Search

Heart transplantation (HT) poses high bleeding risks, especially for patients on anticoagulation. This study evaluates the use of idarucizumab for dabigatran (DBG) reversal compared to vitamin K antagonist (VKA) strategies in HT. A retrospective analysis of HT patients from January 2018 to December 2022, excluding those requiring ECMO immediately before or after surgery, was conducted. Outcomes included transfusion needs, re-surgery due to bleeding, ICU stay lengths, and 30-day survival. A cost analysis compared the direct expenses of each strategy. Among 34 patients, 20 were on DBG and 14 on VKAs or not anticoagulated. Idarucizumab significantly reduced the number of patients requiring transfusion (p = 0.034) and ICU stay lengths (p = 0.014), with no significant impact on re-surgery rates (p = 0.259) or survival (p = 0.955). Despite higher initial costs, overall expenses for idarucizumab were comparable to VKA reversal due to reduced transfusion needs and shorter ICU stays. Idarucizumab offers a viable and potentially cost-neutral anticoagulation reversal option for HT patients on DBG, presenting an alternative to VKA strategies. However, due to the retrospective nature of the study and the small sample size, further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

ObjectiveThis 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 methodsWe 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).ResultThe 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%.ConclusionsThe 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.

BackgroundInformation and communication technologies (ICTs) are changing the traditional health care model and redefining personalized health. ICTs offer effective communication and real-time monitoring of patients and provide additional data to support clinical decision-making, improve the quality of care, and contribute to the empowerment of patients. However, evidence on the use of ICTs and digital preferences of immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) patients is scarce. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to describe the degree of use of ICTs in patients with IMIDs (including rheumatic diseases, inflammatory bowel diseases, and psoriasis), identify their needs, and analyze their interest in the use of apps as tools for better management of their disease. MethodsA questionnaire was created by a multidisciplinary team including pharmacists, rheumatologists, gastroenterologists, dermatologists, and nurses with experience in ICTs applied to the field of IMID. The survey included 27 questions organized into 3 blocks: (1) sociodemographic characteristics, (2) ICT use for health-related information, and (3) patient expectations about mobile health. ResultsA total of 472 questionnaires were analyzed. Overall, 52.9% (250/472) of patients were diagnosed with a rheumatologic disease, 39.4% (186/472) with inflammatory bowel disease, and 12.3% (58/472) with psoriasis. The state of health was considered good by 45.6% (215/472) of patients. Patients were interested in staying informed about health issues in 86.9% (410/427) of cases and sought health-related information mainly from the internet (334/472, 70.8%) and health care professionals (318/472, 67.4%). Overall, 13.6% (64/472) did not trust the health information they found in internet. Of the patients, 42.8% (202/472) had a health app, and 42.2% (199/472) had found it on their own. Patients would like a health app to help mainly to manage appointments (281/472, 59.5%), obtain information about their diseases and treatments (274/472, 58.1%), and get in contact with health professionals (250/472, 53.0%). Overall, 90.0% (425/472) of patients reported they would use an app to manage their IMID if their health professional recommended it, and 58.0% (274/472) would pay or probably be willing to pay for it. ConclusionsIMID patients were very interested in finding health-related information via ICTs, especially using smartphones and apps recommended by health professionals. Appointment management, advice on disease and treatment management, and personalized communication with health professionals were the most desired app features identified. Health professionals should play an essential role in recommending and validating these tools to ensure they are of high quality.

