quality of life", To be included articles had to be written in English  or Spanish and they were required to dwell on apps used by patients, family  members and/or caregivers that measured at least one health outcome. No  time restrictions were applied. RESULTS: Of the 26 articles reviewed, 19 (73.1%) were clinical trials, 4  (15.4%) were quasi-experimental studies, and 3 (11.5%) were observational studies. A pharmacy department was involved in 4 studies  (15.4%), and 3 (11.5%), were carried out in Spain. The sample size ranged  from 14 to 411. Depending on the study population, the most frequent studies included cancer patients (42.3%) and patients with cardiovascular  diseases (26.9%). Most of the studies focused on measuring the impact of the app on the patients' quality of life (50.0%), control of clinical parameters  (46.2%), adherence (38.5%), and management of symptoms and/or reduction  of complications (26.9%). Overall efficacy in terms of the  percentage of studies where apps were found to result in a significant  improvement was 73.1%. The most heavily impacted patient-reported  outcomes were adherence, health-related quality of life and satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: There is emerging evidence that apps have a positive impact on  patients' health outcomes. These tools have shown to lead to an improvement  in the management of different conditions, with results showing a reduction in  complications rates and in the consumption of resources as well as better  adherence to medication and enhanced patient quality of life.

OBJETIVO: Realizar una revisión sobre la evidencia de las aplicaciones móviles  en el registro de los patient-reported outcomes y su impacto en los resultados  en salud.Método: Revisión de la literatura sobre los estudios de aplicaciones orientadas  al registro de patient-reported outcomes y que analizaran su impacto en los  resultados en salud de los pacientes. La búsqueda se realizó en abril de 2021  en Pubmed y Embase con los términos "App", "Mobile Applications"; "Patient  Reported Outcomes"; "Outcome Assessment, Health Care"; "Quality of Life". Se  incluyeron artículos publicados en inglés o español sin límite de tiempo y  que incluyeran aplicaciones cuyos participantes fueran pacientes, familiares y/o  cuidadores y que midieran algún tipo de resultado en salud. RESULTADOS: De los 26 artículos revisados, 19 (73,1%) fueron ensayos clínicos, 4 (15,4%) estudios cuasiexperimentales y 3 (11,5%) estudios  observacionales. En 4 estudios (15,4%) estaba implicado un servicio  de farmacia y en 3 (11,5%) el estudio fue realizado en España. El tamaño  muestral varió de 14 a 411. En función de la población de estudio, los más  frecuentes incluyeron pacientes oncológicos (11 [42,3%] estudios) y pacientes  con patologías cardiovasculares (7 [26,9%] estudios). La mayoría de los  estudios se centraron en la medición del impacto de las aplicaciones en  términos de calidad de vida (50,0%), control de parámetros clínicos (46,2%),  adherencia (38,5%) y manejo de los síntomas y/o reducción de complicaciones (26,9%). La eficacia global en términos del porcentaje en los que se observó una mejoría significativa con el uso de las aplicaciones fue del 73,1%. Los patient-reported outcomes en los que se observó un mayor impacto fueron la adherencia, la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud y la satisfacción. CONCLUSIONES: Existe evidencia emergente de que las aplicaciones tienen un  impacto positivo en los resultados en salud de los pacientes. Estas herramientas están demostrando una mejora en el manejo de diferentes patologías, con resultados que muestran una reducción de  complicaciones y consumo de recursos y mejoras en la adherencia y calidad de  vida de los pacientes.

