Use of nicotine substitute prescribed at hourly plus ab libitum intake or ad libitum for heavy smokers willing to quit: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of instructional guidance in the regular use of use nicotine nasal spray (NNS) on the true use of NNS during the first three weeks of smoking cessation for heavy smokers who are willing to quit. METHODS: This randomized, open, controlled trial included 50 patients who were heavy smokers, were willing to quit, and attending an academic outpatient clinic in Western Switzerland. Patients were randomised to instruction on NNS use as "ad libitum" (administration whenever cravings appear; control group) or to use NNS when craving appears and at least every hour when awake (intervention group). Intakes were monitored using an electronic device fixed in the spray unit (MDILog) during the first three weeks of use. Self reported abstinence from smoking at six months was confirmed by expired-air carbon monoxide. Using intention-to-treat analysis, random-effect GLS regression was used to calculate the mean difference of daily doses between groups controlling for lack of independence between measures from the same individual. RESULTS: One patient was lost to follow-up. At baseline randomization, the group receiving instruction to use NNS hourly included more women, patients with previous desires to quit, and patients with more psychiatric comorbidities and less somatic complaints compared to the group instructed to use NNS with cravings (group imbalance). Both groups self-administered more than the daily recommended dosage of 8 uses. Mean daily usage was 13.6 dose/day and 11.1 dose/day for the group instructed to use NNS hourly and with cravings, respectively. Adjusting for baseline imbalance, the increased daily doses in the intervention group (hourly use) remained nonsignificant compared to ad libitum use (-0.5 dose/day; CI 95% -6.2; 5.3, from day 1 to day 7; and 2.3 dose/day; CI 95% -5.4; 10.0, from day 8 to day 21). Instructing patients to use the NNS daily had no effect on smoking cessation at six months (RR = 0.69; CI 95% 0.34; 1.39). CONCLUSION: Heavy smokers willing to quit use NNS frequently, regardless of the instructions given. Recommending the use of NNS only when craving appears for heavy smokers willing to quit seems acceptable compared to prescribing hourly administration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00861276

The IARC perspective on cervical cancer screening

In May 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) called for a global initiative to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem. To achieve this goal, global scale-up of effective vaccination against the human papillomavirus (HPV) as well as screening for and treatment of cervical cancer are required. Cervical cancer screening was evaluated in 2005 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Handbooks program,1 and a reevaluation was deemed to be timely given the major advances in the field since then. The new handbook provides updated evaluations of the effectiveness of screening methods, which were used as a basis for the update of the WHO Guideline for Screening and Treatment of Cervical Pre-cancer Lesions for Cervical Cancer Prevention.2 We convened an IARC Working Group of 27 scientists from 20 countries to assess the evidence on the current approaches to and technologies used in cervical cancer screening with the use of the newly updated Handbooks Preamble3 (Fig. 1) and Table 1).Fil: Bouvard, Véronique. International Agency For Research On Cancer; FranciaFil: Wentzensen, Nicolas. National Cancer Institute; Estados UnidosFil: Mackie, Anne. Public Health England; Reino UnidoFil: Berkhof, Johannes. University of Amsterdam; Países BajosFil: Brotherton, Julia. VCS Foundation; Australia. University of Melbourne; AustraliaFil: Giorgi Rossi, Paolo. Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale Di Reggio Emilia; ItaliaFil: Kupets, Rachel. University of Toronto; CanadáFil: Smith, Robert. American Cancer Society; Estados UnidosFil: Arrossi, Silvina. Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Bendahhou, Karima. Casablanca Cancer Registry; MarruecosFil: Canfell, Karen. The University Of Sydney; AustraliaFil: Chirenje, Z. Mike. University Of Zimbabwe; ZimbabueFil: Chung, Michael H.. University of Emory; Estados UnidosFil: del Pino, Marta. Hospital Clinico de Barcelona; EspañaFil: de Sanjosé, Silvia. Program for Appropriate Technology in Health; Estados UnidosFil: Elfström, Miriam. Karolinska Huddinge Hospital. Karolinska Institutet; SueciaFil: Franco, Eduardo L.. McGill University; CanadáFil: Hamashima, Chisato. Teikyo University; JapónFil: Hamers, Françoise F.. French National Public Health Agency; FranciaFil: Herrington, C. Simon. University of Edinburgh; Reino UnidoFil: Murillo, Raúl. Hospital Universitario San Ignacio; ColombiaFil: Sangrajrang, Suleeporn. National Cancer Institute; TailandiaFil: Sankaranarayanan, Rengaswamy. Research Triangle Institute; Estados UnidosFil: Saraiya, Mona. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Estados UnidosFil: Schiffman, Mark. National Cancer Institute; Estados UnidosFil: Zhao, Fanghui. Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College; ChinaFil: Arbyn, Marc. Sciensano; BélgicaFil: Prendiville, Walter. International Agency For Research On Cancer; FranciaFil: Indave Ruiz, Blanca I.. International Agency For Research On Cancer; FranciaFil: Mosquera Metcalfe, Isabel. International Agency For Research On Cancer; FranciaFil: Lauby Secretan, Béatrice. International Agency For Research On Cancer; Franci

Pardonner

L'“impardonnable” dont ont été qualifiés des événements de notre histoire récente nous oblige à repenser le “devoir” de pardonner, le “droit” au pardon. Les approches anthropologique, exégétique, philosophique et théologique de ce volume issu d'une session théologique tenue en 1994 à l'École des sciences philosophiques et religieuses des Facultés universitaires Saint-Louis à Bruxelles montrent à la fois la nécessité du pardon comme fondement de l'histoire, personnelle et collective, et son imprescriptibilité. Le paradoxe culminant dans le pardon donné une fois pour toutes et à tous par Jésus sur la croix

Traduire les philosophes

TRADUIRE LES PHILOSOPHES : le Centre d'Histoire des Systèmes de Pensée Moderne qu'OIivier Bloch dirigea jusqu'en 1994 a choisi ce thème pour les Journées d'étude dont on présente ici les Actes. Ces journées ont été préparées par un Comité scientifique auquel ont collaboré Étienne Balibar, Olivier Bloch, Bernard Bourgeois, Didier Deleule, Jean Deprun, Jean-René Ladmiral, Jacques Moutaux (responsable de l'organisation) et Ann Thomson. Quarante-deux communications ont été présentées et discutées. Elles touchent une grande diversité de domaines linguistiques, de principes, d'œuvres, de styles, de situations historiques, et donc aussi d'intérêts, de problèmes et de positions philosophiques. Ces communications ont été regroupées sous quatre titres correspondant à des orientations de recherche dont les exposés et les débats ont montré l'importance : I. Le traducteur et l’acte de traduire II. Spécificité des langues et terminologie philosophique III. Traduire dans l’histoire : histoire des traductions et traduction de l’histoire IV. Philosophies du langage et traduction : philosophies de la traductio