Some drugs are associated with an increased risk of falls in the elderly and, when alternatives exist, should be avoided until cohort studies are conducted to confirm or refute these possible increased risks.

Background/Aims: Although the National Kidney Disease Education Program recommends use of the modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD) formula to estimate the glomerular filtration rate (GFR), most drug-dosing recommendations and clinical practices employ the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) formula. The quality score of the original MDRD study was better than that of the original CG study, although the imprecision sources were very similar between the formulas. To address whether CG should be abandoned in favour of MDRD in chronic kidney disease (CKD) management, we performed a literature review on the topic. Methods: We reviewed 27 articles comparing CG and MDRD in terms of bias, precision, accuracy, and the risk of misclassifying by two CKD stages. Results: In the chronic renal disease population, MDRD was more precise, safer and more accurate than CG at predicting the GFR, with two exceptions: CG was clearly superior in CKD patients with a normal serum creatinine (SCr) and results were discordant in patients with advanced renal failure. In diabetic populations with normal and near-normal GFR, the decline in renal function in diabetics was better screened by CG. In diabetics with renal impairment, MDRD is more accurate than CG. In healthy patients, in subjects with normal SCr and in elderly patients, MDRD was not superior. Based on the risk of misclassifying by ≧2 CKD stages, neither formula could be safely applied in diabetic, low body mass index, advanced liver disease, chronic heart failure, or hospitalized patients. Conclusions: CG still has an interest in screening the decline in renal function in subjects with normal SCr who are at risk, such as diabetics and stage 1 and 2 CKD patients, as well as healthy subjects enrolled in clinical trials and pharmacokinetic studies. Thus, it may be early to replace CG by MDRD in drug studies. CG still is the better formula in the elderly. Both formulas are not safe in some populations.

Background Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs promote appropriate use of antimicrobials and reduce antimicrobial resistance. Technological developments have resulted in smartphone applications (apps) facilitating AMS. Yet, their impact is unclear. Objectives Systematically review AMS apps and their impact on prescribing by physicians treating inhospital patients. Data sources EMBASE, MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Central, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Study eligibility criteria Studies focusing on smartphone or tablet apps and antimicrobial therapy published from January 2008 until February 28th 2019 were included. Participants Physicians treating in-hospital patients. Interventions AMS apps Methods Systematic review.

IntroductionWith the widespread use of electronic health records and handheld electronic devices in hospitals, informatics-based antimicrobial stewardship interventions hold great promise as tools to promote appropriate antimicrobial drug prescribing. However, more research is needed to evaluate their optimal design and impact on quantity and quality of antimicrobial prescribing.Methods and analysisUse of smartphone-based digital stewardship applications (apps) with local guideline directed empirical antimicrobial use by physicians will be compared with antimicrobial prescription as per usual as primary outcome in three hospitals in the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland. Secondary outcomes will include antimicrobial use metrics, clinical and process outcomes. A multicentre stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial will randomise entities defined as wards or specialty regarding time of introduction of the intervention. We will include 36 hospital entities with seven measurement periods in which the primary outcome will be measured in 15 participating patients per time period per cluster. At participating wards, patients of at least 18 years of age using antimicrobials will be included. After a baseline period of 2-week measurements, six periods of 4 weeks will follow in which the intervention is introduced in 6 wards (in three hospitals) until all 36 wards have implemented the intervention. Thereafter, we allow use of the app by everyone, and evaluate the sustainability of the app use 6 months later.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol has been approved by the institutional review board of each participating centre. Results will be disseminated via media, to healthcare professionals via professional training and meetings and to researchers via conferences and publications.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT03793946). Stage; pre-results.

Objective To evaluate the use of a COVID-19 app containing relevant information for healthcare workers (HCWs) in hospitals and to determine user experience. Methods A smartphone app (Firstline) was adapted to exclusively contain local COVID-19 policy documents and treatment protocols. This COVID-19 app was offered to all HCWs of a 900-bed tertiary care hospital. App use was evaluated with user analytics and user experience in an online questionnaire. Results A total number of 1168 HCWs subscribed to the COVID-19 app which was used 3903 times with an average of 1 minute and 20 seconds per session during a three-month period. The number of active users peaked in April 2020 with 1017 users. Users included medical specialists (22.3%), residents (16.5%), nurses (22.2%), management (6.2%) and other (26.5%). Information for HCWs such as when to test for SARS-CoV-2 (1214), latest updates (1181), the COVID-19 telephone list (418) and the SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 guideline (280) were the most frequently accessed advice. Seventy-one users with a mean age of 46.1 years from 19 different departments completed the questionnaire. Respondents considered the COVID-19 app clear (54/59; 92%), easy-to-use (46/55; 84%), fast (46/52; 88%), useful (52/56; 93%), and had faith in the information (58/70; 83%). The COVID-19 app was used to quickly look up something (43/68; 63%), when no computer was available (15/68; 22%), look up / dial COVID-related phone numbers (15/68; 22%) or when walking from A to B (11/68; 16%). Few respondents felt app use cost time (5/68; 7%). Conclusions Our COVID-19 app proved to be a relatively simple yet innovative tool that was used by HCWs from all disciplines involved in taking care of COVID-19 patients. The up-to-date app was used for different topics and had high user satisfaction amongst questionnaire respondents. An app with local hospital policy could be an invaluable tool during a pandemic.