Implementation of a methodology to assess patient reported outcomes in lung cancer patients: The PeOpLe (Patient-reported Outcomes in Lung cancer ) study protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to describe the PeOpLe study protocol, developed to assess patient-reported health outcomes in  advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer in routine clinical practice using the methodology provided by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement tool. METHOD: The study envisaged will be multicenter, longitudinal, ambispective and observational. Two groups will be compared: a control group (followed up according to standard clinical practice) and an experimental group (followed up using the International Consortium for Health  Outcomes Measurement methodology adapted to the Spanish setting for 6  months). The variables collected will be related to demography (age, sex,  degree of family support), clinical factors (smoking, comorbidities, lung  capacity), the neoplasm (histology, staging, mutations), pharmacotherapy  (treatment schedule, modifications, and complications), health status  (functional status, quality of life, satisfaction and overall survival) and resource consumption (emergency visits, hospital admissions and time spent by health providers). The PeOpLe study protocol has been approved by the Ethics Committee for Research into Medicinal Products of the Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital and will be conducted in compliance with prevailing ethical principles and standards. CONCLUSIONS: The PeOpLe study will explore how patient-reported outcomes collection can be developed and integrated with the clinical processes used in  the management of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsmall cell  lung cancer what patient-reported outcomes can be measured with systems  that can conveniently be used both by patients and by healthcare providers.  Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcomes will help determine their  impact in terms of effectiveness (survival), safety (complications of systemic  therapy), and quality of life and patient satisfaction. The multidisciplinary and  multicenter nature of the study will facilitate a comprehensive view of the  subject analyzed and allow external reproducibility.

OBJETIVO: El objetivo es describir el protocolo del estudio PeOpLe, cuyo fin es  evaluar los resultados en salud centrados en el paciente con cáncer de pulmón  no microcítico avanzado o metastásico en la práctica clínica habitual mediante  una metodología adaptada de la herramienta del International Consortium for  Health Outcomes Measurement.Método: Estudio observacional, ambispectivo, longitudinal y multicéntrico. Se  compararán dos grupos: grupo control (seguimiento según práctica clínica  habitual) frente a un grupo intervención (seguimiento mediante la metodología  del International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement adaptada al entorno español) durante un período de 6 meses.  Las variables recogidas incluirán aspectos demográficos (edad, sexo, apoyo familiar), clínicos (hábito tabáquico, comorbilidades, capacidad   pulmonar), del tumor (histología, estadiaje, mutaciones), farmacoterapéutico (esquema de tratamiento, modificaciones y  complicaciones), grado de salud (estado funcional, calidad de vida, satisfacción y supervivencia global) y consumo de recursos (visitas a urgencias, ingresos  hospitalarios y tiempo dedicado por los profesionales sanitarios). El protocolo  del estudio PeOpLe ha sido aprobado por el Comité de Ética de la Investigación con medicamentos y se realizará respetando los principios y las normas éticas  básicas. CONCLUSIONES: El estudio PeOpLe explorará cómo se pueden desarrollar e  integrar los procesos de medición de resultados en salud centrados en los  pacientes, especialmente los patient-reported outcomes, en pacientes con  cáncer de pulmón no microcítico localmente avanzado o metastásico en la  práctica clínica. La evaluación sistemática de estos patient-reported outcomes  permitirá conocer su impacto en términos de efectividad (supervivencia),  seguridad (complicaciones de la terapia sistémica) y calidad de vida y  satisfacción. El carácter multidisciplinar y multicéntrico facilitará una visión  integral y su reproducibilidad externa.

Smartphone-Based Ecological Momentary Assessment for the Measurement of the Performance Status and Health-Related Quality of Life in Cancer Patients Under Systemic Anticancer Therapies: Development and Acceptability of a Mobile App.

