New Pharmacological Agents to Aid Smoking Cessation and Tobacco Harm Reduction: What has been Investigated and What is in the Pipeline?

A wide range of support is available to help smokers to quit and aid attempts at harm reduction, including three first-line smoking cessation medications: nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and bupropion. Despite the efficacy of these, there is a continual need to diversify the range of medications so that the needs of tobacco users are met. This paper compares the first-line smoking cessation medications to: 1) two variants of these existing products: new galenic formulations of varenicline and novel nicotine delivery devices; and 2) twenty-four alternative products: cytisine (novel outside of central and eastern Europe), nortriptyline, other tricyclic antidepressants, electronic cigarettes, clonidine (an anxiolytic), other anxiolytics (e.g. buspirone), selective 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) reuptake inhibitors, supplements (e.g. St John’s wort), silver acetate, nicobrevin, modafinil, venlafaxine, monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOI), opioid antagonist, nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChR) antagonists, glucose tablets, selective cannabinoid type 1 receptor antagonists, nicotine vaccines, drugs that affect gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) transmission, drugs that affect N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors (NMDA), dopamine agonists (e.g. levodopa), pioglitazone (Actos; OMS405), noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, and the weight management drug lorcaserin. Six criteria are used: relative efficacy, relative safety, relative cost, relative use (overall impact of effective medication use), relative scope (ability to serve new groups of patients), and relative ease of use (ESCUSE). Many of these products are in the early stages of clinical trials, however, cytisine looks most promising in having established efficacy and safety and being of low cost. Electronic cigarettes have become very popular, appear to be efficacious and are safer than smoking, but issues of continued dependence and possible harms need to be considered

University Enabling Programs While Still At School: Supporting the Transition of Low-Ses Students from High School to University

University participation rates are significantly lower in low socioeconomic status (SES) areas in Australia. Specifically, rates differ between-schools and within-schools, where inequalities in opportunities to access university pathway programs exist. The aim of this study was to test whether academic encouragement supported students’ school satisfaction and increased their desire for, expectation of and belief in the possibility of university study and whether differences were evident depending on pathway of study: the ATAR pathway versus a Year 12 access enabling pathway program called TLC110. A sample of 257 high school students (58% female) from 18 high schools, within a low-SES area of outer metropolitan Perth, Western Australia, were surveyed. Teacher encouragement was found to be positively associated with school satisfaction and, in turn, supported university desire, expectation and belief for ATAR students but not for TLC110 students. Qualitative data were collected (n = 9) to contextualise the inclusivity of TLC110 for high school students from low-SES backgrounds to support aspirations for university

A multidimensional model of school dropout from an 8-year longitudinal study in a general high school population

This study tests an empirical multidimensional model of school dropout, using data collected in the first year of an 8-year longitudinal study, with first year high school students aged 12–13 years. Structural equation modeling analyses show that five personal, family, and school latent factors together contribute to school dropout identified at 19 years of age: poor parent–teenager relationships, youth depression and family difficulties, negative classroom climate, negative school interactions, and poor academic achievement. This model increases our understanding of the dropout process in the general population and has direct implications for the development of high school dropout prevention programs