scholarly journals Systematic review of Swedish snus for smoking cessation based on primary subject data from randomised clinical trials

2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. E. Rutqvist ◽  
J. S. Fry ◽  
P. N. Lee

Introduction: The ability of Swedish snus to serve as a smoking cessation aid has been documented in several observational, population surveys from Scandinavia, but randomised clinical trials provide more reliable information on efficacy. Aims: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials of Swedish snus as an aid to smoking cessation. Methods: Literature searches were conducted in MedLine, Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify relevant clinical trials. The primary outcome was defined as biologically confirmed smoking cessation during around six months. Meta-analyses based on primary subject data tested for effect of allocated treatment as well as selected baseline characteristics. Results: There were two relevant clinical trials, one conducted at five sites in the US (n = 250), the other at two sites in Serbia (n = 319). Based on the primary outcome, success was higher in the treated group in both Serbia (5.7% vs 1.9%) and the US (4.0% vs 1.6%). Meta-analysis estimated the relative success rate at 2.83 (95% CI 1.03–7.75), which was of borderline significance (exact p = 0.06, chi-squared p = 0.03). For smoking cessation in the last 4 weeks of each study, rates were 12.4% for snus and 6.6% for placebo (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.09-3.18). Efficacy of snus was not clearly related to any baseline characteristic. Conclusions: Swedish snus increased quit rates similarly in US and Serbia. These results confirm and extend previous information based on observational population surveys.

2021 ◽  
Vol 164 ◽  
pp. 105404
Author(s):  
Hao Niu ◽  
Judith Sanabria-Cabrera ◽  
Ismael Alvarez-Alvarez ◽  
Mercedes Robles-Diaz ◽  
Simona Stankevičiūtė ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Oswald D. Kothgassner ◽  
Andreas Goreis ◽  
Kealagh Robinson ◽  
Mercedes M. Huscsava ◽  
Christian Schmahl ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Given the widespread nature and clinical consequences of self-harm and suicidal ideation among adolescents, establishing the efficacy of developmentally appropriate treatments that reduce both self-harm and suicidal ideation in the context of broader adolescent psychopathology is critical. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the Dialectical Behaviour Therapy for Adolescents (DBT-A) literature on treating self-injury in adolescents (12–19 years). We searched for eligible trials and treatment evaluations published prior to July 2020 in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases for clinical trials. Twenty-one studies were identified [five randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), three controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and 13 pre-post evaluations]. We extracted data for predefined primary (self-harm, suicidal ideation) and secondary outcomes (borderline personality symptoms; BPD) and calculated treatment effects for RCTs/CCTs and pre-post evaluations. This meta-analysis was pre-registered with OSF: osf.io/v83e7. Results Overall, the studies comprised 1673 adolescents. Compared to control groups, DBT-A showed small to moderate effects for reducing self-harm (g = −0.44; 95% CI −0.81 to −0.07) and suicidal ideation (g = −0.31, 95% CI −0.52 to −0.09). Pre-post evaluations suggested large effects for all outcomes (self-harm: g = −0.98, 95% CI −1.15 to −0.81; suicidal ideation: g = −1.16, 95% CI −1.51 to −0.80; BPD symptoms: g = −0.97, 95% CI −1.31 to −0.63). Conclusions DBT-A appears to be a valuable treatment in reducing both adolescent self-harm and suicidal ideation. However, evidence that DBT-A reduces BPD symptoms was only found in pre-post evaluations.


2021 ◽  
Vol 148 ◽  
pp. 76-91
Author(s):  
Elisa Agostinetto ◽  
Daniel Eiger ◽  
Matteo Lambertini ◽  
Marcello Ceppi ◽  
Marco Bruzzone ◽  
...  

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 939
Author(s):  
Jiaxin Chen ◽  
Yuangui Cai ◽  
Yicong Chen ◽  
Anthony P. Williams ◽  
Yifang Gao ◽  
...  

