WTS database

Title	Pub Year Sort ascending	Author	SearchLink
Incentives for preventing smoking in children and adolescents	2012	Preventable Chronic Diseases Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Darwin, Australia. vanessa.johnston@menzies.edu.au.	Read more...
Source Type Print(0) Ref Type Journal Article Periodical, Full The Cochrane database of systematic reviews Periodical, Abbrev. Cochrane Database Syst.Rev. Pub Date Free Form 17-Oct Volume 10 Issue Start Page CD008645 Other Pages Notes LR: 20130628; JID: 100909747; epublish Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 23076949 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD008645.pub2 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 23076949 Abstract BACKGROUND: Adult smoking usually has its roots in adolescence. If individuals do not take up smoking during this period it is unlikely that they ever will. Further, once smoking becomes established, cessation is challenging; the probability of subsequently quitting is inversely proportional to the age of initiation. One novel approach to reducing the prevalence of youth smoking is the use of incentives. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether incentives prevent children and adolescents from starting to smoke. We also attempted to assess the dose-response of incentives, the costs of incentive programmes, whether incentives are more or less effective in combination with other interventions to prevent smoking initiation and any unintended consequences arising from the use of incentives. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, with additional searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CSA databases and PsycINFO for terms relating to incentives, in combination with terms for smoking and tobacco use, and children and adolescents. The most recent searches were in May 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomized controlled trials allocating children and adolescents (aged 5 to 18 years) as individuals, groups or communities to intervention or control conditions, where the intervention included an incentive aimed at preventing smoking uptake. We also considered controlled trials with baseline measures and post-intervention outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by two authors and assessed independently. The primary outcome was the smoking status of children or adolescents at follow-up who reported no smoking at baseline. We required a minimum follow-up of six months from baseline and assessed each included study for risk of bias. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial; we did not require biochemical validation of self-reported tobacco use for study inclusion. Where possible we combined eligible studies to calculate pooled estimates at the longest follow-up using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method, grouping studies by study design. MAIN RESULTS: We identified seven controlled studies that met our inclusion criteria, including participants with an age range of 11 to 14 years. Of the seven trials identified, only five had analysable data relevant for this review and contributed to the meta-analysis (6362 participants in total who were non-smokers at baseline; 3466 in intervention and 2896 in control). All bar one of the studies was a trial of the so-called Smokefree Class Competition (SFC), which has been widely implemented throughout Europe. In this competition, classes with youth generally between the ages of 11 to 14 years commit to being smoke free for a six month period. They report regularly on their smoking status; if 90% or more of the class is non-smoking at the end of the six months, the class goes into a competition to win prizes. The one study that was not a trial of the SFC was a controlled trial in which schools in two communities were assigned to the intervention, with schools in a third community acting as controls. Students in the intervention community with lower smoking rates at the end of the project (one school year) received rewards.Only one study of the SFC competition, a non-randomized controlled trial, reported a significant effect of the competition on the prevention of smoking at the longest follow-up. However, this study had a risk of multiple biases, and when we calculated the adjusted RR we no longer detected a statistically significant difference. The pooled RR for the more robust RCTs (3 studies, n = 3056 participants) suggests that, from the available data, there is no statistically significant effect of incentives to prevent smoking initiation among children and adolescents in the long term (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.19). Pooled results from non-randomized trials also did not detect a significant effect, and we wer Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Johnston,V., Liberato,S., Thomas,D. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20121017 PMCID Editors
Nicotine vaccines for smoking cessation	2012	Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University ofOxford, Oxford, UK. jamie.hartmann-boyce@phc.ox.ac.uk.	Read more...
