BackgroundTobacco dependence is the leading cause of preventable death and disabilities worldwide and nicotine is the main substance responsible for the addiction to tobacco. A vaccine against nicotine was tested in a 6-month randomized, double blind phase II smoking cessation study in 341 smokers with a subsequent 6-month follow-up period.Methodology/Principal Findings229 subjects were randomized to receive five intramuscular injections of the nicotine vaccine and 112 to receive placebo at monthly intervals. All subjects received individual behavioral smoking cessation counseling. The vaccine was safe, generally well tolerated and highly immunogenic, inducing a 100% antibody responder rate after the first injection. Point prevalence of abstinence at month 2 showed a statistically significant difference between subjects treated with Nicotine-Qβ (47.2%) and placebo (35.1%) (P = 0.036), but continuous abstinence between months 2 and 6 was not significantly different. However, in subgroup analysis of the per-protocol population, the third of subjects with highest antibody levels showed higher continuous abstinence from month 2 until month 6 (56.6%) than placebo treated participants (31.3%) (OR 2.9; P = 0.004) while medium and low antibody levels did not increase abstinence rates. After 12 month, the difference in continuous abstinence rate between subjects on placebo and those with high antibody response was maintained (difference 20.2%, P = 0.012).ConclusionsWhereas Nicotine-Qβ did not significantly increase continuous abstinence rates in the intention-to-treat population, subgroup analyses of the per-protocol population suggest that such a vaccination against nicotine can significantly increase continuous abstinence rates in smokers when sufficiently high antibody levels are achieved. Immunotherapy might open a new avenue to the treatment of nicotine addiction.Trial RegistrationSwiss Medical Registry 2003DR2327; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00369616
Background: International oncology societies recommend early palliative care. Specific models to integrate early palliative care efficiently into clinical practice are debated. The authors designed a study to look at the quantitative and qualitative outcomes of an early palliative care intervention in oncological care to decrease stress and improve quality of life. Aims: To compare a single structured early palliative care intervention added to a usual oncology care in terms of distress and health-related quality of life at baseline compared to 6 months after enrollment. Design: This multicenter randomized controlled trial (NCT01983956) enrolled adult patients with advanced cancer. Participants were either randomly assigned to usual oncology care alone or usual care plus a structured early palliative care intervention. Setting/participants: One hundred fifty adult patients with a variety of advanced cancer diagnoses were randomized. Seventy-four participants were in the intervention and 76 participants in the control group. The primary outcome was the change in patient distress assessed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network distress thermometer at 6 months. Health-related quality of life, the secondary outcome, was assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General Questionnaire. Results: The results showed no significant effect of the early palliative care intervention neither on patient distress nor on health-related quality of life. Conclusion: The addition of an early intervention to usual care for patients with advanced cancer did not improve distress or quality of life. Thus, patients may need more intensive early palliative care with continuous professional support to identify and address their palliative needs early.
ObjectivesEvidence for the positive impact of the early integration of palliative care (EPC) continues to grow. Less is known about how EPC improves patient and family outcomes, including the content of EPC consultations. Therefore, we aimed to better understand the content of EPC consultations including areas addressed, percentage covered per area and interaction style.MethodsAs part of a trial in which EPC in addition to oncology care was compared with oncology care alone, we audio recorded 10 interventions. The palliative care team led the interventions using SENS, a conversation structure, which stands for: Symptoms, End-of-life decision-making, Network and Support. We employed two approaches to analysis: the Roter interaction analysis system (RIAS) to analyse interaction dynamics and SENS as a framework for content analysis.ResultsPhysician–patient communication covered 91% of the interaction. According to RIAS, the consultations were evenly dominated between physicians and patients (ratio=1.04) and highly patient-centred (ratio=1.26). Content wise, rapport was the largest category covering 27% of the consultation, followed by decision-making (21%) and by symptom assessment/management (17%) including 8.1% for physical symptoms and 5.4% for psychosocial aspects. Network discussions covered 17%, and lastly, support for the family 7%.ConclusionsEPC consultations cover a variety of end-of-life topics while putting a high value in establishing rapport, developing a relationship with patients, and on providing reassurance and positive emotional talk. EPC consultations using predefined structures may guarantee that a minimum of important aspects are addressed in a way in which the relationship with the patient remains at the centre.
Findings in the palliative care patients' medical records are inasmuch important, as they point at the health-care staff's awareness of possible weights and tasks that might be burdensome for patients and their families. Attention should be drawn to the documentation of medical records in order to identify recurrent difficulties and to help discuss these.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.