Cigarette smoking, nicotine dependence and anxiety disorders : a systematic review of population-based, epidemiological studies

Background Multiple studies have demonstrated that rates of smoking and nicotine dependence are increased in individuals with anxiety disorders. However, significant variability exists in the epidemiological literature exploring this relationship, including study design (cross-sectional versus prospective), the population assessed (random sample versus clinical population) and diagnostic instrument utilized.Methods We undertook a systematic review of population-based observational studies that utilized recognized structured clinical diagnostic criteria (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD)) for anxiety disorder diagnosis to investigate the relationship between cigarette smoking, nicotine dependence and anxiety disorders.Results In total, 47 studies met the predefined inclusion criteria, with 12 studies providing prospective information and 5 studies providing quasiprospective information. The available evidence suggests that some baseline anxiety disorders are a risk factor for initiation of smoking and nicotine dependence, although the evidence is heterogeneous and many studies did not control for the effect of comorbid substance use disorders. The identified evidence however appeared to more consistently support cigarette smoking and nicotine dependence as being a risk factor for development of some anxiety disorders (for example, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder), although these findings were not replicated in all studies. A number of inconsistencies in the literature were identified.Conclusions Although many studies have demonstrated increased rates of smoking and nicotine dependence in individuals with anxiety disorders, there is a limited and heterogeneous literature that has prospectively examined this relationship in population studies using validated diagnostic criteria. The most consistent evidence supports smoking and nicotine dependence as increasing the risk of panic disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. The literature assessing anxiety disorders increasing smoking and nicotine dependence is inconsistent. Potential issues with the current literature are discussed and directions for future research are suggested

Politics ahead of patients: The battle between medical and chiropractic professional associations over the inclusion of chiropractic in the American Medicare System

Health care professions struggling for legitimacy, recognition, and market share can become disoriented to their priorities. Health care practitioners are expected to put the interests of patients first. Professional associations represent the interests of their members. So when a professional association is composed of health care practitioners, its interests may differ from those of patients, creating a conflict for members. In addition, sometimes practitioners’ perspectives may be altered by indoctrination in a belief system, or misinformation, so that a practitioner could be confused about the reality of patient needs. Politicians, in attempting to find an expedient compromise, can value a “win” in the legislative arena over the effects of that legislation. These forces all figure into the events that led to the acceptance of chiropractic into the American Medicare system. Two health care systems in a political fight lost sight of their main purpose: to provide care to patients without doing harm. Dans leur recherche de légitimité, de reconnaissance et d’une juste part sur le marché de la santé, les professionnels de la santé peuvent perdre de vue leurs priorités. Ces praticiens doivent donner préséance aux intérêts des patients tandis que les associations professionnelles représentent ceux de leurs membres. Lorsqu’une association professionnelle regroupe des praticiens de la santé cependant, ses intérêts s’opposent parfois à ceux des patients, créant ainsi un conflit pour les membres. De plus, les praticiens peuvent être endoctrinés par un système de valeurs ou mal informés, au point de se tromper dans l’évaluation des besoins réels des patients. De leur côté, les politiciens peuvent préférer une « victoire » dans l’arène législative à une juste appréciation des impacts d’une loi. Ces forces ont toutes participé aux évènements qui ont mené à l’acceptation de la chiropraxie par le système américain Medicare. Dans cette bataille politique, deux systèmes de santé ont négligé leur principal objectif : soigner des patients sans leur nuire

Systematic review of basic oral care for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients and clinical practice guidelines

Purpose: The aim of this study was to update the clinical practice guidelines for the use of basic oral care (BOC) interventions for the prevention and/or treatment of oral mucositis (OM). Methods: A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society for Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The body of evidence for each intervention in each cancer treatment setting was assigned an evidence level. The findings were added to the database used to develop the 2013 MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: Recommendation, Suggestion, No guideline possible. Results: A total of 17 new papers across six interventions were examined and merged with a previous database. Based on the literature, the following guidelines were possible. The panel suggests that the implementation of multi-agent combination oral care protocols is beneficial for the prevention of OM during chemotherapy, head and neck (H&N) radiation therapy (RT), and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (Level of Evidence III). The panel suggests that chlorhexidine not be used to prevent OM in patients undergoing H&N RT (Level of Evidence III). No guideline was possible for professional oral care, patient education, saline, and sodium bicarbonate, and expert opinion complemented these guidelines. Conclusions: The evidence supports the use of multi-agent combination oral care protocols in the specific populations listed above. Additional well-designed research is needed on the other BOC interventions prior to guideline formulation