Development and validation of a tool to assess the risk of QT drug-drug interactions in clinical practice

Increases in rates as well as morbidity and mortality associated with fungal infections have necessitated the need for additional antifungal agents. Recent research has resulted in the introduction of 3 new antifungal agents: micafungin, anidulafungin, and posaconazole. Micafungin and anidulafungin, both potent inhibitor of 1,3-β-D-glucan synthase, are the second and third available agents in the echinocandins class that are available in clinical practice. Posaconazale, a potent inhibitor of ergosterol synthesis, is a new agent in the triazole class that has shown promising clinical efficacy in the treatment and prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections due to Candida as well as molds. This article reviews the clinical efficacy as well as the approved uses and dosages associated with the use of these new antifungal agents. Other considerations, such as precautions, administration techniques, potential drug interactions, and common adverse effects associated with the use of these agents, are also reviewed.

Download Full-text

A cooperation project between hospital pharmacists and general practitioners about drug interactions in clinical practice

European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy ◽

10.1136/ejhpharm-2017-001253 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 25 (6) ◽

pp. 301-309

Author(s):

Valeria Vinciguerra ◽

Roberto Fantozzi ◽

Clara Cena ◽

Roberta Fruttero ◽

Carla Rolle

Keyword(s):

Clinical Practice ◽

Drug Interactions ◽

General Practitioners ◽

Hospital Pharmacists ◽

Cooperation Project

Download Full-text

Physiotherapy Questionnaires App to Deliver Main Musculoskeletal Assessment Questionnaires: Development and Validation Study (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.9247 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Nestor Cavalcante Teixeira Neto ◽

Yuri Lopes Lima ◽

Gabriel Peixoto Leão Almeida ◽

Márcio Almeida Bezerra ◽

Pedro Olavo De Paula Lima ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Practice ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Foot And Ankle ◽

Paper Version ◽

Second Stage ◽

Patient Reported ◽

The Mean ◽

American Orthopaedic ◽

Paper Format ◽

Development And Validation

BACKGROUND Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) translate subjective outcomes into objective data that can be quantified and analyzed. Nevertheless, the use of PROs in their traditional paper format is not practical for clinical practice due to limitations associated with the analysis and management of the data. To address the need for a viable way to group and utilize the main functioning assessment tools in the field of musculoskeletal disorders, the Physiotherapy Questionnaires app was developed. OBJECTIVE This study aims to explain the development of the app, to validate it using two questionnaires, and to analyze whether participants prefer to use the app or the paper version of the questionnaires. METHODS In the first stage, the app for an Android operational system was developed. In the second stage, the aim was to select questionnaires that were most often used in musculoskeletal clinical practice and research. The Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) questionnaire were selected to validate the app. In total, 50 participants completed the paper and app versions of the AOFAS and 50 completed the FAOS. The study’s outcomes were the correlation of the data between the paper and app versions as well as the preference of the participants between the two versions. RESULTS The app was approved by experts after the adaptations of the layout for mobile phones and a total of 18 questionnaires were included in the app. Moreover, the app allows the generation of PDF and Excel files with the patients’ data. In regards to validity, the mean of the total scores of the FAOS were 91.54% (SD 8.86%) for the paper version and 91.74% (SD 9.20%) for the app. There was no statistically significant differences in the means of the total scores or the subscales (P=.11-.94). The mean total scores for the AOFAS were 93.94 (SD 8.47) for the paper version and 93.96 (SD 8.48) for the app. No statistically significant differences were found for the total scores for the AOFAS or the subscales (P>.99). The app showed excellent agreement with the paper version of the FAOS, with an ICC value of 0.98 for the total score (95% CI 0.98-0.99), which was also found for the AOFAS with the ICC for the total score of 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-0.99). For compliance, 72% (36/50) of the participants in the FAOS group and 94% (47/50) in the AOFAS group preferred the app version. CONCLUSIONS The Physiotherapy Questionnaires app showed validity and high levels of compliance for the FAOS and AOFAS, which indicates it is not inferior to the paper version of these two questionnaires and confirms its viability and feasibility for use in clinical practice.

Download Full-text