Source Type Print(0) Ref Type Journal Article Periodical, Full The Cochrane database of systematic reviews Periodical, Abbrev. Cochrane Database Syst.Rev. Pub Date Free Form 15-Aug Volume (8):CD007072. doi Issue 8 Start Page CD007072 Other Pages Notes LR: 20160602; JID: 100909747; 0 (NicVAX); 0 (Vaccines); 0 (nicotine Qbeta vaccine); epublish Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 22895958 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD007072.pub2 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 22895958 Abstract BACKGROUND: By reducing the amount of nicotine that reaches the brain when a person smokes a cigarette, nicotine vaccines may help people to stop smoking or to prevent recent quitters from relapsing. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this review are to assess the efficacy of nicotine vaccines for smoking cessation and for relapse prevention, and to assess the frequency and type of adverse events associated with the use of nicotine vaccines. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group specialised register for trials, using the term 'vaccine' in the title or abstract, or in a keyword (date of most recent search April 2012). To identify any other material including reviews and papers potentially relevant to the background or discussion sections, we also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, combining terms for nicotine vaccines with terms for smoking and tobacco use, without design limits or limits for human subjects. We searched the Annual Meeting abstracts of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco up to 2012, using the search string 'vaccin'. We searched Google Scholar for 'nicotine vaccine'. We also searched company websites and Google for information related to specific vaccines. We searched clinicaltrials.gov in March 2012 for 'nicotine vaccine' and for the trade names of known vaccine candidates. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials of nicotine vaccines, at Phase II and Phase III trial stage and beyond, in adult smokers or recent ex-smokers. We included studies of nicotine vaccines used as part of smoking cessation or relapse prevention interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on the type of participants, the dose and duration of treatment, the outcome measures, the randomization procedure, concealment of allocation, blinding of participants and personnel, reporting of outcomes, and completeness of follow-up.Our primary outcome measure was a minimum of six months abstinence from smoking. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, and preferred cessation rates at 12 months and biochemically validated rates where available. We have used the risk ratio (RR) to summarize individual trial outcomes. We have not pooled the current group of included studies as they cover different vaccines and variable regimens. MAIN RESULTS: There are no nicotine vaccines currently licensed for public use, but there are a number in development. We found four trials which met our inclusion criteria, three comparing NicVAX to placebo and one comparing NIC002 (formerly NicQbeta) to placebo. All were smoking cessation trials conducted by pharmaceutical companies as part of the drug development process, and all trials were judged to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, 2642 smokers participated in the included studies in this review. None of the four included studies detected a statistically significant difference in long-term cessation between participants receiving vaccine and those receiving placebo. The RR for 12 month cessation in active and placebo groups was 1.35 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.82 to 2.22) in the trial of NIC002 and 1.74 (95% CI 0.73 to 4.18) in one NicVAX trial. Two Phase III NicVAX trials, for which full results were not available, reported similar quit rates of approximately 11% in both groups. In the two studies with full results available, post hoc analyses detected higher cessation rates in participants with higher levels of nicotine antibodies, but these findings are not readily generalisable. The two studies with full results showed nicotine vaccines to be well tolerated, with the majority of adverse events classified as mild or moderate. In the study of NIC002, participants receiving the vaccine were more likely to report mild to moderate adverse events, most commonly flu-like symptoms, whereas in the study of NicVAX there was no significant difference between the two arms. Information on adverse events wa Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Hartmann-Boyce,J., Cahill,K., Hatsukami,D., Cornuz,J. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20120815 PMCID Editors
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of computer and other electronic aids for smoking cessation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis	2012	School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.	Read more...
