Effect of incorporating a 10 minute point of care test for salivary nicotine metabolites into a general practice based smoking cessation programme: randomised controlled trial

Managing intoxications with nicotine-containing e-liquids

INTRODUCTION

Nicotine is an addictive and poisonous agent. The recent development of e-cigarettes has caused a new demand for highly concentrated nicotine-containing solutions. These concentrated nicotine solutions have also increased the risk of nicotine overdoses.

AREAS COVERED

Essential factors for nicotine exposure are the concentration of the nicotine-containing e-liquid solution and its pharmacokinetics. Liquid nicotine refills contain nicotine in varying concentrations, which vary widely between and within products. The pharmacokinetics of nicotine are dependent on the route of administration, renal/hepatic clearance and urinary pH. The dose is another essential determinant of nicotine exposure. There is a considerable discrepancy between the generally accepted lethal dose and symptoms reported in case studies. Ingested doses correlate poorly to clinical symptoms. Symptoms of liquid nicotine toxicity vary from mild to severe between patients and are the result of overstimulation of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, which may lead to fatal respiratory failure and cardiovascular collapse.

EXPERT OPINION

The literature on nicotine-containing e-liquid intoxications originating from vaping device refills are mainly case reports. Based on these case reports, we propose a treatment plan which is primarily symptomatic. Research should focus on providing insight on its toxicity, based on oral and transdermal pharmacokinetics and on toxicodynamics.

Interventions for tobacco cessation delivered by dental professionals

BACKGROUND

Dental professionals are well placed to help their patients stop using tobacco products. Large proportions of the population visit the dentist regularly. In addition, the adverse effects of tobacco use on oral health provide a context that dental professionals can use to motivate a quit attempt.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, adverse events and oral health effects of tobacco cessation interventions offered by dental professionals.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register up to February 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions conducted by dental professionals in the dental practice or community setting, with at least six months of follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts for potential inclusion and extracted data from included trials. We resolved disagreements by consensus. The primary outcome was abstinence from all tobacco use (e.g. cigarettes, smokeless tobacco) at the longest follow-up, using the strictest definition of abstinence reported. Individual study effects and pooled effects were summarised as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models to combine studies where appropriate. We assessed statistical heterogeneity with the I² statistic. We summarised secondary outcomes narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty clinical trials involving 14,897 participants met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Sixteen studies assessed the effectiveness of interventions for tobacco-use cessation in dental clinics and four assessed this in community (school or college) settings. Five studies included only smokeless tobacco users, and the remaining studies included either smoked tobacco users only, or a combination of both smoked and smokeless tobacco users. All studies employed behavioural interventions, with four offering nicotine treatment (nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or e-cigarettes) as part of the intervention. We judged three studies to be at low risk of bias, one to be at unclear risk of bias, and the remaining 16 studies to be at high risk of bias. Compared with usual care, brief advice, very brief advice, or less active treatment, we found very low-certainty evidence of benefit from behavioural support provided by dental professionals, comprising either one session (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.41; I² = 66%; four studies, n = 6328), or more than one session (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.17 to 3.11; I² = 61%; seven studies, n = 2639), on abstinence from tobacco use at least six months from baseline. We found moderate-certainty evidence of benefit from behavioural interventions provided by dental professionals combined with the provision of NRT or e-cigarettes, compared with no intervention, usual care, brief, or very brief advice only (RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.82; I² = 0%; four studies, n = 1221). We did not detect a benefit from multiple-session behavioural support provided by dental professionals delivered in a high school or college, instead of a dental setting (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.65; I² = 83%; three studies, n = 1020; very low-certainty evidence). Only one study reported adverse events or oral health outcomes, making it difficult to draw any conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-certainty evidence that quit rates increase when dental professionals offer behavioural support to promote tobacco cessation. There is moderate-certainty evidence that tobacco abstinence rates increase in cigarette smokers if dental professionals offer behavioural support combined with pharmacotherapy. Further evidence is required to be certain of the size of the benefit and whether adding pharmacological interventions is more effective than behavioural support alone. Future studies should use biochemical validation of abstinence so as to preclude the risk of detection bias. There is insufficient evidence on whether these interventions lead to adverse effects, but no reasons to suspect that these effects would be specific to interventions delivered by dental professionals. There was insufficient evidence that interventions affected oral health.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers with feedback on the current or potential future biomedical effects of smoking using, for example, measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer or other diseases.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was to determine the efficacy of providing smokers with feedback on their exhaled CO measurement, spirometry results, atherosclerotic plaque imaging, and genetic susceptibility to smoking-related diseases in helping them to quit smoking.