Background: We have defined a project to develop a mobile app that continually records smartphone parameters which may help define the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) and the health-related quality of life (HRQoL), without interaction with patients or professionals. This project is divided into 3 phases. Here we describe phase 1. The objective of this phase was to develop the app and assess its usability concerning patient characteristics, acceptability, and satisfaction. Methods: The app eB2-ECOG was developed and installed in the smartphone of cancer patients who will be followed for six months. Criteria inclusion were: age over 18-year-old; diagnosed with unresectable or metastatic lung cancer, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, sarcoma, or head and neck cancer; under systemic anticancer therapies; and possession of a Smartphone. The app will collect passive and active data from the patients while healthcare professionals will evaluate the ECOG-PS and HRQoL through conventional tools. Acceptability was assessed during the follow-up. Patients answered a satisfaction survey in the app between 3-6 months from their inclusion. Results: The app developed provides a system for continuously collecting, merging, and processing data related to patient's health and physical activity. It provides a transparent capture service based on all the available data of a patient. Currently, 106 patients have been recruited. A total of 36 patients were excluded, most of them (21/36) due to technological reasons. We assessed 69 patients (53 lung cancer, 8 gastrointestinal stromal tumors, 5 sarcomas, and 3 head and neck cancer). Concerning app satisfaction, 70.4% (20/27) of patients found the app intuitive and easy to use, and 51.9% (17/27) of them said that the app helped them to improve and handle their problems better. Overall, 17 out of 27 patients [62.9%] were satisfied with the app, and 14 of them [51.8%] would recommend the app to other patients. Conclusions: We observed that the app's acceptability and satisfaction were good, which is essential for the continuity of the project. In the subsequent phases, we will develop predictive models based on the collected information during this phase. We will validate the method and analyze the sensitivity of the automated results.

Implantación de una metodología para evaluarpatient-reported outcomes en pacientes con cáncer de pulmón: Protocolo del estudio PeOpLe(Patient-reported Outcomes in Lung cancer) / Implementation of a methodology to assess patient reported outcomes in lung cancer patients: The PeOpLe (Patient-reported Outcomes in Lung cancer) study protocol

Objetivo: El objetivo es describir el protocolo del estudio PeOpLe, cuyofin es evaluar los resultados en salud centrados en el paciente con cáncerde pulmón no microcítico avanzado o metastásico en la práctica clínicahabitual mediante una metodología adaptada de la herramienta del International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement.Método: Estudio observacional, ambispectivo, longitudinal y multicéntrico. Se compararán dos grupos: grupo control (seguimiento según práctica clínica habitual) frente a un grupo intervención (seguimiento mediantela metodología del International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement adaptada al entorno español) durante un período de 6 meses. Lasvariables recogidas incluirán aspectos demográficos (edad, sexo, apoyofamiliar), clínicos (hábito tabáquico, comorbilidades, capacidad pulmonar), del tumor (histología, estadiaje, mutaciones), farmacoterapéutico(esquema de tratamiento, modificaciones y complicaciones), grado desalud (estado funcional, calidad de vida, satisfacción y supervivencia global) y consumo de recursos (visitas a urgencias, ingresos hospitalariosy tiempo dedicado por los profesionales sanitarios). El protocolo del estudio PeOpLe ha sido aprobado por el Comité de Ética de la Investigacióncon medicamentos y se realizará respetando los principios y las normaséticas básicas. (AU)

Objective: The purpose of this article is to describe the PeOpLe studyprotocol, developed to assess patient-reported health outcomes in advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer in routine clinical practiceusing the methodology provided by the International Consortium forHealth Outcomes Measurement tool.Method: The study envisaged will be multicenter, longitudinal, ambispective and observational. Two groups will be compared: a control group(followed up according to standard clinical practice) and an experimentalgroup (followed up using the International Consortium for Health OutcomesMeasurement methodology adapted to the Spanish setting for 6 months).The variables collected will be related to demography (age, sex, degreeof family support), clinical factors (smoking, comorbidities, lung capacity),the neoplasm (histology, staging, mutations), pharmacotherapy (treatmentschedule, modifications, and complications), health status (functionalstatus, quality of life, satisfaction and overall survival) and resource consumption (emergency visits, hospital admissions and time spent by healthproviders). The PeOpLe study protocol has been approved by the EthicsCommittee for Research into Medicinal Products of the Gregorio MarañónGeneral University Hospital and will be conducted in compliance withprevailing ethical principles and standards. (AU)

