PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

L Stead

Publications and source records attributed to L Stead.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2004

Antidepressants for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: There are at least two theoretical reasons to believe antidepressants might help in smoking cessation. Nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms or precipitate a major depressive episode and antidepressants may relieve these. Nicotine may have antidepressant effects that maintain smoking, and antidepressants may substitute for this effect. Alternatively, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways underlying nicotine addiction, independent of their antidepressant effects. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to assess the effect of antidepressant medications in aiding long-term smoking cessation. The medications include bupropion; doxepin; fluoxetine; imipramine; moclobemide; nortriptyline; paroxetine; sertraline, tryptophan and venlafaxine. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register which includes trials indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, SciSearch and PsycINFO, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in March 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomized trials comparing antidepressant medications to placebo or an alternative therapy for smoking cessation. We also included trials comparing different doses, using pharmacotherapy to prevent relapse or re-initiate smoking cessation and using pharmacotherapy to help smokers reduce cigarette consumption. We excluded trials with less than six months follow up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate on the type of study population, the nature of the pharmacotherapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow up in patients smoking at baseline, expressed as an odds ratio (OR). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed effect model. MAIN RESULTS: There was one trial of the monoamine oxidase inhibitor moclobemide, and one of the atypical antidepressant venlafaxine. Neither of these detected a significant long-term benefit. There were five trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; three of fluoxetine, one of sertraline and one of paroxetine. None of these detected significant effects, and there was no evidence of a significant benefit when results were pooled. There were 24 trials of bupropion and six trials of nortriptyline. When used as the sole pharmacotherapy, bupropion (19 trials, OR 2.06, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.77 to 2.40) and nortriptyline (four trials, OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.70 to 4.59) both doubled the odds of cessation. In one trial the combination of bupropion and nicotine patch produced slightly higher quit rates than patch alone, but this was not replicated in a second study. Two trials of extended therapy with bupropion to prevent relapse after initial cessation did not show a significant long-term benefit. There is a risk of about 1 in 1000 of seizures associated with bupropion use. Concerns that bupropion may increase suicide risk are currently unproven. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: The antidepressants bupropion and nortriptyline aid long term smoking cessation but selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (e.g. fluoxetine) do not. The fact that only some forms of antidepressants aid cessation and that they do so regardless of depressive symptoms strongly suggests that their mode of action is independent of their antidepressant effect.

Anti-Anxiety Agents↗
PubMed2004

Physician advice for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals frequently advise patients to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this review were to assess the effectiveness of advice from physicians in promoting smoking cessation; to compare minimal interventions by physicians with more intensive interventions; to assess the effectiveness of various aids to advice in promoting smoking cessation and to determine the effect of anti-smoking advice on disease-specific and all-cause mortality. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Date of the most recent searches: March 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials of smoking cessation advice from a medical practitioner in which abstinence was assessed at least six months after advice was first provided. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate on the setting in which advice was given, type of advice given (minimal or intensive), and whether aids to advice were used, the outcome measures, method of randomization and completeness of follow up. The main outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow up and mortality. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. Subjects lost to follow up were counted as smokers. Where possible, meta-analysis was performed using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect model. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 39 trials, conducted between 1972 and 2003, including over 31,000 smokers. In some trials, subjects were at risk of specified diseases (chest disease, diabetes, ischaemic heart disease), but most were from unselected populations. The most common setting for delivery of advice was primary care. Other settings included hospital wards and outpatient clinics, and industrial clinics. Pooled data from 17 trials of brief advice versus no advice (or usual care) revealed a small but significant increase in the odds of quitting (odds ratio 1.74, 95% confidence interval 1.48 to 2.05). This equates to an absolute difference in the cessation rate of about 2.5%. There was insufficient evidence, from indirect comparisons, to establish a significant difference in the effectiveness of physician advice according to the intensity of the intervention, the amount of follow up provided, and whether or not various aids were used at the time of the consultation in addition to providing advice. Direct comparison of intensive versus minimal advice showed a small advantage of intensive advice (odds ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 1.24 to 1.67). Direct comparison also suggested a small benefit of follow-up visits. Only one study determined the effect of smoking advice on mortality. It found no statistically significant differences in death rates at 20 years follow up. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Simple advice has a small effect on cessation rates. Additional manoeuvres appear to have only a small effect, though more intensive interventions are marginally more effective than minimal interventions.

