ClinCalc is proud to announce a new iOS app — RxHero, an educational game for healthcare students and professional to learn the Top 250 Drugs.
Key Features of RxHero
- Leverages simple gamification concepts (quest campaigns, in-game points, ranks) to motivate learners to continue to engage in studying
- Uses the evidence-based ClinCalc DrugStats drug list top 250 drugs, which represents about 95% of all prescribed medications on the U.S. market
- Adaptive, multi-modal learning to focus your attention on drug facts that are unlearned or difficult by presenting these drug facts in a variety of different ways (quiz questions, matching, and drug spelling)
- Drug pronunciation is deeply integrated into the app so that you can hear the pronunciation of brand and generic names at any time while learning drug facts
By default, Microsoft Word and other Office products do not contain brand and generic medication names within the spelling dictionary. For healthcare providers who conduct medical writing, publications, or PowerPoint lectures, this can lead to embarrassing spelling errors that are not captured by the spell check.
Introducing the ClinCalc DrugSpell Dictionary File
We’re proud to announce the annual update of the DrugStats database. DrugStats provides free access to prescription drug utilization data estimates for the United States. Using this data set, users can identify trends in prescribing practice and an official, reputable “top 200 drugs” list based on data provided by the U.S. Government.
Where does the DrugStats data come from?
All medication utilization data comes from the annual Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a survey conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) via the United States government. This data is publicly available on the MEPS website for free. In order for the ClinCalc DrugStats database to implement the MEPS data, basic data sanitization and standardization measures are necessary to maintain an accurate and reliable data set. Read more about the data set by clicking here. Continue reading
We’re excited to announce the launch of our newest product at ClinCalc.com — the DrugStats Database! This database provides free, web-based access to outpatient prescription utilization statistics for the United States encompassing more than 3 billion prescriptions annually.
Features of the ClinCalc DrugStats Database
By leveraging the database, users can identify trends and compare usage of approximately 500 different outpatient medications. A few examples include: Continue reading
In the United States, there are currently four direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). All four DOACs are approved for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), among other indications.1-4 Despite differences in pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and clinical trial efficacy and safety data, current guidelines do not prefer a specific DOAC. Given the lack of guideline-based recommendations for a particular DOAC, clinicians are frequently left without clear guidance of the most appropriate DOAC for a particular patient beyond the preferences of an insurance company or the availability of manufacturers’ coupons. After a careful analysis of the existing data, a very strong case can be made to make apixaban (Eliquis) the preferred DOAC for both VTE and NVAF.
What is the role of DOACs versus warfarin in VTE and NVAF?
For the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE), the CHEST 2016 guidelines recommend any of the four DOACs over warfarin therapy for long-term anticoagulation therapy in patients without cancer (grade 2B).5 The guidelines do not specifically endorse any DOAC, although a table is provided that outlines factors that may influence the selection of a “preferred” anticoagulant. For example, patients wanting to avoid parenteral therapy may prefer rivaroxaban or apixaban because dabigatran and edoxaban require five to ten days of parenteral therapy prior to initiation.
When evaluating a clinical trial, readers often jump to the P value of the primary endpoint to determine whether the results of a trial are “statistically significant” or not. Although the P value is truly a continuous variable, the scientific community has been conditioned to disregard all results with P values ≥ 0.05, but to fully endorse any trials with a “statistically significant” P value less than 0.05.
Putting the debate and controversy about P values aside for the moment, as a reader, would you be less impressed with a study that changed from being statistically significant to insignificant if one single patient changed from not having the primary endpoint to having the primary endpoint? Especially in an era with a blind reliance on P values, the knowledge of the “fragility” or “robustness” of a study’s P value is another useful data point for readers to critically understand and analyze the results of a clinical trial.
The Concept of the “Fragility Index” for Clinical Trials
Historically, serum creatinine was analyzed from a blood sample using a method called alkaline picrate. In addition to creatinine molecules, though, it also “counted” non-creatinine molecules that falsely elevated the resulting value by as much as 20%. This assay method was used for decades in the development of creatinine clearance estimates, such as the Cockcroft-Gault method.
Within the past 10-15 year, however, laboratories have largely moved to a new assay called IDMS (isotope dilution mass spectrometry). This method does not detect the non-creatinine molecules, which means that the IDMS value is often 10-20% lower than the more conventional assay. Because older equations, like Cockcroft-Gault, were created and validated using a non-IDMS assay, this poses a problem for estimating creatinine clearance (a surrogate for glomerular filtration rate) when using an IDMS-based lab assay.
Converting from IDMS to non-IDMS (Conventional)
Colistin (in the form of colistimethate sodium, or CMS, in the United States) is an older, last-line agent for multidrug-resistant gram-negative infections. Because of colistin’s complex pharmacokinetics and for historical reasons, there is a paucity of data regarding its dosing in patients with severe gram negative infections, particularly for those with concurrent renal dysfunction.
In one of the largest pharmacokinetic analyses of colistin to date, Garonzik et al. published a detailed analysis of CMS dosing in critically ill patients. This analysis included dosing recommendations for patients with normal renal function, acutely changing renal function, intermittent hemodialysis (IHD), and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT).
ClinCalc is excited to announce our new colistin dosing calculator, which is based on the Garonzik pharmacokinetic recommendations. This calculator was developed in coordination with Julie Ann Justo, PharmD, MS, BCPS, AAHIVP — an Assistant Professor at the South Carolina College of Pharmacy who specializes in infectious diseases and HIV pharmacotherapy. Continue reading
In the United States, vitamin D supplementation is primarily available as vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) and vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol). Although these two have historically been considered interchangeable and equipotent, the current body of literature strongly supports the preference of Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) over D2 (ergocalciferol).
Vitamin D2 versus Vitamin D3
Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) is produced by the human body in response to sunlight and is also available through dietary sources, such as fish. In contrast, vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) is not produced in the human body, but is created by exposing certain plant-derived materials to ultraviolet light.
We’re releasing a major update to the calculation for our popular vancomycin calculator today. Briefly, the new update implements more advanced calculations when adjusting a vancomycin dose based on a trough level.
Drug Elimination during Vancomycin Infusion
When adjusting vancomycin based on a trough level, pharmacokinetic textbooks recommend estimating a vancomycin peak level using the following equation: Continue reading