SEARCH METHODS

For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in March 2018 and ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP in September 2018 for studies added since the last update in 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria for the review were: a randomised controlled trial design; participants being current smokers; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase smoking cessation rates; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; and an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed results as a risk ratio (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials using a variety of biomedical tests interventions; one trial included two interventions, for a total of 21 interventions. We included a total of 9262 participants, all of whom were adult smokers. All studies included both men and women adult smokers at different stages of change and motivation for smoking cessation. We judged all but three studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. We pooled trials in three categories according to the type of biofeedback provided: feedback on risk exposure (five studies); feedback on smoking-related disease risk (five studies); and feedback on smoking-related harm (11 studies). There was no evidence of increased cessation rates from feedback on risk exposure, consisting mainly of feedback on CO measurement, in five pooled trials (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.21; I² = 0%; n = 2368). Feedback on smoking-related disease risk, including four studies testing feedback on genetic markers for cancer risk and one study with feedback on genetic markers for risk of Crohn's disease, did not show a benefit in smoking cessation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; I² = 0%; n = 2064). Feedback on smoking-related harm, including nine studies testing spirometry with or without feedback on lung age and two studies on feedback on carotid ultrasound, also did not show a benefit (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.61; I² = 34%; n = 3314). Only one study directly compared multiple forms of measurement with a single form of measurement, and did not detect a significant difference in effect between measurement of CO plus genetic susceptibility to lung cancer and measurement of CO only (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.56; n = 189).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence about the effects of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. The most promising results relate to spirometry and carotid ultrasound, where moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision and risk of bias, did not detect a statistically significant benefit, but confidence intervals very narrowly missed one, and the point estimate favoured the intervention. A sensitivity analysis removing those studies at high risk of bias did detect a benefit. Moderate-certainty evidence limited by risk of bias did not detect an effect of feedback on smoking exposure by CO monitoring. Low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, did not detect a benefit from feedback on smoking-related risk by genetic marker testing. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.

Advancing Point-of-Care (PoC) Testing Using Human Saliva as Liquid Biopsy

Salivary diagnostics is an emerging field for the encroachment of point of care technology (PoCT). The necessity of the development of point-of-care (PoC) technology, the potential of saliva, identification and validation of biomarkers through salivary diagnostic toolboxes, and a broad overview of emerging technologies is discussed in this review. Furthermore, novel advanced techniques incorporated in devices for the early detection and diagnosis of several oral and systemic diseases in a non-invasive, easily-monitored, less time consuming, and in a personalised way is explicated. The latest technology detection systems and clinical utilities of saliva as a liquid biopsy, electric field-induced release and measurement (EFIRM), biosensors, smartphone technology, microfluidics, paper-based technology, and how their futuristic perspectives can improve salivary diagnostics and reduce hospital stays by replacing it with chairside screening is also highlighted.

Continuing development of an oral health score for clinical audit

AIM

To compare the outcomes of a contemporary oral health status (OHS) scoring system with national oral health data from the 2009 Adult Dental Health Survey, and to explore the utility of the OHS in audit and service development.

METHODS

An OHS scoring system was developed as part of a previously reported comprehensive on-line patient assessment tool. The assessment tool also measured future disease risk and indicative capitation fee grading. The modified OHS score component was developed over 20 years of research and experience from the original Oral Health Index (Burke and Wilson 1995). The online tool was piloted by 25 volunteer dentists on 640 recall patients and qualitative and quantitative feedback provided. Anonymised data from the inputs and scores generated were collected centrally and analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The modified OHS was reported to have good validity by the pilot group. Submitted data confirmed a mean age for the recall patients examined as 53 ± 15.8 years and an average oral health status score of 79.5 ± 10.8 where a score of 100 equates to perfect oral health. A breakdown of the scores into the eight principal components provided evidence of cross validation with the Adult Dental Health Survey (2009).

CONCLUSIONS

Scoring oral health status electronically offers valuable opportunities for clinical audit. The reported benchmark oral health score of 79.5 for recall patients can be updated as increased numbers of patients enter the centralised data recording system. Audit can be facilitated by this move from a paper-based system to an on-line tool with central data collection.

Genetic test to stop smoking (GeTSS) trial protocol: randomised controlled trial of a genetic test (Respiragene) and Auckland formula to assess lung cancer risk

BACKGROUND

A gene-based estimate of lung cancer risk in smokers has been shown to act as a smoking cessation motivator in hospital recruited subjects. The objective of this trial is to determine if this motivator is as effective in subjects recruited from an NHS primary care unit.