Source Type Print(0) Ref Type Journal Article Periodical, Full Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) Periodical, Abbrev. Health Technol.Assess. Pub Date Free Form Volume 16 Issue 38 Start Page 1 Other Pages 205, iii-v Notes LR: 20150203; GR: 08/60/01/Department of Health/United Kingdom; GR: G0800800/Medical Research Council/United Kingdom; GR: G0802413/Medical Research Council/United Kingdom; GR: HTA/08/60/01/Department of Health/United Kingdom; JID: 9706284; ppublish Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 2046-4924; 1366-5278 Accession Number PMID: 23046909 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review; IM DOI 10.3310/hta16380 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 23046909 Abstract BACKGROUND: Smoking is harmful to health. On average, lifelong smokers lose 10 years of life, and about half of all lifelong smokers have their lives shortened by smoking. Stopping smoking reverses or prevents many of these harms. However, cessation services in the NHS achieve variable success rates with smokers who want to quit. Approaches to behaviour change can be supplemented with electronic aids, and this may significantly increase quit rates and prevent a proportion of cases that relapse. OBJECTIVE: The primary research question we sought to answer was: What is the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of internet, pc and other electronic aids to help people stop smoking? We addressed the following three questions: (1) What is the effectiveness of internet sites, computer programs, mobile telephone text messages and other electronic aids for smoking cessation and/or reducing relapse? (2) What is the cost-effectiveness of incorporating internet sites, computer programs, mobile telephone text messages and other electronic aids into current nhs smoking cessation programmes? and (3) What are the current gaps in research into the effectiveness of internet sites, computer programs, mobile telephone text messages and other electronic aids to help people stop smoking? DATA SOURCES: For the effectiveness review, relevant primary studies were sought from The Cochrane Library [Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)] 2009, Issue 4, and MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) (Ovid) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCOhost) from 1980 to December 2009. In addition, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) were searched for information on cost-effectiveness and modelling for the same period. Reference lists of included studies and of relevant systematic reviews were examined to identify further potentially relevant studies. Research registries of ongoing studies including National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database, Current Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov were also searched, and further information was sought from contacts with experts. REVIEW METHODS: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating smoking cessation programmes that utilise computer, internet, mobile telephone or other electronic aids in adult smokers were included in the effectiveness review. Relevant studies of other design were included in the cost-effectiveness review and supplementary review. Pair-wise meta-analyses using both random- and fixed-effects models were carried out. Bayesian mixed-treatment comparisons (MTCs) were also performed. A de novo decision-analytical model was constructed for estimating the cost-effectiveness of interventions. Expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was calculated. Narrative synthesis of key themes and issues that may influence the acceptability and usability of electronic aids was provided in the supplementary review. RESULTS: This effectiveness review included 60 RCTs/quasi-RCTs reported in 77 publications. Pooled estimate for prolonged abstinence [relative risk (RR) = 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 1.45] and point prevalence abstinence (RR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.22) suggested that computer and other electronic aids increase the likelihood of cessation compared with no intervention or generic self-help materials. There was no significant difference in effect sizes between aid to cessation studies (which provide support to smokers who are ready to quit) and cessation induction studies (which attempt to encourage a cessation attempt in smokers who are not yet ready to quit). Results from MTC also showed small but significant intervention effect (time to relapse, mean hazard ratio 0.87, 95% credible interval 0.83 to 0.92). Cost-threshold analyses indicated some form of elect Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Chen,Y.F., Madan,J., Welton,N., Yahaya,I., Aveyard,P., Bauld,L., Wang,D., Fry-Smith,A., Munafo,M.R. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic PMCID Editors
Interventions for recruiting smokers into cessation programmes	2012	Global eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.	Read more...