Patient-reported outcomes y aplicaciones móviles. Revisión de su impacto en los resultados en saludde los pacientes / Patient-reported outcomes and mobile applications. A review of their impact on patients’ health outcomes

Objetivo: Realizar una revisión sobre la evidencia de las aplicacionesmóviles en el registro de los patient-reported outcomes y su impacto enlos resultados en salud.Método: Revisión de la literatura sobre los estudios de aplicacionesorientadas al registro de patient-reported outcomes y que analizaransu impacto en los resultados en salud de los pacientes. La búsquedase realizó en abril de 2021 en Pubmed y Embase con los términos“App”, “Mobile Applications”; “Patient Reported Outcomes”; “OutcomeAssessment, Health Care”; “Quality of Life”. Se incluyeron artículos publicadosen inglés o español sin límite de tiempo y que incluyeran aplicacionescuyos participantes fueran pacientes, familiares y/o cuidadores y quemidieran algún tipo de resultado en salud.Resultados: De los 26 artículos revisados, 19 (73,1%) fueron ensayosclínicos, 4 (15,4%) estudios cuasiexperimentales y 3 (11,5%) estudios observacionales.En 4 estudios (15,4%) estaba implicado un servicio de farmaciay en 3 (11,5%) el estudio fue realizado en España. El tamaño muestral varióde 14 a 411. En función de la población de estudio, los más frecuentesincluyeron pacientes oncológicos (11 [42,3%] estudios) y pacientes conpatologías cardiovasculares (7 [26,9%] estudios). La mayoría de los estudiosse centraron en la medición del impacto de las aplicaciones en términos Adhedecalidad de vida (50,0%), control de parámetros clínicos (46,2%), adherencia(38,5%) y manejo de los síntomas y/o reducción de complicaciones(26,9%). La eficacia global en términos del porcentaje en los que se observóuna mejoría significativa con el uso de las aplicaciones fue del 73,1%. Lospatient-reported outcomes en los que se observó un mayor impacto fueron laadherencia, la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud y la satisfacción.

Objective: To review the evidence of the mobile apps in collectionpatient-reported outcomes and their impact on health outcomes.Method: A review was conducted of the literature on apps aimedat collecting patient-reported outcomes. Selected articles were requiredto consider the apps’ impact on patients’ health outcomes. The searchwas carried out during April 2021 in Pubmed and Embase using thesearch terms “app”, “mobile applications” , “patient-reported outcomes”,“outcome assessment, health care”, and “quality of life”, To be includedarticles had to be written in English or Spanish and they were requiredto dwell on apps used by patients, family members and/or caregiversthat measured at least one health outcome. No time restrictions wereapplied.Results: Of the 26 articles reviewed, 19 (73.1%) were clinical trials,4 (15.4%) were quasi-experimental studies, and 3 (11.5%) were observationalstudies. A pharmacy department was involved in 4 studies (15.4%),and 3 (11.5%), were carried out in Spain. The sample size ranged from14 to 411. Depending on the study population, the most frequent studiesincluded cancer patients (42.3%) and patients with cardiovascular diseases(26.9%). Most of the studies focused on measuring the impact of theapp on the patients’ quality of life (50.0%), control of clinical parameters (46.2%), adherence (38.5%), and management of symptoms and/orreduction of complications (26.9%). Overall efficacy in terms of the percentageof studies where apps were found to result in a significant improvementwas 73.1%. The most heavily impacted patient-reported outcomeswere adherence, health-related quality of life and satisfaction.

Mobile Apps for Hematological Conditions: Review and Content Analysis Using the Mobile App Rating Scale.