Humans↗
PubMed2004

Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This reduces withdrawal symptoms associated with smoking cessation thus helping resist the urge to smoke cigarettes. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this review were:to determine the effectiveness of the different forms of NRT (chewing gum, transdermal patches, nasal spray, inhalers and tablets) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes, or a sustained reduction in amount smoked; to determine whether the effect is influenced by the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated, the dosage and form of the NRT used, or the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; to determine whether combinations of NRT are more effective than one type alone; to determine its effectiveness compared to other pharmacotherapies. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register in March 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or to no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow up of less than six months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate on the type of participants, the dose, duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. For each study we calculated summary odds ratios. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect model. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 123 trials; 103 contributing to the primary comparison between NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The odds ratio (OR) for abstinence with NRT compared to control was 1.77 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.66 to 1.88). The ORs for the different forms of NRT were 1.66 (95% CI: 1.52 to 1.81) for gum, 1.81 (95% CI: 1.63 to 2.02) for patches, 2.35 (95% CI: 1.63 to 3.38) for nasal spray, 2.14 (95% CI: 1.44 to 3.18) for inhaled nicotine and 2.05 (95% CI: 1.62 to 2.59) for nicotine sublingual tablet/lozenge. These odds were largely independent of the duration of therapy, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. In highly dependent smokers there was a significant benefit of 4 mg gum compared with 2 mg gum (OR 2.20, 95% CI: 1.85 to 3.25). There was weak evidence that combinations of forms of NRT are more effective. Higher doses of nicotine patch may produce small increases in quit rates. Only one study directly compared NRT to another pharmacotherapy. In this study quit rates with bupropion were higher than with nicotine patch or placebo. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: All of the commercially available forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhaler and sublingual tablets/lozenges) are effective as part of a strategy to promote smoking cessation. They increase the odds of quitting approximately 1.5 to 2 fold regardless of setting. The effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the smoker. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT.

Administration, Cutaneous↗
PubMed2001

Helping parents to stop smoking: which interventions are effective?

Parental smoking increases children's risk of respiratory illness. Encouraging parents not to smoke in the home helps, but stopping smoking altogether is more effective in reducing children's exposure. The prevalence of smoking increases with higher levels of social disadvantage and is therefore a major contributor to widening inequalities in health. Randomised trials have shown that adults can be helped to stop with simple advice from health professionals, behavioural support, nicotine replacement and antidepressants.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Effect of changes in graduate medical education funding on emergency medicine residency programs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether changes in graduate medical education (GME) funding have had an impact on emergency medicine (EM) residency training programs. METHODS: A 34-question survey was mailed to the program directors (PDs) of all 115 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited EM residency programs in the United States in the fall of 1998, requesting information concerning the impact of changes in GME funding on various aspects of the EM training. The results were then compared with a similar unpublished survey conducted in the fall of 1996. RESULTS: One hundred one completed surveys were returned (88% response rate). Seventy-one (70%) of the responding EM residency programs were PGY-I through PGY-III, compared with 55 (61%) of the responding programs in 1996. The number of PGY-II through PGY-IV programs decreased from 25 (28%) of responding programs in 1996 to 17 (16%). The number of PGY-I through PGY-IV programs increased slightly (13 vs 10); the number of EM residency positions remained relatively stable. Fifteen programs projected an increase in their number of training positions in the next two years, while only three predicted a decrease. Of the respondents, 56 programs reported reductions in non-EM residency positions and 35 programs reported elimination of fellowship positions at their institutions. Only four of these were EM fellowships. Forty-six respondents reported a reduction in the number of non-EM residents rotating through their EDs, and of these, 11 programs reported this had a moderate to significant effect on their ability to adequately staff the ED with resident physicians. Sixteen programs limited resident recruitment to only those eligible for the full three years of GME funding. Eighty-seven EM programs reported no change in faculty size due to funding issues. Sixty-two programs reported no change in the total number of hours of faculty coverage in the ED, while 34 programs reported an increase. Three EM programs reported recommendations being made to close their residency programs in the near future. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in GME funding have not caused a decrease in the number of existing EM residency and fellowship training positions, but may have had an impact in other areas, including: an increase in the number of EM programs structured in a PGY-I through PGY-III format (with a corresponding decrease in the number of PGY-II through PGY-IV programs); a decrease in the number of non-EM residents rotating through the ED; restriction of resident applicants who are ineligible for full GME funding from consideration by some EM training programs; and an increase in the total number of faculty clinical hours without an increase in faculty size.