Source Type Print(0) Ref Type Journal Article Periodical, Full The Cochrane database of systematic reviews Periodical, Abbrev. Cochrane Database Syst.Rev. Pub Date Free Form 12-Dec Volume 12 Issue Start Page CD009187 Other Pages Notes LR: 20130628; GR: Department of Health/United Kingdom; JID: 100909747; epublish Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 23235672 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD009187.pub2 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 23235672 Abstract BACKGROUND: Tobacco control is a top public health priority around the globe due to the high prevalence of cigarette smoking and its associated morbidity and mortality. Much effort has been focused on establishing the effectiveness of different smoking cessation strategies. This review, however, aims to address the initial challenge faced by smoking cessation programmes: recruitment of smokers. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to determine the effectiveness of different strategies for recruiting smokers into cessation programmes. The secondary objective was to determine the impact that these strategies had on smoking cessation rates at least six months after enrolment into a cessation programme. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group using a search strategy which included the terms ('recruit$', 'invit$', 'enter', 'entry', 'enrolment') combined with ('smok$', 'cigarette', 'smoking cessation', 'tobacco') in the title, abstract or keyword fields. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and registers of current and ongoing trials. We also searched the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials and cluster randomised controlled trials that compared at least two different methods of recruiting current smokers into a smoking cessation programme. We also included those studies which focused on the effectiveness of a smoking cessation programme as long as the study involved multiple recruitment methods and reported results of the recruitment phase. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: From each included study, we extracted data on the type of participants, type of recruitment strategies (i.e., setting, mode of communication used, intensity and duration) and comparisons, and on randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding procedures.Our primary outcome was the proportion of smokers successfully recruited to each cessation programme compared to alternative modalities of recruitment. Our secondary outcome was smoking cessation for at least six months. Given the substantial heterogeneity across recruitment interventions and participants, we adopted a narrative synthesis approach for summarising results. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 19 studies with a total of 14,890 participants. We categorised the included studies according to the modes used to deliver the recruitment strategy: head to head comparison of individual recruitment strategies; comparison of the same delivery mode but with different content or intensity; and the addition of another mode to an existing recruitment method.We identified three studies that made head-to-head comparisons of different types of recruitment strategies. Of these, only one study detected a significant effect, finding that a personal phone call was more effective than a generic invitation letter (RR 40.73, 95% CI 2.53 to 654.74). Five studies compared interventions using the same delivery modes but different content. Results showed that tailored messages through an interactive voice response system resulted in a higher recruitment rate than assessment of smoking status alone using the same system (RR 8.64, 95% CI 4.41 to 16.93), and that text messages indicating scarcity of places available were more effective than generic text message reminders (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.96). One study compared interventions using the same delivery mode but different intensity and found that allowing for more phone call attempts to reach potential participants can result in better recruitment (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.18). Finally, 10 studies investigated the effect of adding a recruitment mode to existing recruitment strategies. Findings showed that: adding a text message reminder or real quotes from participants to a personal phone call improved recruitment of participants (RR 3.38, 95% CI 1.26 to 9.08 and RR 29.07, 95% CI 1.74 to 485.70 Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Marcano Belisario,J.S., Bruggeling,M.N., Gunn,L.H., Brusamento,S., Car,J. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20121212 PMCID Editors
Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation	2012	Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland. raphael.bize@chuv.ch.	Read more...
Source Type Print(0) Ref Type Journal Article Periodical, Full The Cochrane database of systematic reviews Periodical, Abbrev. Cochrane Database Syst.Rev. Pub Date Free Form 12-Dec Volume 12 Issue Start Page CD004705 Other Pages Notes LR: 20131121; JID: 100909747; 7U1EE4V452 (Carbon Monoxide); epublish Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 23235615 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD004705.pub4 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 23235615 Abstract BACKGROUND: A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS: For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in July 2012 for studies added since the last update in 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, a pooled effect was estimated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials using a variety of biomedical tests. Two pairs of trials had sufficiently similar recruitment, setting and interventions to calculate a pooled effect; there was no evidence that carbon monoxide (CO) measurement in primary care (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) or spirometry in primary care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81) increased cessation rates. We did not pool the other 11 trials due to the presence of substantial clinical heterogeneity. Of the remaining 11 trials, two trials detected statistically significant benefits: one trial in primary care detected a significant benefit of lung age feedback after spirometry (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62) and one trial that used ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries and photographs of plaques detected a benefit (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.04 to 7.41) but enrolled a population of light smokers and was judged to be at unclear risk of bias in two domains. Nine further trials did not detect significant effects. One of these tested CO feedback alone and CO combined with genetic susceptibility as two different interventions; none of the three possible comparisons detected significant effects. One trial used CO measurement, one used ultrasonography of carotid arteries and two tested for genetic markers. The four remaining trials used a combination of CO and spirometry feedback in different settings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment on smoking cessation. Of the fifteen included studies, only two detected a significant effect of the intervention. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial but the evidence is not optimal. A trial of carotid plaque screening using ultrasound also detected a significant effect, but a second larger study of a similar feedback mechanism did not detect evidence of an effect. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in terms of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analyses; neither of these found evidence of an effect. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment. Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Bize,R., Burnand,B., Mueller,Y., Rege-Walther,M., Camain,J.Y., Cornuz,J. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20121212 PMCID Editors
Reduction versus abrupt cessation in smokers who want to quit	2012	Primary Care Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. n.l.lindson@bham.ac.uk	Read more...
