A Comparison of the Reliability of Smartphone Apps for Opioid Conversion.

Drug Saf. 2013 Jan 16;
Haffey F, Brady RR, Maxwell S

BACKGROUND: Many medical professionals use smartphone applications (apps) on a daily basis to support clinical decision making. Opioid switching (conversion of one opioid to another at equianalgesic dose) is common in clinical practice and often challenging for doctors. Apps providing an opioid conversion tool can therefore be a useful resource. Despite rapid growth in the use of medical apps, the lack of robust regulation and peer review to ensure the accuracy and reliability of app content is currently an area of concern. METHOD: We searched major online app stores for apps providing an opioid dose conversion tool. We assessed output variability between apps in the dose calculation of seven opioid switches, as well as assessing the level of professional medical involvement in the authorship, creation and design of the apps. RESULTS: Of 23 different apps identified, more than half (n = 12; 52 %) had no stated medical professional involvement and only 11 (48 %) apps provided direct references to primary sources for their opioid conversion ratios. Conversion of 1 mg of oral morphine to oral codeine demonstrated the largest conversion output range (median 6.67 mg, range 3.333-12 mg). Conversion of 1 mg of oral morphine to methadone ranged from 0.05-0.67 mg, with only 44 % of methadone-converting apps (n = 4) commenting that the conversion ratio changes with magnitude of methadone dose. Overall, 35 % of apps (n = 8) did not warn the user about the standard practice of dose reduction when opioid switching. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean conversion output for hydromorphone (oral) between apps with and without medical professional involvement (0.2256 vs 0.2536; p = 0.0377). CONCLUSIONS: There are significant concerns with regard to the reliability of information provided by apps offering opioid dose conversion, with lack of information regarding evidence-based content and peer review in many cases. It is crucial that better regulation of medical apps is instigated in order to ensure that patient safety is maintained.
HubMed – Methadone

Epidural methadone results in dose-dependent analgesia in cancer pain, further enhanced by epidural dexamethasone.

Br J Cancer. 2013 Jan 15;
Lauretti GR, Rizzo CC, Mattos AL, Rodrigues SW

Background:This study was designed to evaluate the role of epidural methadone-lidocaine in cancer pain combined or not to epidural dexamethasone.Methods:In all, 72 cancer patients, 32- to 67-year-old were randomized to six groups (n=12) and prospectively studied to examine analgesia and adverse effects for 3 weeks. Patients received single-dose protocol epidural test drugs: Control group (CG) received epidural 40-mg lidocaine diluted to 10-ml volume with saline. Dexamethasone group (DG) 40-mg lidocaine plus 10-mg dexamethasone. The 2.5MetG 2.5-mg epidural methadone with 40-mg lidocaine; the 5MetG, 5-mg epidural methadone plus 40-mg lidocaine, the 7.5MetG, 7.5-mg epidural methadone plus 40-mg lidocaine and finally the 7.5Met-DexG, 7.5-mg methadone with 40-mg lidocaine and 10-mg dexamethasone.Results:Groups CG, DG and 2.5MetG were similar regarding analgesia and side effects. Patients from 5MetG and 7.5MetG took 3±1 and 5±1 days, respectively, to restart oral morphine. Patients from 7.5MetDG took 14±2 to restart oral morphine (P<0.001). Daily somnolence and appetite improved in the 7.5MetDG during 2-week evaluation (P<0.005). Fatigue improved for both DG and 7.5MetDG during 2-week evaluation (P<0.005). By the third week of evaluation, all patients were similar.Conclusions:Epidural methadone plus lidocaine resulted in dose-dependent analgesia, further improved by epidural dexamethasone, which also improved fatigue.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 15 January 2013; doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.593 www.bjcancer.com. HubMed – Methadone

Related Methadone Treatment Information…

Comments are closed.