BACKGROUND: Hematological conditions are prevalent disorders that are associated with significant comorbidities and have a major impact on patient care. Concerning new tools for the care of these patients, the number of health apps aimed at hematological patients is growing. Currently, there are no quality analyses or classifications of apps for patients diagnosed with hematological conditions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to analyze the characteristics and quality of apps designed for patients diagnosed with hematological conditions by using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). METHODS: We performed an observational, cross-sectional descriptive study of all smartphone apps for patients diagnosed with hematological conditions. A search was conducted in March 2021 using the following terms: anemia, blood cancer, blood disorder, hematological cancer, hematological malignancy, hematological tumor, hematology, hemophilia, hemorrhage, lymphoma, leukemia, multiple myeloma, thalassemia, thrombocytopenia, and thrombosis. The apps identified were downloaded and evaluated by 2 independent researchers. General characteristics were registered, and quality was analyzed using MARS scores. Interrater reliability was measured by using the Cohen κ coefficient. RESULTS: We identified 2100 apps in the initial search, and 4.19% (88/2100) of apps met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Of the 88 apps, 61% (54/88) were available on Android, 30% (26/88) were available on iOS, and 9% (8/88) were available on both platforms. Moreover, 7% (6/88) required payment, and 49% (43/88) were updated in the last year. Only 26% (23/88) of the apps were developed with the participation of health professionals. Most apps were informative (60/88, 68%), followed by preventive (23/88, 26%) and diagnostic (5/88, 6%). Most of the apps were intended for patients with anemia (23/88, 26%). The mean MARS score for the overall quality of the 88 apps was 3.03 (SD 1.14), ranging from 1.19 (lowest-rated app) to 4.86 (highest-rated app). Only 47% (41/88) of the apps obtained a MARS score of over 3 points (acceptable quality). Functionality was the best-rated section, followed by aesthetics, engagement, information, and app subjective quality. The five apps with the highest MARS score were the following: Multiple Myeloma Manager, Hodgkin Lymphoma Manager, Focus On Lymphoma, ALL Manager, and CLL Manager. The analysis by operating system, developer, and cost revealed statistically significant differences in MARS scores (P<.001, P<.001, and P=.049, respectively). The interrater agreement between the 2 reviewers was substantial (k=0.78). CONCLUSIONS: There is great heterogeneity in the quality of apps for patients with hematological conditions. More than half of the apps do not meet acceptable criteria for quality and content. Most of them only provide information about the pathology, lacking interactivity and personalization options. The participation of health professionals in the development of these apps is low, although it is narrowly related to better quality.

Antimicrobial defined daily dose in neonatal population.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial defined daily dose (DDD), a standardized metric to assess antimicrobial consumption in adult population, has limitations hampering its use in neonatal patients. This study proposes an alternative DDD design applicable for neonates. METHODS: Neonates (<1 month-old) from 6 Spanish hospitals during a 12-months period were included. Weight and weeks gestational age of each neonate were the variables collected. DDD (g) for each antimicrobial was calculated by multiplying the obtained weight times the recommended dose (mg/kg) of the antimicrobial for the most common infectious indication selected by the Delphi method. RESULTS: A total of 4820 neonates were included. Mean age was 36.72 weeks of gestational age and Mean weight was 2.687kg. Standardized DDD (intravenous; oral route) for representative antimicrobials were: Amoxicillin (0.08; 0.08), amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (0.27; 0.08), ampicillin (0.27; x), cloxacillin (0.13; 0.13), penicillin G sodium (0.12), cefazolin (0.13), cefuroxime (0.27; x), cefotaxime (0.27), ceftazidime (0.27), ceftriaxone (0.13), cefepime (0.27) piperacillin-tazobactam (0.54), aztreonam (0.24), azithromycin (0.03; 0.03), clindamycin (0.04; 0.04), amikacin (0.04), gentamicin (0.01), metronidazole (0.04; 0.08), ciprofloxacin (0.04; 0.05), levofloxacin (x;x), fluconazole (0.02; 0.02), itraconazole (0.01; 0.01), fosfomycin (0.27). Restricted antimicrobials: meropenem (0.11), teicoplanin (0.02), vancomycin (0.08; 0.11), linezolid (0.08; 0.08), daptomycin (x), amphotericin B liposomal (0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A useful method for antimicrobial DDD measurement in neonatology has been designed to monitor antimicrobial consumption in hospital settings. It should be validated in further studies and thereby included in the design for neonatal antimicrobial stewardship programs in the future.