METHOD/DESIGN

Subjects will be recruited by mailings using smoking entries on the GP electronic data-base (total practice population = 32,048) to identify smokers who may want to quit. Smoking cessation clinics based on medical centre premises will run for eight weeks. Clinics will be randomised to have the gene-based test for estimation of lung cancer risk or to act as controls groups. The primary endpoint will be smoking cessation at eight weeks and six months. Secondary outcomes will include ranking of the gene-based test with other smoking cessation motivators.

DISCUSSION

The results will inform as to whether the gene-based test is both effective as motivator and acceptable to subjects recruited from primary care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered with Clinical Trials.gov,

REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01176383.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in July 2012 for studies added since the last update in 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, a pooled effect was estimated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials using a variety of biomedical tests. Two pairs of trials had sufficiently similar recruitment, setting and interventions to calculate a pooled effect; there was no evidence that carbon monoxide (CO) measurement in primary care (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) or spirometry in primary care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81) increased cessation rates. We did not pool the other 11 trials due to the presence of substantial clinical heterogeneity. Of the remaining 11 trials, two trials detected statistically significant benefits: one trial in primary care detected a significant benefit of lung age feedback after spirometry (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62) and one trial that used ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries and photographs of plaques detected a benefit (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.04 to 7.41) but enrolled a population of light smokers and was judged to be at unclear risk of bias in two domains. Nine further trials did not detect significant effects. One of these tested CO feedback alone and CO combined with genetic susceptibility as two different interventions; none of the three possible comparisons detected significant effects. One trial used CO measurement, one used ultrasonography of carotid arteries and two tested for genetic markers. The four remaining trials used a combination of CO and spirometry feedback in different settings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment on smoking cessation. Of the fifteen included studies, only two detected a significant effect of the intervention. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial but the evidence is not optimal. A trial of carotid plaque screening using ultrasound also detected a significant effect, but a second larger study of a similar feedback mechanism did not detect evidence of an effect. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in terms of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analyses; neither of these found evidence of an effect. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.

Interventions for tobacco cessation in the dental setting

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use has significant adverse effects on oral health. Oral health professionals in the dental office or community setting have a unique opportunity to increase tobacco abstinence rates among tobacco users.

OBJECTIVES

This review assesses the effectiveness of interventions for tobacco cessation delivered by oral health professionals and offered to cigarette smokers and smokeless tobacco users in the dental office or community setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966-November 2011), EMBASE (1988-November 2011), CINAHL (1982-November 2011), Healthstar (1975-November 2011), ERIC (1967-November 2011), PsycINFO (1984-November 2011), National Technical Information Service database (NTIS, 1964-November 2011), Dissertation Abstracts Online (1861-November 2011), Database of Abstract of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE, 1995-November 2011), and Web of Science (1993-November 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and pseudo-randomized clinical trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions conducted by oral health professionals in the dental office or community setting with at least six months of follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed abstracts for potential inclusion and abstracted data from included trials. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The primary outcome was abstinence from smoking or all tobacco use (for users of smokeless tobacco) at the longest follow-up, using the strictest definition of abstinence reported. The effect was summarised as an odds ratio, with correction for clustering where appropriate. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic and where appropriate a pooled effect was estimated using an inverse variance fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen clinical trials met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Included studies assessed the efficacy of interventions in the dental office or in a community school or college setting. Six studies evaluated the effectiveness of interventions among smokeless tobacco (ST) users, and eight studies evaluated interventions among cigarette smokers, six of which involved adult smokers in dental practice settings. All studies employed behavioral interventions and only one required pharmacotherapy as an interventional component. All studies included an oral examination component. Pooling all 14 studies suggested that interventions conducted by oral health professionals can increase tobacco abstinence rates (odds ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.44 to 2.03) at six months or longer, but there was evidence of heterogeneity (I² = 61%). Within the subgroup of interventions for smokers, heterogeneity was smaller (I² = 51%), but was largely attributable to a large study showing no evidence of benefit. Within this subgroup there were five studies which involved adult smokers in dental practice settings. Pooling these showed clear evidence of benefit and minimal heterogeneity (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.35, 5 studies, I² = 3%) but this was a posthoc subgroup analysis. Amongst the studies in smokeless tobacco users the heterogeneity was also attributable to a large study showing no sign of benefit, possibly due to intervention spillover to control colleges; the other five studies indicated that interventions for ST users were effective (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.11).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence suggests that behavioral interventions for tobacco cessation conducted by oral health professionals incorporating an oral examination component in the dental office or community setting may increase tobacco abstinence rates among both cigarette smokers and smokeless tobacco users. Differences between the studies limit the ability to make conclusive recommendations regarding the intervention components that should be incorporated into clinical practice, however, behavioral counselling (typically brief) in conjunction with an oral examination was a consistent intervention component that was also provided in some control groups.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We systematically searched the Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2008 Issue 4, MEDLINE (1966 to January 2009), and EMBASE (1980 to January 2009). We combined methodological terms with terms related to smoking cessation counselling and biomedical measurements.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate a pooled effect was estimated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eleven trials using a variety of biomedical tests. Two pairs of trials had sufficiently similar recruitment, setting and interventions to calculate a pooled effect; there was no evidence that CO measurement in primary care (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) or spirometry in primary care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81) increased cessation rates. We did not pool the other seven trials. One trial in primary care detected a significant benefit of lung age feedback after spirometry (RR 2.12; 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62). One trial that used ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries and photographs of plaques detected a benefit (RR 2.77; 95% CI 1.04 to 7.41) but enrolled a population of light smokers. Five trials failed to detect evidence of a significant effect. One of these tested CO feedback alone and CO + genetic susceptibility as two different intervention; none of the three possible comparisons detected significant effects. Three others used a combination of CO and spirometry feedback in different settings, and one tested for a genetic marker.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in term of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analysis.