Source Type Print(0) Ref Type Journal Article Periodical, Full The Cochrane database of systematic reviews Periodical, Abbrev. Cochrane Database Syst.Rev. Pub Date Free Form 14-Nov Volume 11 Issue Start Page CD008033 Other Pages Notes LR: 20130703; JID: 100909747; CIN: JAMA. 2013 Jul 3;310(1):91-2. PMID: 23821093; epublish Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 23152252 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD008033.pub3 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 23152252 Abstract BACKGROUND: The standard way to stop smoking is to quit abruptly on a designated quit day. A number of smokers have tried unsuccessfully to quit this way. Reducing smoking before quitting could be an alternative approach to cessation. Before this method is adopted it is important to determine whether it is at least as successful as abrupt quitting. OBJECTIVES: 1. To compare the success of reducing smoking to quit and abrupt quitting interventions. 2. To compare adverse events between arms in studies that used pharmacotherapy to aid reduction. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group specialised register using topic specific terms. The register contains reports of trials of tobacco addiction interventions identified from searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycInfo. We also searched reference lists of relevant papers and contacted authors of ongoing trials. Date of most recent search: July 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited adults who wanted to quit smoking. Studies included at least one condition which instructed participants to reduce their smoking and then quit and one condition which instructed participants to quit abruptly. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up. We pooled the included trials using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. Trials were split for two sub-group analyses: pharmacotherapy vs no pharmacotherapy, self help therapy vs behavioural support. Adverse events were summarised as a narrative. It was not possible to compare them quantitatively as there was variation in the nature and depth of reporting across studies. MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies were relevant for inclusion, with a total of 3760 participants included in the meta-analysis. Three of these studies used pharmacotherapy as part of the interventions. Five studies included behavioural support in the intervention, four included self-help therapy, and the remaining study had arms which included behavioural support and arms which included self-help therapy. Neither reduction or abrupt quitting had superior abstinence rates when all the studies were combined in the main analysis (RR= 0.94, 95% CI= 0.79 to 1.13), whether pharmacotherapy was used (RR= 0.87, 95% CI= 0.65 to 1.22), or not (RR= 0.97, 95% CI= 0.78 to 1.21), whether studies included behavioural support (RR= 0.87, 95% CI= 0.64 to 1.17) or self-help therapy (RR= 0.98, 95% CI= 0.78 to1.23). We were unable to draw conclusions about the difference in adverse events between interventions, however recent studies suggest that pre-quit NRT does not increase adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Reducing cigarettes smoked before quit day and quitting abruptly, with no prior reduction, produced comparable quit rates, therefore patients can be given the choice to quit in either of these ways. Reduction interventions can be carried out using self-help materials or aided by behavioural support, and can be carried out with the aid of pre-quit NRT. Further research needs to investigate which method of reduction before quitting is the most effective, and which categories of smokers benefit the most from each method, to inform future policy and intervention development. Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Lindson-Hawley,N., Aveyard,P., Hughes,J.R. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20121114 PMCID Editors
Pharmacological interventions for promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy	2012	Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. tim.coleman@nottingham.ac.uk.	Read more...
