Objectives To provide an overview of medication adherence, discuss the potential for smartphone medication adherence applications (adherence apps) to improve medication nonadherence, evaluate features of adherence apps across operating systems (OSs), and identify future opportunities and barriers facing adherence apps. Practice description Medication nonadherence is a common, complex, and costly problem that contributes to poor treatment outcomes and consumes health care resources. Nonadherence is difficult to measure precisely, and interventions to mitigate it have been largely unsuccessful. Practice innovation Using smartphone adherence apps represents a novel approach to improving adherence. This readily available technology offers many features that can be designed to help patients and health care providers improve medication-taking behavior. Main outcome measures Currently available apps were identified from the three main smartphone OSs (Apple, Android, and Blackberry). In addition, desirable features for adherence apps were identified and ranked by perceived importance to user desirability using a three-point rating system: 1, modest; 2, moderate; or 3, high. The 10 highest-rated apps were installed and subjected to user testing to assess app attributes using a standard medication regimen. Results 160 adherence apps were identified and ranked. These apps were most prevalent for the Android OS. Adherence apps with advanced functionality were more prevalent on the Apple iPhone OS. Among all apps, MyMedSchedule, MyMeds, and RxmindMe rated the highest because of their basic medication reminder features coupled with their enhanced levels of functionality. Conclusion Despite being untested, medication apps represent a possible strategy that pharmacists can recommend to nonadherent patients and incorporate into their practice.

The pharmacokinetics of posaconazole oral suspension in neutropenic patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation were evaluated, and the association of plasma posaconazole exposure with the presence and severity of oral mucositis was explored in this nonrandomized, open-label, parallelgroup, multiple-dose pharmacokinetic study. Thirty patients were enrolled and received one of three regimens (group I, 200 mg once daily; group II, 400 mg once daily; group III, 200 mg four times daily) for the duration of neutropenia. The mean total exposure for day 1, as shown by the area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC 0-24 ), was 1.96 mg · h/liter in group I and was 51% higher in group II and in group III. Increases in AUC 0-24 and maximum plasma concentration (C max ) in groups II and III were dose related. The AUC 0-24 and C max values on day 1 were similar between groups II and III. There was interpatient variability of up to 68% in the pharmacokinetic values for our study population. Steady state was attained by days 5 to 6. Average steady-state plasma posaconazole trough values were 192, 219, and 414 ng/ml in groups I, II, and III, respectively. The AUC 0-24 and apparent oral clearance increased by increasing dose and dosing frequency. Mucositis appeared to reduce exposure but did not significantly affect mean total posaconazole exposure (AUC and C max ) at steady state (P ‫؍‬ 0.1483). Moreover, this reduction could be overcome by increasing the total dose and dosing frequency. Posaconazole was safe and well tolerated.

No abstract

Controversy surrounds the role of central venous catheters (CVCs) impregnated with antimicrobial agents in the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). We reviewed the current literature to evaluate the efficacy of antimicrobial-impregnated CVCs for preventing CRBSI. Eleven randomized studies published in article form were identified that included a control group that received nonimpregnated CVCs. We evaluated study methodologies, inclusion of key patient characteristics, use of clinically relevant end points, and molecular-relatedness studies. Review of these 11 trials revealed several methodological flaws, including inconsistent definitions of CRBSI, failure to account for confounding variables, suboptimal statistical and epidemiological methods, and rare use of clinically relevant end points. This review also failed to demonstrate any significant clinical benefit associated with the use of antimicrobial-impregnated CVCs for the purpose of reducing CRBSI or improving patient outcomes. More rigorous studies are required to support or refute the hypothesis that antimicrobial-impregnated CVCs reduce the rate of or prevent CRBSI.

No abstract