Antimicrobial defined daily dose in neonatal population / Dosis diaria definida de antimicrobianos en la población neonatal

BackgroundAntimicrobial defined daily dose (DDD), a standardized metric to assess antimicrobial consumption in adult population, has limitations hampering its use in neonatal patients. This study proposes an alternative DDD design applicable for neonates.MethodsNeonates (<1 month-old) from 6 Spanish hospitals during a 12-months period were included. Weight and weeks gestational age of each neonate were the variables collected. DDD (g) for each antimicrobial was calculated by multiplying the obtained weight times the recommended dose (mg/kg) of the antimicrobial for the most common infectious indication selected by the Delphi method.ResultsA total of 4820 neonates were included. Mean age was 36.72 weeks of gestational age and Mean weight was 2.687kg. Standardized DDD (intravenous; oral route) for representative antimicrobials were: Amoxicillin (0.08; 0.08), amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (0.27; 0.08), ampicillin (0.27; x), cloxacillin (0.13; 0.13), penicillin G sodium (0.12), cefazolin (0.13), cefuroxime (0.27; x), cefotaxime (0.27), ceftazidime (0.27), ceftriaxone (0.13), cefepime (0.27) piperacillin-tazobactam (0.54), aztreonam (0.24), azithromycin (0.03; 0.03), clindamycin (0.04; 0.04), amikacin (0.04), gentamicin (0.01), metronidazole (0.04; 0.08), ciprofloxacin (0.04; 0.05), levofloxacin (x;x), fluconazole (0.02; 0.02), itraconazole (0.01; 0.01), fosfomycin (0.27). Restricted antimicrobials: meropenem (0.11), teicoplanin (0.02), vancomycin (0.08; 0.11), linezolid (0.08; 0.08), daptomycin (x), amphotericin B liposomal (0.01).

AntecedentesLa dosis diaria definida de antimicrobianos (DDD), un método estandarizado para evaluar el consumo de antimicrobianos en la población adulta, tiene limitaciones que dificultan su uso en la población neonatal. Este estudio propone un diseño alternativo de la DDD aplicable a los recién nacidos.MétodosSe incluyeron neonatos (<1 mes) de 6 hospitales españoles durante un período de 12 meses. El peso y las semanas de edad gestacional de cada recién nacido fueron las variables recogidas. Las DDD (g) de cada antimicrobiano se calcularon multiplicando el peso obtenido por la dosis recomendada (mg/kg) del antimicrobiano para la indicación infecciosa más común seleccionada por el método Delphi.ResultadosSe incluyeron un total de 4.820 recién nacidos. La edad media fue de 36,72 semanas de edad gestacional y el peso medio fue de 2,687kg. La DDD estandarizado (intravenoso; oral) para antimicrobianos seleccionados fueron: amoxicilina (0,08; 0,08), amoxicilina-ácido clavulánico (0,27; 0,08), ampicilina (0,27; x), cloxacilina (0,13; 0,13), penicilina G sódica (0,12), cefazolina (0,13), cefuroxima (0,27; x), cefotaxima (0,27), ceftazidima (0,27), ceftriaxona (0,13), cefepima (0,27) piperacilina-tazobactam (0,54), aztreonam (0,24), azitromicina (0,03; 0,03) clindamicina (0,04; 0,04), amikacina (0,04), gentamicina (0,01), metronidazol (0,04; 0,08), ciprofloxacina (0,04; 0,05), levofloxacina (x; x), fluconazol (0,02; 0,02), itraconazol (0,01; 0,01), fosfomicina (0,27). Antimicrobianos restringidos: meropenem (0,11), teicoplanina (0,02), vancomicina (0,08; 0,11), linezolid (0,08; 0,08), daptomicina (x), anfotericina B liposomal (0, 01).ConclusionesSe ha diseñado un método útil para la medición de las DDD de antimicrobianos en neonatología para controlar el consumo de antimicrobianos en entornos hospitalarios. Debería validarse en estudios posteriores para incluirse en el diseño de los programas de administración de antimicrobianos neonatales en el futuro.