Source Type Print(0) Ref Type Journal Article Periodical, Full The Cochrane database of systematic reviews Periodical, Abbrev. Cochrane Database Syst.Rev. Pub Date Free Form 12-Sep Volume (9):CD010078. doi Issue 9 Start Page CD010078 Other Pages Notes LR: 20160602; GR: Department of Health/United Kingdom; JID: 100909747; UIN: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(12):CD010078. PMID: 26690977; epublish Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 22972148 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD010078 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 22972148 Abstract BACKGROUND: Smoking in pregnancy is a substantial public health problem. When used by non-pregnant smokers, pharmacotherapies [nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion and varenicline] are effective treatments for smoking cessation, however, their efficacy and safety in pregnancy remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies, including NRT, varenicline and bupropion (or any other medications) when used to support smoking cessation in pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (5 March 2012), checked references of retrieved studies and contacted authors in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with designs that permit the independent effects of any type of NRT (e.g. patch, gum etc.) or any other pharmacotherapy on smoking cessation to be ascertained were eligible for inclusion. Trials must provide very similar (ideally identical) levels of behavioural support or cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) to participants in active drug and comparator trial arms.The following RCT designs are considered acceptable.Placebo RCTs: any form of NRT or other pharmacotherapy, with or without behavioural support/CBT, or brief advice compared with placebo NRT and additional support of similar intensity.RCTs providing a comparison between i) behavioural support/CBT or brief advice and ii) any form of NRT or other pharmacotherapy added to behavioural support of similar (ideally identical) intensity.Parallel- or cluster-randomised design trials are eligible for inclusion. However, quasi-randomised, cross-over and within-participant designs are not eligible for inclusion due to the potential biases associated with these designs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and extracted data. Two assessors independently extracted data and cross checked individual outcomes of this process to ensure accuracy. The primary efficacy outcome was smoking cessation in later pregnancy (in all but one trial, at or around delivery); safety was assessed by seven birth outcomes that indicated neonatal well being and we also collated data on adherence. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials of NRT enrolling 1745 pregnant smokers were included; we found no trials of varenicline or bupropion. No statistically significant difference was seen for smoking cessation in later pregnancy after using NRT as compared to control (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.91, six studies, 1745 women). Subgroup analysis comparing placebo-RCTs with those which did not use placebos found that efficacy estimates for cessation varied with trial design (placebo RCTs, RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.56, four studies, 1524 women; non-placebo RCTs, RR 7.81, 95% CI 1.51 to 40.35, two studies, 221 women; P value for random-effects subgroup interaction test = 0.03). There were no statistically significant differences in rates of miscarriage, stillbirth, premature birth, birthweight, low birthweight, admissions to neonatal intensive care or neonatal death between NRT or control groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Nicotine replacement therapy is the only pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation that has been tested in RCTs conducted in pregnancy. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not NRT is effective or safe when used to promote smoking cessation in pregnancy or to determine whether or not using NRT has positive or negative impacts on birth outcomes. Further research evidence of efficacy and safety is needed, ideally from placebo-controlled RCTs that investigate higher doses of NRT than were tested in the included studies. Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Coleman,T., Chamberlain,C., Davey,M.A., Cooper,S.E., Leonardi-Bee,J. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20120912 PMCID Editors
Enhancing partner support to improve smoking cessation	2012	Department of FamilyMedicine,Medical College of Dankook University, Cheonan, Korea, South. ewpark@kornet.net.	Read more...