Education, Medical, Graduate↗
PubMed2001

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: An admission to hospital provides an opportunity to help people stop smoking. Individuals may be more open to help at a time of perceived vulnerability, and may find it easier to quit in an environment where smoking is restricted or prohibited. Providing smoking cessation services during hospitalisation may help more people to attempt and sustain an attempt to quit. The purpose of this paper is to systematically review the effectiveness of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register, CINAHL, and the Smoking and Health database for studies of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of behavioural, pharmacological, or multi-component interventions to help patients stop smoking conducted with hospitalised patients who were current smokers or recent quitters were included. Studies of patients admitted for psychiatric disorders or substance abuse, those that did not report abstinence rates, and those with follow up of less than 6 months were excluded. Two of the authors extracted data independently for each paper, with assistance from others. RESULTS: Intensive intervention (inpatient contact plus follow up for at least 1 month) was associated with a significantly higher cessation rate compared with controls (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.82, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.22). Any contact during hospitalisation followed by minimal follow up failed to detect a statistically significant effect on cessation rate, but did not rule out a 30% increase in smoking cessation (Peto OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.31). There was insufficient evidence to judge the effect of interventions delivered only during the hospital stay. Although the interventions increased quit rates irrespective of whether nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) was used, the results for NRT were compatible with other data indicating that it increases quit rates. There was no strong evidence that clinical diagnosis affected the likelihood of quitting. CONCLUSIONS: High intensity behavioural interventions that include at least 1 month of follow up contact are effective in promoting smoking cessation in hospitalised patients.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This reduces withdrawal symptoms associated with smoking cessation to help resist the urge to smoke cigarettes. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this review were to determine the effectiveness of the different forms of nicotine replacement therapy (chewing gum, transdermal patches, nasal spray, inhalers and tablets) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes; to determine whether the effect is influenced by the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated, the dosage and form of the NRT used, or the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; and to determine whether combinations of NRT are more effective than one type alone. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate on the type of subjects, the dose and duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomisation, and completeness of follow-up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed effects model. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 49 trials of nicotine gum, 32 of transdermal nicotine patch, four of intranasal nicotine spray, four of inhaled nicotine and two of nicotine sublingual tablet. Three trials compared combinations of two forms of nicotine therapy with one form alone. The odds ratio for abstinence with NRT compared to control was 1.72 (95% confidence interval 1.60 to 1.84), The odds ratios for the different forms of NRT were 1.63 for gum, 1.77 for patches, 2.27 for nasal spray, 2.08 for inhaled nicotine and 1.73 for nicotine sublingual tablet. These odds were largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. Eight weeks of patch therapy was as effective as longer courses and there was no evidence that tapered therapy was better than abrupt withdrawal. Wearing the patch only during waking hours (16 hours/day) was as effective as wearing it for 24 hours/day. The odds ratio for abstinence in the trials which directly compared 4 mg versus 2 mg gum in highly dependent smokers found a significant benefit in favour of 4 mg gum (odds ratio 2.67, 95% confidence interval 1.69 to 4.22). There is no strong evidence that combinations of forms of NRT are more effective. Only one study directly compared NRT against another pharmacotherapy (bupropion) and found that the latter was significantly more effective either alone or used in combination with nicotine patch than if nicotine patch was used alone. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: All of the commercially available forms of NRT (nicotine gum, transdermal patch, and in some countries, the nicotine nasal spray, nicotine inhaler and nicotine sublingual tablets) are effective as part of a strategy to promote smoking cessation. They increase quit rates approximately 1.5 to 2 fold regardless of setting. The effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the smoker. Since all the trials of NRT reported so far have included at least some form of brief advice to the smoker, this represents the minimum which should be offered in order to ensure its effectiveness. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT. There is promising evidence that bupropion may be more effective than NRT (either alone or in combination). (ABSTRACT

Administration, Cutaneous↗
PubMed2000

Community interventions for preventing smoking in young people.

BACKGROUND: Decisions to smoke are made within a broad social context. Community interventions use co-ordinated, widespread, multi-component programmes to try and influence behaviour. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of community interventions in preventing the uptake of smoking in young people. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Tobacco Addiction group specialised register, Medline and 21 other health, psychology and public policy electronic databases were searched, the bibliographies of identified studies were checked and contact was made with content area specialists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and non randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of multi-component community interventions compared to no intervention or to single component or school-based programmes only. Reported outcomes had to include smoking behaviour in young people under the age of 25 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information relating to the characteristics and the content of community interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the study was extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Studies were combined using qualitative narrative synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in the review, 44 studies did not meet all of the inclusion criteria. All studies used a controlled trial design, with four using random allocation of schools or communities. Of nine studies which compared community interventions to no intervention controls, two, which were part of cardiovascular disease prevention programmes, reported lower smoking prevalence. Of three studies comparing community interventions to school-based programmes only, one found differences in reported smoking prevalence. One study reported a lower rate of increase in prevalence in a community receiving a multi-component intervention compared to a community exposed to a mass media campaign alone. One study reported a significant difference in smoking prevalence between a group receiving a media, school and homework intervention compared to a group receiving the media component only REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is some limited support for the effectiveness of community interventions in helping prevent the uptake of smoking in young people.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Evaluation of a new EMS asthma protocol in New York City: a preliminary report.

BACKGROUND: In July 1996, the New York City (NYC) regional EMS implemented a new protocol whereby EMS personnel in the prehospital setting could administer 125 mg of intravenous methyl prednisolone to asthma patients as one of their medical options following telephone consultation with a medical control physician. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether this protocol had any effect on hospital admission rates or the emergency department (ED) length of stay. METHODS: This retrospective chart review focused on the 219 (of 603 total) patients who arrived to the ED by ambulance over a two-year period whose ED diagnosis was asthma. There were 81 patient encounters in year 1, and 138 in year 2. Eleven of the year 2 group received prehospital steroids. The study took place at an urban 911 receiving, Level 2 ED. RESULTS: Of the group who received prehospital steroids, none resulted in hospital admission. Due to the small sample size in the steroid-receiving group, the differences in these admission rates are not yet significant. No differences were detected in the ED length of stay between the two patient groups (157 vs. 160 minutes in year 2, p = 0.9). CONCLUSION: The differences in admission rates suggested by this study suggest a simple yet potentially powerful tool for improving patient outcome in the treatment of asthma.

Acute Disease↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Removal of sutures.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Humans↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Removal of staples.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Humans↗