Potential negative pharmacodynamic interaction of spironolactone and abiraterone in two prostate cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Spironolactone when combined with abiraterone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) may theoretically exert androgenic properties, thereby compromising the therapeutic effectiveness of abiraterone. CASE REPORT: Two patients with a medical history of cardiovascular disease and mCRPC combined spironolactone within the course of abiraterone regimen. The abiraterone-spironolactone interaction was identified using the Lexicomp® interaction tool (classified as risk C). MANAGEMENT & OUTCOME: Spironolactone treatment was maintained as it was considered beneficial due to the cardiac condition. The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels started to rise when these two drugs were used together. Eventually, tumour progression was observed. DISCUSSION: There is increasing evidence that spironolactone behaves as a selective androgen receptor modulator. Strategies to overcome abiraterone-spironolactone interaction could involve the use of eplerenone, although this drug is also controversial. The best strategy should imply a multidisciplinary evaluation by cardiologists and oncologists.

Medication guide for the perioperative management of oral antineoplastic agents in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Oral antineoplastic agents (OAAs) are high-risk drugs that may increase the risk of bleeding, difficulty in wound healing, or produce alterations in coagulation and/or platelet aggregation. These aspects had to be highly considered throughout the entire perioperative process. Our aim was to create a comprehensive management medication guide based on reconciliation and dose adjustment recommendations for OAAs in patients undergoing a surgical intervention. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed all OAAs approved by the EMA in November 2020. We assessed data related to dose adjustment, drug reconciliation, coagulation disturbances, or anticoagulant interactions from the FDA and EMA summary of product characteristics. RESULTS: We analyzed 67 OAAs. We identified that 51 (76.2%) OAAs can produce alteration in the platelet count, 12 (17.9%) affect the wound healing and recovery process, and 32 (47.8%) require control and monitoring in case of combination with anticoagulants. Only 13 (19.4%) OAAs, most of them antiangiogenics, have specific recommendations for temporary suspension before surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Most OAAs require perioperative monitoring. This review can serve as an easy (simple, effective) tool to help healthcare professionals involved in patient care to manage OAAs during the perioperative process.

Antimicrobial defined daily dose in neonatal population.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial defined daily dose (DDD), a standardized metric to assess antimicrobial consumption in adult population, has limitations hampering its use in neonatal patients. This study proposes an alternative DDD design applicable for neonates. METHODS: Neonates (<1 month-old) from 6 Spanish hospitals during a 12-months period were included. Weight and weeks gestational age of each neonate were the variables collected. DDD (g) for each antimicrobial was calculated by multiplying the obtained weight times the recommended dose (mg/kg) of the antimicrobial for the most common infectious indication selected by the Delphi method. RESULTS: A total of 4820 neonates were included. Mean age was 36.72 weeks of gestational age and Mean weight was 2.687kg. Standardized DDD (intravenous; oral route) for representative antimicrobials were: Amoxicillin (0.08; 0.08), amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (0.27; 0.08), ampicillin (0.27; x), cloxacillin (0.13; 0.13), penicillin G sodium (0.12), cefazolin (0.13), cefuroxime (0.27; x), cefotaxime (0.27), ceftazidime (0.27), ceftriaxone (0.13), cefepime (0.27) piperacillin-tazobactam (0.54), aztreonam (0.24), azithromycin (0.03; 0.03), clindamycin (0.04; 0.04), amikacin (0.04), gentamicin (0.01), metronidazole (0.04; 0.08), ciprofloxacin (0.04; 0.05), levofloxacin (x;x), fluconazole (0.02; 0.02), itraconazole (0.01; 0.01), fosfomycin (0.27). Restricted antimicrobials: meropenem (0.11), teicoplanin (0.02), vancomycin (0.08; 0.11), linezolid (0.08; 0.08), daptomycin (x), amphotericin B liposomal (0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A useful method for antimicrobial DDD measurement in neonatology has been designed to monitor antimicrobial consumption in hospital settings. It should be validated in further studies and thereby included in the design for neonatal antimicrobial stewardship programs in the future.