Source Type Print(0) Ref Type Journal Article Periodical, Full The Cochrane database of systematic reviews Periodical, Abbrev. Cochrane Database Syst.Rev. Pub Date Free Form 11-Jul Volume (7):CD002928. doi Issue 7 Start Page CD002928 Other Pages Notes LR: 20160602; JID: 100909747; epublish Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 22786483 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD002928.pub3 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 22786483 Abstract BACKGROUND: While many cessation programmes are available to assist smokers in quitting, research suggests that partner involvement may encourage long-term abstinence. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this review was to determine if an intervention to enhance partner support helps smoking cessation when added as an adjunct to a smoking cessation programme, and to estimate the size of any effect. SEARCH METHODS: For the most recent update, the search was limited to the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register. This was searched in December 2011. The Specialized Register includes reports of controlled trials of smoking cessation identified from electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to Issue 4, 2011, MEDLINE to update 20110826, EMBASE to 2011 week 33, PsycINFO to 20110822 and Web of Science. The search terms used were smoking (prevention, control, therapy), smoking cessation, and support (family, marriage, spouse, partner, sexual partner, buddy, friend, co-habitees and co-worker). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions that compared an intervention that included a partner support component with an otherwise identical intervention and reported follow-up of six months or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently identified the included studies and extracted data using a structured form. A third author was consulted to aid in the resolution of discrepancies. Abstinence, biochemically validated if possible, was the primary outcome measure and was extracted at two post-treatment intervals: six to nine months and 12 months or greater. Partner Interaction Questionnaire and Support Provided Measure scores were also analysed to assess partner support. A fixed-effect model was used to pool relative risks from each study and estimate a summary effect. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 57 articles were identified for this review. Twelve articles (13 studies, > 2000 participants) met the inclusion criteria. The definition of partner varied between studies. All studies gave self-reported smoking cessation rates, but there was limited biochemical validation of abstinence. The pooled risk ratio for self-reported abstinence was 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.15) at six to nine months and 1.04 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.24) at 12 months or more post-treatment. Of the eight studies that measured partner support at follow-up, only two studies reported a significant increase in partner support in the intervention groups. One study reported a significant increase in partner support in the intervention group, but smokers' reports of partner support received did not differ significantly in this study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this review of randomized controlled trials of interventions designed to enhance partner support for smokers in cessation programmes, we failed to detect an increase in quit rates. Limited data from several of the trials suggest that these interventions also did not increase partner support. No conclusions can be made about the impact of partner support on smoking cessation. Additional studies with larger samples are needed to adequately explore the effects of partner support interventions for smoking cessation. Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Park,E.W., Tudiver,F.G., Campbell,T. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20120711 PMCID Editors
Microbiological and physicochemical characterisation of caxiri, an alcoholic beverage produced by the indigenous Juruna people of Brazil	2012	Department of Biology, Federal University of Lavras (UFLA), CP 3037 - Campus Universitario, CEP 37.200-000 Lavras, MG, Brazil.	Read more...
Source Type Print(0) Ref Type Journal Article Periodical, Full International journal of food microbiology Periodical, Abbrev. Int.J.Food Microbiol. Pub Date Free Form 15-May Volume 156 Issue 2 Start Page 112 Other Pages 121 Notes LR: 20131121; CI: Copyright (c) 2012; JID: 8412849; 0 (DNA, Ribosomal); 33X04XA5AT (Lactic Acid); 3K9958V90M (Ethanol); 2011/11/25 [received]; 2012/02/11 [revised]; 2012/03/11 [accepted]; 2012/03/20 [aheadofprint]; ppublish Place of Publication Netherlands ISSN/ISBN 1879-3460; 0168-1605 Accession Number PMID: 22497838 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; IM DOI 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2012.03.010 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 22497838 Abstract Caxiri is a traditional fermented alcoholic beverage produced from cassava and sweet potatoes by the indigenous Juruna or Yudja people in Brazil. Our results showed that caxiri fermentation is invariably associated with the following: (i) an increase in the total microbial population, with yeast being the largest group detected; (ii) a decrease in reducing sugars, malic, tartaric, succinic, oxalic and propionic acid; and (iii) a final product characterised by a high content of ethanol and a high concentration of lactic acid. The microbial community dynamics were investigated by culture-based and culture-independent approaches. Fermentation was assisted by a complex microbial community that changed in structure and composition during the fermentative process. The bacterial population ranged from 3.05 to 5.33 log/mL, and the yeast population varied from 3.27 log CFU/mL to 7.34 log CFU/mL, showing that yeasts dominated the fermentation process after 48 h. A total of 343 colonies of bacteria and 205 colonies of yeasts were isolated and initially grouped by Amplified Ribosomal DNA Restriction Analysis (ARDRA) and by biochemical features. Phylogenetic analysis of the 16S rRNA gene sequences of representative isolates showed that the bacteria were mainly represented by endospore-forming low-G+C content Gram-positive bacilli (Bacillus spp.; 61.5% of the isolates), with Bacillus pumilus, Bacillus spp. (Bacillus cereus group), and Bacillus subtilis being the main species identified. The species Sphingomonas sp. and Pediococcus acidilactici were also found. The dominant yeast identified was Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Rhodotorula mucilaginosa, Pichia membranifaciens, Pichia guilliermondii and Cryptococcus luteolus were also found. According to the Polymerase Chain Reaction and Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis (PCR-DGGE) analysis, the microbial communities present during fermentation were probably from the raw materials, ambient or present on the utensils used during beverage preparation. The results indicated the necessity to combine both culture-dependent and culture-independent methods for a better description of the microbial communities in indigenous starch fermentations. Also, pH values decreased from 4.76 to 3.15 during fermentation. The ethanol concentration was 83.9 g/L and lactic acid reached 27.89 g/L by the end of the fermentation process. Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Elsevier B.V Data Source Authors Santos,C.C., Almeida,E.G., Melo,G.V., Schwan,R.F. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20120320 PMCID Editors
Healthcare financing systems for increasing the use of tobacco dependence treatment	2012	Department of General Practice, School of Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University Medical Center,Maastricht, Netherlands.	Read more...
