Cutaneous effects associated with fluconazole in patients treated for coccidioidomycosis.

BACKGROUND: Fluconazole is the most commonly used antifungal treatment for various forms of coccidioidomycosis. Although we had anecdotally observed a high proportion of patients reporting cutaneous adverse effects associated with fluconazole treatment, this observation was not well described in the medical literature, and we were unsure of the additional effect of the arid desert environment of Arizona. METHODS: We performed a one-time, voluntary survey of patients with coccidioidomycosis and compared the responses of patients treated with fluconazole with those of untreated patients. RESULTS: From January 1, 2015, to August 22, 2017, 62 fluconazole-treated and 35 untreated patients with coccidioidomycosis provided consent and were enrolled in the study; demographics were similar between the two groups. Among the 62 fluconazole-treated patients, daily dosages ranged from 200 mg to 800 mg. However, most (44/62, 71%) took 400 mg daily, the typical dose for the treatment of coccidioidomycosis. The median fluconazole treatment duration at the time of study participation was 6 months. When compared with untreated patients, those taking fluconazole had more moderate to severe dry lips (74.2% [46/62] vs. 23.5% [8/34]; P < 0.001), dry skin (45.8% [27/59] vs. 22.9% [8/35]; P = 0.03), and alopecia (31.1% [19/61] vs. 11.4% [4/35]; P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of coccidioidomycosis, patients receiving fluconazole reported significantly more severe cutaneous effects, including dry lips, dry skin, and alopecia, than untreated patients. Our findings identify an association but do not prove causality.

Mobile medical and health apps: state of the art, concerns, regulatory control and certification.

This paper examines the state of the art in mobile clinical and health-related apps. A 2012 estimate puts the number of health-related apps at no fewer than 40,000, as healthcare professionals and consumers continue to express concerns about the quality of many apps, calling for some form of app regulatory control or certification to be put in place. We describe the range of apps on offer as of 2013, and then present a brief survey of evaluation studies of medical and health-related apps that have been conducted to date, covering a range of clinical disciplines and topics. Our survey includes studies that highlighted risks, negative issues and worrying deficiencies in existing apps. We discuss the concept of 'apps as a medical device' and the relevant regulatory controls that apply in USA and Europe, offering examples of apps that have been formally approved using these mechanisms. We describe the online Health Apps Library run by the National Health Service in England and the calls for a vetted medical and health app store. We discuss the ingredients for successful apps beyond the rather narrow definition of 'apps as a medical device'. These ingredients cover app content quality, usability, the need to match apps to consumers' general and health literacy levels, device connectivity standards (for apps that connect to glucometers, blood pressure monitors, etc.), as well as app security and user privacy. 'Happtique Health App Certification Program' (HACP), a voluntary app certification scheme, successfully captures most of these desiderata, but is solely focused on apps targeting the US market. HACP, while very welcome, is in ways reminiscent of the early days of the Web, when many "similar" quality benchmarking tools and codes of conduct for information publishers were proposed to appraise and rate online medical and health information. It is probably impossible to rate and police every app on offer today, much like in those early days of the Web, when people quickly realised the same regarding informational Web pages. The best first line of defence was, is, and will always be to educate consumers regarding the potentially harmful content of (some) apps.