Background: Nervous and muscular adverse events (NMAEs) have garnered considerable attention after the vaccination against coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, the incidences of NMAEs remain unclear. We aimed to calculate the pooled event rate of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials on the incidences of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination was conducted. The PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched from inception to 2 June 2021. Two independent reviewers selected the study and extracted the data. Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-square test. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and generated with random or fixed effects models. The protocol of the present study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021240450). Results: In 15 phase 1/2 trials, NMAEs occurred in 29.2% vs. 21.6% (p < 0.001) vaccinated participants and controls. Headache and myalgia accounted for 98.2% and 97.7%, and their incidences were 16.4% vs. 13.9% (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.002) and 16.0% vs. 7.9% (OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) in the vaccine and control groups, respectively. Headache and myalgia were more frequent in the newly licensed vaccines (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.02 and OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) and younger adults (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.12–1.75, p = 0.003 and OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.20–1.96, p < 0.001). In four open-label trials, the incidences of headache, myalgia, and unsolicited NMAEs were 38.7%, 27.4%, and 1.5%. Following vaccination in phase 3 trials, headache and myalgia were still common with a rate of 29.5% and 19.2%, although the unsolicited NMAEs with incidence rates of ≤ 0.7% were not different from the control group in each study. Conclusions: Following the vaccination, NMAEs are common of which headache and myalgia comprised a considerable measure, although life-threatening unsolicited events are rare. NMAEs should be continuously monitored during the ongoing global COVID-19 vaccination program.


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e039775 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanual Getnet Mersha ◽  
Parivash Eftekhari ◽  
Michelle Bovill ◽  
Daniel Nigusse Tollosa ◽  
Gillian Sandra Gould

IntroductionNicotine replacement therapy (NRT) has proven effective for smoking cessation in clinical trials, however it was found less effective in population-based studies, potentially due to inconsistent or incorrect use of NRT. The aim of this paper is to describe a systematic review protocol to evaluate level of adherence to NRT; the discrepancy of adherence to NRT in clinical and population-based studies and degree of association between level of adherence and success of smoking cessation.Methods and analysisLiterature search will use five databases (Medline, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO). Studies will be appraised for methodological quality using National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool. To reduce heterogeneity, we will analyse clinical trials and population-based studies separately; pooled analyses will be done among studies that used similar measurements. Heterogeneity of studies will be assessed by Higgins’ I2 statistical test. When studies are adequately homogeneous, results will be pooled using random-effects model with proportion and ORs with 95% CIs and p values for each outcome. We will explain sources of heterogeneity by subgroup analysis or sensitivity analysis. Funnel plots and Egger’s regression asymmetry test with p<0.05 will be used as a cut-off point to affirm presence of statistically significant publication bias. Statistical analyses will be carried out using Stata V.16 software. Only studies reporting a valid strategy to control for reverse causality will be included.DiscussionThis review will provide evidence to support the importance of adherence on rate of smoking cessation and level of adherence to NRT. The findings will be used to inform smoking cessation interventions, researchers and policymakers.Ethics and disseminationAs a systematic literature review, this protocol does not require ethics approval. Research outcomes will be presented at relevant conferences and findings will be published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020176749.


ISRN Oncology ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Smriti Nayan ◽  
Michael K. Gupta ◽  
Doron D. Sommer

Background. Tobacco smoking cessation interventions in the oncology population are an important part of comprehensive treatment plan. Objectives. To evaluate through a systematic review smoking cessation interventions and cessation rates in cancer patients. Search Strategy. The literature was searched using Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (inception to November 2010) by three independent review authors. Selection Criteria. Studies were included if tobacco smoking cessation interventions were evaluated and patients were randomized to usual care or an intervention. The primary outcome measure was cessation rates. Data Collection and Analysis. Two authors extracted data independently for each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Main Results. The systematic review found eight RCTs investigating smoking cessation interventions in the oncology patient population. Pooled relative risks were calculated from two groups of RCTs of smoking cessation interventions based on followup duration. In both groups, the pooled relative risk did not suggest a statistically significant improvement in tobacco cessation compared to usual care. Conclusions. Our review demonstrates that recent interventions in the last decade which are a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological approaches yield a statistically significant improvement in smoking cessation rates compared to usual care.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document