Multimodal techniques for smoking cessation: a review of their efficacy and utilisation and clinical practice guidelines

AIMS

Nicotine addiction is a complex, chronic condition with physiological and psychological/behavioural aspects that make smoking cessation extremely difficult. This paper reviews current recommendations for smoking cessation and the efficacy of pharmacotherapy and behavioural modification techniques, used either alone or in combination, for smoking cessation.

RESULTS

Abstinence rates for pharmacotherapies range from approximately 16% to approximately 30% at 1-year follow-up, with efficacy odds ratios (ORs) compared with placebo of approximately 1.7 for nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), approximately 1.9 for bupropion sustained release and approximately 3.0 for varenicline. Behaviour modification therapies have achieved quit rates of between 8% and 43% for up to 1 year, with ORs in comparison to no treatment of between approximately 1.2 and approximately 2.2. No direct comparisons have been made between pharmacotherapy alone and psychological behaviour strategies alone. However, combining physiological approaches with counselling significantly increases the odds of quitting compared with either technique alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Applying multimodal techniques for the treatment of nicotine addiction is the recommended approach and has demonstrated the potential to improve rates of permanent abstinence in smokers attempting cessation. While the numbers of patients receiving help and advice regarding smoking cessation is increasing, the multimodal approach appears to be currently underutilised by clinicians and therefore smoking cessation strategies are not being optimised.

Patient feedback as a motivating force to quit smoking

OBJECTIVES

The effectiveness of a brief intervention by dental professionals utilizing feedback of oral symptoms and dental treatments specifically relevant to smoking was examined in terms of it being a motivating factor to quit smoking.

METHODS

Information pertaining to the present study was mailed to 208 dental clinics and 45 dentists agreed to participate. Dental patients who currently smoked were assigned consecutively to either an intervention (IG) or nonintervention group (NG) in each clinic during the 6-month experimental period. In IG, dental professionals provided brief explanations regarding oral symptoms and dental treatments specifically relevant to smoking. The effectiveness of intervention was evaluated with respect to attempts to quit and progression through the stages of behavioral changes involved in quitting using the standardized questionnaire.

RESULTS

Dropout was considerable; 10 clinics terminated their participation. Questionnaires of 797 patients (IG, 416; NG, 381) were received from 35 clinics and the records of 497 patients (IG, 248; NG, 249) were analyzed. Among patients in IG and NG, 12.1% and 4.8% reported attempts to quit, respectively. Odds ratios of quitting attempts and progression and regression through the stages of behavioral changes adjusted for sex, age, and stage at the first visit were 2.2 (95% confidence interval: 1.04, 4.5), 1.7 (1.1, 2.8), and 0.28 (0.15, 0.53) for all patients, respectively, and 3.1 (1.3, 7.5), 2.1 (1.3, 3.4), and 0.21 (0.11, 0.44), respectively, for patients who were not ready to quit. Trends in the movement through stages differed because of the stage at the first visit.

CONCLUSIONS

As a result of the limitation imposed by the considerable dropout number, we concluded that a brief intervention by dental professionals potentially motivates smokers with respect to their attempts to quit smoking and promotes behavioral changes involved in quitting.