Clinical evaluation of pulmonary hypertension using patient-reported outcomes: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) have progressive and disabling symptoms, as well as a burden of treatments and a difficult clinical evaluation that make health-related quality of life a particularly relevant endpoint in this disease. The objective of the study was to evaluate patient-reported outcomes of patients receiving specific treatment for PH in a tertiary hospital using a specific questionnaire (Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review-CAMPHOR) in the pharmacy consultation. METHODS: A cross-sectional, observational, descriptive study was conducted. It included all patients receiving specific treatment for PH in a tertiary hospital in Madrid, Spain. The inclusion period comprised between August to December 2019. CAMPHOR questionnaires containing three domains: symptoms, activities and quality of life were completed by the patients at the pharmacy consultation. Demographic and clinical variables, including WHO Functional Class (WHO FC), PH-specific tests and hemodynamic parameters, were recorded. Non-parametric analyses to assess relations between variables and CAMPHOR domains were performed. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients consented to participate in the study and completed the questionnaire. Median scores for symptoms, activities, and quality of life domains were 5.5 (2.5-10), 8.0 (4.5-10.5) and 3.5 (1-7.5), respectively. Statistically significant differences were found in the three domains when comparing by WHO FC, in the activities domain for 6-m walking test and in the quality of life domain for patients who had emergency visits or hospitalizations in the last year. CONCLUSIONS: The CAMPHOR questionnaire could be useful as a complementary test to achieve an integrated evaluation of PH patients, who could complete it easily during their routine pharmacy visits.

COVID-19 in hospitalised patients in Spain: a cohort study in Madrid.

Few large series describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and costs of COVID-19 in Western countries. This cohort reports the first 1255 adult cases receiving anti-COVID-19 treatment at a Spanish hospital (1-24 March 2020). Treatment costs were calculated. A logistic regression model was used to explore risk factors on admission associated with ARDS. A bivariate Cox proportional hazard ratio (HR) model was employed to determine the HR between individual factors and death. We included 1255 patients (median age 65 years; 57.8% male), of which 92.3% required hospitalisation. The prevalence of hypertension, cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus (DM) was 45.1%, 31.4% and 19.9%, respectively. Lymphocytopenia (54.8%), elevated alanine aminotransferase (33.0%) and elevated lactate dehydrogenase (58.5%) were frequent. Overall, 36.7% of patients developed ARDS, 10.0% were admitted to an ICU and 21.3% died. The most frequent antiviral combinations were lopinavir/ritonavir plus hydroxychloroquine (44.2%), followed by triple therapy with interferon beta-1b (32.7%). Corticosteroids and tocilizumab were used in 25.3% and 12.9% of patients, respectively. Total cost of anti-COVID-19 agents was €511 825 (€408/patient). By multivariate analysis, risk factors associated with ARDS included older age, obesity, DM, severe hypoxaemia, lymphocytopenia, increased creatine kinase and increased C-reactive protein. In multivariate Cox model, older age (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.06-1.09), cardiovascular disease (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.01-1.79), DM (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.09-1.92), severe hypoxaemia (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.49-2.72), lymphocytopenia (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.20-2.20) and increased C-reactive protein (HR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06) were risk factors for mortality.