Effectiveness of group counselling for smoking cessation in hospital staff

Smoking prevalence among hospital staff is still considerable. It is well known that smoking cessation is difficult to establish without any help. Group counselling is effective for smoking cessation. In 2004, therefore, we decided to offer group counselling for smoking cessation to our hospital staff. (1) To assess the efficacy of group counselling given by a multidisciplinary team of healthcare professionals. (2) To determine the quit rate after group counselling in hospital staff. The program is based on 10 group sessions of 90 min each. Each group contains a maximum of 16 participants. The group sessions were led by a nurse specialized in smoking cessation and consisted of education and behavioural interventions provided by health care professionals (respiratory physician, psychologist and a dietician). To improve smoking cessation motivation, spirometry (FEV1 and FVC) and exhaled CO were measured both at the start and at the end of the group counselling. In total, 38 participants of 3 different groups entered group counselling. The mean age was 48 years, and 71% was female. They smoked an average of 20 cigarettes per day. Based on exhaled CO measurements and self-reports, smoking cessation, the quit rates after 6 months, 1 year and 2 years were, 27/35 (77%), 25/35 (72%) and 23/35 (66%), respectively. Group counselling program on smoking cessation in hospital staff based on 10 group sessions was able to induce a remarkably high amount of quitters. The hospital setting offered the opportunity to meet the group participants frequently afterwards, what might have helped in keeping the quitting results at about the same level, even after 2 years’ follow-up

Prophylactic Azithromycin Therapy After Lung Transplantation: Post hoc Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Prophylactic azithromycin treatment has been demonstrated to improve freedom from bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) 2 years after lung transplantation (LTx). In the current study, we re-evaluated the long-term effects of this prophylactic approach in view of the updated classification system for chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD). A retrospective, intention-to-treat analysis of a randomized controlled trial comparing prophylactic treatment with placebo (n = 43) versus azithromycin (n = 40) after LTx was performed. Graft dysfunction (CLAD), graft loss (retransplantation, mortality), evolution of pulmonary function and functional exercise capacity were analyzed 7 years after inclusion of the last study subject. Following LTx, 22/43 (51%) patients of the placebo group and 11/40 (28%) patients of the azithromycin group ever developed CLAD (p = 0.043). CLAD-free survival was significantly longer in the azithromycin group (p = 0.024). No difference was present in proportion of obstructive versus restrictive CLAD between both groups. Graft loss was similar in both groups: 23/43 (53%) versus 16/40 (40%) patients (p = 0.27). Long-term pulmonary function and functional exercise capacity were significantly better in the azithromycin group (p < 0.05). Prophylactic azithromycin therapy reduces long-term CLAD prevalence and improves CLAD-free survival, pulmonary function, and functional exercise capacity after LTx.status: publishe

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=−4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events