BackgroundDrug-referencing apps are among the most frequently used by emergency health professionals. To date, no study has analyzed the quantity and quality of apps that provide information on emergency drugs. ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify apps designed to assist emergency professionals in managing drugs and to describe and analyze their characteristics. MethodsWe performed an observational, cross-sectional, descriptive study of apps that provide information on drugs for adult emergency care. The iOS and Android platforms were searched in February 2021. The apps were independently evaluated by 2 hospital clinical pharmacists. We analyzed developer affiliation, cost, updates, user ratings, and number of downloads. We also evaluated the main topic (emergency drugs or emergency medicine), the number of drugs described, the inclusion of bibliographic references, and the presence of the following drug information: commercial presentations, usual dosage, dose adjustment for renal failure, mechanism of action, therapeutic indications, contraindications, interactions with other medicinal products, use in pregnancy and breastfeeding, adverse reactions, method of preparation and administration, stability data, incompatibilities, identification of high-alert medications, positioning in treatment algorithms, information about medication reconciliation, and cost. ResultsOverall, 49 apps were identified. Of these 49 apps, 32 (65%) were found on both digital platforms; 11 (22%) were available only for Android, and 6 (12%) were available only for iOS. In total, 41% (20/49) of the apps required payment (ranging from €0.59 [US $0.64] to €179.99 [US $196.10]) and 22% (11/49) of the apps were developed by non–health care professionals. The mean weighted user rating was 4.023 of 5 (SD 0.71). Overall, 45% (22/49) of the apps focused on emergency drugs, and 55% (27/49) focused on emergency medicine. More than half (29/47, 62%) did not include bibliographic references or had not been updated for more than a year (29/49, 59%). The median number of drugs was 66 (range 4 to >5000). Contraindications (26/47, 55%) and adverse reactions (24/47, 51%) were found in only half of the apps. Less than half of the apps addressed dose adjustment for renal failure (15/47, 32%), interactions (10/47, 21%), and use during pregnancy and breastfeeding (15/47, 32%). Only 6% (3/47) identified high-alert medications, and 2% (1/47) included information about medication reconciliation. Health-related developer, main topic, and greater amount of drug information were not statistically associated with higher user ratings (P=.99, P=.09, and P=.31, respectively). ConclusionsWe provide a comprehensive review of apps with information on emergency drugs for adults. Information on authorship, drug characteristics, and bibliographic references is frequently scarce; therefore, we propose recommendations to consider when developing an app of these characteristics. Future efforts should be made to increase the regulation of drug-referencing apps and to conduct a more frequent and documented review of their clinical content.

BackgroundImmune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are systemic conditions associated with a high social and health impact. New treatments have changed the prognosis of IMIDs and have increased patient autonomy in disease management. Mobile apps have enormous potential to improve health outcomes in patients with IMIDs. Although a large number of IMID apps are available, the app market is not regulated, and functionality and reliability remain uncertain. ObjectiveOur aims are to review available apps for patients with IMIDs or caregivers and to describe the main characteristics and functionalities of these apps. MethodsWe performed an observational, cross-sectional, descriptive study of all apps for patients with IMIDs. Between April 5 and 14, 2021, we conducted a search of the App Store (iOS) and Play Store (Android) platforms. We used the names of the different IMIDs as search terms. The inclusion criteria were as follows: content related to IMIDs, English or Spanish language, and user population consisting of patients and health care consumers, including family and caregivers. The variables analyzed were as follows: app name, type of IMID, platform (Android or iOS), country of origin, language, category of the app, cost, date of the last update, size, downloads, author affiliation, and functionalities. ResultsWe identified 713 apps in the initial search, and 243 apps met the criteria and were analyzed. Of these, 37% (n=90) were on Android, 27.2% (n=66) on iOS, and 35.8% (n=87) on both platforms. The most frequent categories were health and well-being/fitness apps (n=188, 48.5%) and medicine (n=82, 37.9%). A total of 211 (82.3%) apps were free. The mean time between the date of the analysis and the date of the most recent update was 18.5 (SD 19.3) months. Health care professionals were involved in the development of 100 (41.1%) apps. We found differences between Android and iOS in the mean time since the last update (16.2, SD 14.7 months vs 30.3, SD 25.7 months) and free apps (85.6% vs 75.8%; respectively). The functionalities were as follows: general information about lifestyles, nutrition, or exercises (n=135, 55.6%); specific information about the disease or treatment (n=102, 42%); recording of symptoms or adverse events (n=51, 21%); agenda/calendar (n=44, 18.1%); reminder medication (n=41, 16.9%); and recording of patient-reported outcomes (n=41, 16.9%). A total of 147 (60.5%) apps had more than one functionality. ConclusionsIMID-related apps are heterogeneous in terms of functionality and reliability. Apps may be a useful complement to IMID care, especially inpatient education (their most frequent functionality). However, more than half of the IMID apps had not been developed by health care professionals or updated in the last year.

BackgroundHematological 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. ObjectiveThe 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). MethodsWe 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. ResultsWe 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