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.

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.

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.

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.

Potential and real drug interactions in patients treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone and enzalutamide, androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI) for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), are at high risk of potential drug interactions (PDIs). We aimed to describe PDIs and their management, and triggered adverse events (AEs) in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study in mCRPC patients who started treatment with abiraterone or enzalutamide in a university hospital between August 1st, 2016 and July 31st, 2020. Lexicomp® was used to identify and analyze PDIs, and the clinical records to assess their management and the occurrence of AEs. RESULTS: We included 173 patients: 36.8% and 93.0% treated with abiraterone and enzalutamide, respectively, had at least 1 PDI. Globally, 6.3% of PDIs had X-risk (contraindication due to high probability of AE). Treatment was modified in 9.2% of patients and 9.8% suffered AEs due to PDIs. Factors associated with a higher risk of PDIs were polypharmacy (OR= 41.0, p  0.003) and treatment with enzalutamide (OR= 128.26, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: At least two-thirds of patients treated with ARPI suffered a PDI. Overall, abiraterone would have a more favorable PDI profile. Knowing these interaction profiles may be helpful to develop a more efficient therapeutic follow-up and to select the safest treatment.

Bromocriptine for the treatment of postoperative cerebellar mutism syndrome in pediatric patients: Three case reports.

INTRODUCTION: Cerebellar mutism syndrome (CMS) is a common complication after posterior fossa tumor resection. It is characterized by a significant lack or loss of speech. Its biological origin remains unclear and there are no standardized treatments. However, bromocriptine seems to be a possible treatment for this condition. CASE REPORT: In this paper, we present three cases of pediatric patients (4, 5, and 17-year old) who developed CMS after posterior fossa tumor surgery. They were treated with bromocriptine to improve neurological symptoms.Management and outcome: Bromocriptine was started at a low dose and was progressively increased to reach the minimum effective dose. After four months of treatment, a normal and fluid speech was observed in the three patients. No discontinuation due to adverse events were reported. DISCUSSION: Bromocriptine has shown to be an effective and safe treatment for CMS in pediatric patients after posterior fossa tumor resection.