A randomised controlled trial of a smoking cessation intervention delivered by dental hygienists: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use continues to be a global public health problem. Helping patients to quit is part of the preventive role of all health professionals. There is now increasing interest in the role that the dental team can play in helping their patients to quit smoking. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of undertaking a randomised controlled smoking cessation intervention, utilising dental hygienists to deliver tobacco cessation advice to a cohort of periodontal patients.

METHODS

One hundred and eighteen patients who attended consultant clinics in an outpatient dental hospital department (Periodontology) were recruited into a trial. Data were available for 116 participants, 59 intervention and 57 control, and were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The intervention group received smoking cessation advice based on the 5As (ask, advise, assess, assist, arrange follow-up) and were offered nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), whereas the control group received 'usual care'. Outcome measures included self-reported smoking cessation, verified by salivary cotinine measurement and CO measurements. Self-reported measures in those trial participants who did not quit included number and length of quit attempts and reduction in smoking.

RESULTS

At 3 months, 9/59 (15%) of the intervention group had quit compared to 5/57 (9%) of the controls. At 6 months, 6/59 (10%) of the intervention group quit compared to 3/57 (5%) of the controls. At one year, there were 4/59 (7%) intervention quitters, compared to 2/59 (4%) control quitters. In participants who described themselves as smokers, at 3 and 6 months, a statistically higher percentage of intervention participants reported that they had had a quit attempt of at least one week in the preceding 3 months (37% and 47%, for the intervention group respectively, compared with 18% and 16% for the control group).

CONCLUSION

This study has shown the potential that trained dental hygienists could have in delivering smoking cessation advice. While success may be modest, public health gain would indicate that the dental team should participate in this activity. However, to add to the knowledge-base, a multi-centred randomised controlled trial, utilising biochemical verification would be required to be undertaken.

A randomized-controlled trial of low-dose doxycycline for periodontitis in smokers

BACKGROUND/AIM

Tobacco use reduces the effect of non-surgical periodontal therapy. Host-modulation with low-dose doxycycline (LDD) might favour repair and promote an improved treatment response. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of LDD in smokers on non-surgical periodontal therapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a parallel arm, randomized, identical placebo-controlled trial with masking of examiner, care-giver, participant and statistician and 6 months of follow-up. Patients received non-surgical therapy and 3 months of test or control drug. Statistical analysis used both conventional methods and multilevel modelling.

RESULTS

Eighteen control and 16 test patients completed the study. The velocity of change was statistically greater for the test group for clinical attachment level -0.19 mm/month (95% CI=-0.34, 0.04; p=0.012) and probing depth 0.30 mm/month (95% CI=-0.42, -0.17; p<0.001). However, no differences were observed for absolute change in clinical or biochemical markers at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This study does not provide evidence of a benefit of using LDD as an adjunct to non-surgical periodontal therapy in smokers.

Interventions for tobacco cessation in the dental setting

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use has significant adverse effects on oral health. Oral health professionals in the dental office or community setting have a unique opportunity to increase tobacco abstinence rates among tobacco users.

OBJECTIVES

This review assesses the effectiveness of interventions for tobacco cessation offered to cigarette smokers and smokeless tobacco users in the dental office or community setting.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction group Specialized Register (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966-2004), EMBASE (1988-2004), CINAHL (1982-2004), Healthstar (1975-2004), ERIC (1967-2004), PsycINFO (1984-2004), National Technical Information Service database (NTIS, 1964-2004), Dissertation Abstracts Online (1861-2004), Database of Abstract of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE, 1995-2004), and Web of Science (1993-2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and pseudo-randomized clinical trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions conducted by oral health professionals in the dental office or community setting with at least six months of follow up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed abstracts for potential inclusion and abstracted data from included trials. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

Six clinical trials met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Included studies assessed the efficacy of interventions in the dental office or a school community setting. All studies assessed the efficacy of interventions for smokeless tobacco users, one of which included cigarettes smokers. All studies employed behavioural interventions and only one offered pharmacotherapy as an interventional component. All studies included an oral examination component. Pooling of the studies suggested that interventions conducted by oral health professionals increase tobacco abstinence rates (odds ratio [OR] 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16 to 1.78) at 12 months or longer. Heterogeneity was evident (I(2) = 75%) and could not be adequately explained through subgroup or sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence suggests that behavioural interventions for tobacco use conducted by oral health professionals incorporating an oral examination component in the dental office and community setting may increase tobacco abstinence rates among smokeless tobacco users. Differences between the studies limit the ability to make conclusive recommendations regarding the intervention components that should be incorporated into clinical practice.