Objective To describe weight gain and its variation in smokers who achieve prolonged abstinence for up to 12 months and who quit without treatment or use drugs to assist cessation.Design Meta-analysis. Data sourcesWe searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and trials listed in Cochrane reviews of smoking cessation interventions (nicotine replacement therapy, nicotinic partial agonists, antidepressants, and exercise) for randomised trials of first line treatments (nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, and varenicline) and exercise that reported weight change. We also searched CENTRAL for trials of interventions for weight gain after cessation.Review methods Trials were included if they recorded weight change from baseline to follow-up in abstinent smokers. We used a random effects inverse variance model to calculate the mean and 95% confidence intervals and the mean of the standard deviation for weight change from baseline to one, two, three, six, and 12 months after quitting. We explored subgroup differences using random effects meta-regression.Results 62 studies were included. In untreated quitters, mean weight gain was 1.12 kg (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.47), 2.26 kg (1.98 to 2.54), 2.85 kg (2.42 to 3.28), 4.23 kg (3.69 to 4.77), and 4.67 kg (3.96 to 5.38) at one, two, three, six, and 12 months after quitting, respectively. Using the means and weighted standard deviations, we calculated that at 12 months after cessation, 16%, 37%, 34%, and 13% of untreated quitters lost weight, and gained less than 5 kg, gained 5-10 kg, and gained more than 10 kg, respectively. Estimates of weight gain were similar for people using different pharmacotherapies to support cessation. Estimates were also similar between people especially concerned about weight gain and those not concerned. ConclusionSmoking cessation is associated with a mean increase of 4-5 kg in body weight after 12 months of abstinence, and most weight gain occurs within three months of quitting. Variation in weight change is large, with about 16% of quitters losing weight and 13% gaining more than 10 kg.

BackgroundDespite its success with compliant or supervised patients, disulfiram has been a controversial medication in the treatment of alcoholism. Often, study designs did not recognize a pivotal factor in disulfiram research, the importance of an open-label design. Our objectives are: (1) to analyze the efficacy and safety of disulfiram in RCTs in supporting abstinence and (2) to compare blind versus open-label studies, hypothesizing that blinded studies would show no difference between disulfiram and control groups because the threat would be evenly spread across all groups.Methods and FindingsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register for RCTs on disulfiram use with alcoholics in comparison to any alcoholic control group. The primary outcome was defined by the authors of each trial. Additional analyses included: blind vs. open-label, with or without supervision, cocaine study or not, and type of control. Overall, the 22 included studies showed a higher success rate of disulfiram compared to controls Hedges'g = .58 (95%CI = .35–.82). When comparing blind and open-label RCTs, only open-label trials showed a significant superiority over controls g = .70 (95%CI = .46–.93). RCTs with blind designs showed no efficacy of disulfiram compared to controls. Disulfiram was also more effective than the control condition when compared to naltrexone g = .77, 95%CI = .52–1.02, to acamprosate g = .76, 95%CI = .04–1.48, and to the no disulfiram groups g = .43, 95%CI = .17–.69. Limits include: (1) a population of 89% male subjects and (2) a high but unavoidable heterogeneity of the studies with a substantial I-square in most subgroups of studies.ConclusionsBlinded studies were incapable of distinguishing a difference between treatment groups and thus are incompatible with disulfiram research. Based on results with open-label studies, disulfiram is a safe and efficacious treatment compared to other abstinence supportive pharmacological treatments or to no disulfiram in supervised studies for problems of alcohol abuse or dependence.

In this large cohort of IBD patients, risk factors for anxiety and depression were severe and active disease and socioeconomic deprivation. Psychological interventions would be useful when these factors are identified.

No abstract

Background: To investigate the improvement in quality of life (QoL) of alcohol-dependent patients during a 3-week inpatient withdrawal programme, and to identify the sociodemographic, clinical and alcohol-related variables associated with baseline QoL on admission and with improvement of QoL during residential treatment.Methods: This prospective, observational study included 414 alcohol-dependent patients, hospitalised for a period of 3 weeks. QoL was measured on admission and at discharge using the French version of the Medical Outcome Study SF-36. The mean scores for each dimension and for the Physical and Mental Component Summary scores were calculated.Results: The mean scores per dimension and the mean Physical and Mental Component Summary scores were significantly lower on admission than at discharge; the lowest scores being observed for social functioning and role limitations due to emotional problems. At discharge, the mean scores per dimension were similar to those observed in the French general population. Female gender, age >45 years, living alone, working as a labourer or employee, somatic comorbidity, and the existence of at least five criteria for alcohol dependence according to the DSM-IV classification were associated with a low Physical Component Summary score on admission; psychiatric comorbidity, the presence of at least five DSM-IV dependence criteria, smoking and suicidality were associated with a low Mental Component Summary score on admission. The increase in Physical and Mental Component Summary scores during hospitalisation was more marked when the initial scores were low. Apart from the initial score, the greatest improvement in Physical Component Summary score was seen in patients with a high alcohol intake and in those without a somatic comorbidity; the increase in Mental Component Summary score was greatest in patients without psychotic symptoms and in those who abused or were dependent on illegal drugs.Conclusion: QoL improvement after a residential treatment was related to low QoL scores at admission. Improvement in physical component of QoL was related to baseline alcohol intake and good somatic status. Improvement in mental component of QoL was related to other drugs abuse/dependence.

Age >50 years, the presence of nocturnal stools, weight loss, the introduction of a new drug, and the presence of a known autoimmune disease increase the probability of MC and thus the indication for colonoscopy with biopsies.

In this French referral center-based cohort of CD patients, the median diagnostic delay was 5 months. None of the baseline characteristics of the CD, including socioeconomic deprivation, influenced diagnostic delay in this cohort.

In this large cohort of IBD patients, psychological distress and constraints related to treatment decrease adherence to treatment, while membership in a patients' association improves it.