Citalopram was found to be more efficacious than placebo in the short-term hospital treatment of psychotic symptoms and behavioral disturbances in nondepressed, demented patients.

Objective To determine the efficacy of 16 hour nicotine patches among pregnant smokers, with the dose individually adjusted according to saliva cotinine levels (potential range 10-30 mg/day).Design Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, parallel group, multicentre trial (Study of Nicotine Patch in Pregnancy, SNIPP) between October 2007 and January 2013. Setting 23 maternity wards in France.Participants 476 pregnant smokers aged more than 18 years and between 12 and 20 weeks' gestation, who smoked at least five cigarettes a day. After exclusions, 402 women were randomised: 203 to nicotine patches and 199 to placebo patches. Data were available on 192 live births in each group.Interventions Nicotine and identical placebo patches were administered from quit day up to the time of delivery. Doses were adjusted to saliva cotinine levels when smoking to yield a substitution rate of 100%. Participants were assessed monthly and received behavioural smoking cessation support. Main outcome measuresThe primary outcomes were complete abstinence (self report confirmed by carbon monoxide level in expired air ≤8 ppm) from quit date to delivery, and birth weight. The secondary outcomes were point prevalence of abstinence, time to lapse (a few puffs) or relapse, and delivery and birth characteristics. All data were analysed on an intention to treat basis.Results Complete abstinence was achieved by 5.5% (n=11) of women in the nicotine patch group and 5.1% (n=10) in the placebo patch group (odds ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 2.60). The median time to the first cigarette smoked after target quit day was 15 days in both groups (interquartile range 13-18 in the nicotine patch group, 13-20 in the placebo patch group). The point prevalence abstinence ranged from 8% to 12.5% in the nicotine patch group and 8% to 9.5% in the placebo patch group without statistically significant differences. The nicotine substitution rate did not differ from 100%, and the self reported median compliance rate was 85% (interquartile range 56-99%) in the nicotine patch group and 83% (56-95%) in the placebo patch group, assessed at 1016 visits. The mean birth weight was 3065 g (SE 44 g) in the nicotine patch group and 3015 g (SE 44 g) in the placebo patch group (P=0.41). Diastolic blood pressure was significantly higher in the nicotine patch group than in the placebo patch group. The frequency of serious adverse events was similar between the groups, although more non-serious adverse reactions, mainly of skin, occurred in the nicotine patch group. ConclusionThe nicotine patch did not increase either smoking cessation rates or birth weights despite adjustment of nicotine dose to match levels attained when smoking, and higher than usual doses.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00507975.

Only a few markers have been instrumental in the diagnosis of cancer. In contrast, tumor markers play a critical role in the monitoring of patients. The patient’s clinical status and response to treatment can be evaluated rapidly using the tumor marker half-life (t1/2) and the tumor marker doubling time (DT). This report reviews the interest of determining these kinetic parameters for prostate-specific antigen, human chorionic gonadotropin, α-fetoprotein, carcinoembryonic antigen, cancer antigen (CA) 125, and CA 15-3. A rise in tumor markers (DT) is a yardstick with which benign diseases can be distinguished from metastatic disease, and the DT can be used to assess the efficacy of treatments. A decline in the tumor marker concentration (t1/2) is a predictor of possible residual disease if the timing of blood sampling is soon after therapy. The discrepancies in results obtained by different groups may be attributable to the multiplicity of immunoassays, the intrinsic characteristics of each marker (e.g., antigen specificity, molecular heterogeneity, and associated forms), individual factors (e.g., nonspecific increases and renal and hepatic diseases) and methods used to calculate kinetics (e.g., exponential models and timing of blood sampling). This kinetic approach could be of interest to optimize patient management.