Source Type Print(0) Ref Type Journal Article Periodical, Full The Cochrane database of systematic reviews Periodical, Abbrev. Cochrane Database Syst.Rev. Pub Date Free Form 13-Jun Volume (6):CD004305. doi Issue 6 Start Page CD004305 Other Pages Notes LR: 20160602; JID: 100909747; epublish Place of Publication England ISSN/ISBN 1469-493X; 1361-6137 Accession Number PMID: 22696341 Language eng SubFile Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review; IM DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD004305.pub4 [doi] Output Language Unknown(0) PMID 22696341 Abstract BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that provision of financial assistance for smokers trying to quit, or reimbursement of their care providers, could lead to an increased rate of successful quit attempts. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to assess the impact of reducing the costs of providing or using smoking cessation treatment through healthcare financing interventions on abstinence from smoking. The secondary objectives were to examine the effects of different levels of financial support on the use and/or prescription of smoking cessation treatment and on the number of smokers making a quit attempt. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in April 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials and interrupted time series studies involving financial benefit interventions to smokers or their healthcare providers or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for individual studies on an intention-to-treat basis and meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. We included economic evaluations when a study presented the costs and effects of two or more alternatives. MAIN RESULTS: We found eleven trials involving financial interventions directed at smokers and healthcare providers.Full financial interventions directed at smokers had a statistically significant favourable effect on abstinence at six months or greater when compared to no intervention (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 5.12, I(2) = 59%, 4 studies). There was also a significant effect of full financial interventions when compared to no interventions on the number of participants making a quit attempt (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32, I(2) = 15%) and use of smoking cessation treatment (NRT: RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.15, I(2) = 43%; bupropion: RR 3.22, 95% CI 1.41 to 7.34, I(2) = 71%; behavioural therapy: RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.65). There was no evidence of an effect on smoking cessation when we pooled two trials of financial incentives directed at healthcare providers (RR 1.16, CI 0.98 to 1.37, I(2) = 0%). Comparisons of full coverage with partial coverage, partial coverage with no coverage, and partial coverage with another partial coverage intervention did not detect significant effects. Comparison of full coverage with partial or no coverage resulted in costs per additional quitter ranging from $119 to $6450. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Full financial interventions directed at smokers when compared to no financial interventions increase the proportion of smokers who attempt to quit, use smoking cessation treatments, and succeed in quitting. The absolute differences are small but the costs per additional quitter are low to moderate. We did not detect an effect on smoking cessation from financial incentives directed at healthcare providers. The methodological qualities of the included studies need to be taken into consideration when interpreting the results. Descriptors Links Book Title Database Publisher Data Source Authors Reda,A.A., Kotz,D., Evers,S.M., van Schayck,C.P. Original/Translated Title URL Date of Electronic 20120613 PMCID Editors

E-mail