Critical appraisal of the existing and emerging therapies for smoking cessation.

Smoking is a major health problem of the society as it causes a wide variety of health hazards and produces a strong addictive behavior. Various pharmacological and non pharmacological treatments have been tried for smoking cessation from time to time. Some of the pharmacological treatments have been able to achieve the status of first line and second line therapy for smoking cessation by the US Public Health Service Clinical Practice Guideline. Some newer and very promising drugs have come up and are in the clinical trials for establishment of their efficacy. While some other drugs have been tried from time to time but have failed to show any consistent results. Various non pharmacological therapies like behavioural therapy are also of utmost importance in this regard. This article gives a brief review and critical assessment of the existing and the emerging smoking cessation therapies.

Clinical evaluation of two antiemetic combinations palonosetron dexamethasone versus ondansetron dexamethasone in chemotherapy of head and neck cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Palonosetron and ondansetron are two selective 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT3) receptor antagonists that have shown remarkable efficacy in controlling nausea and vomiting following administration of moderately emetic anticancer chemotherapy. Their efficacy is enhanced by the concurrent administration of dexamethasone. In the present study, we aimed to compare the antiemetic efficacy of a palonosetron plus dexamethasone (PD) schedule versus an ondansetron plus dexamethasone (OD) schedule. METHODS: A randomised, crossover trial was conducted in 30 patients with head and neck cancer who were receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The patients were divided into two groups. In the first cycle, one group was given a PD schedule and the other, an OD schedule. For the subsequent cycle, crossover of the antiemetic schedules was done. The antiemetic effects were evaluated by recording the intensity of nausea and the frequency of vomiting in the acute and delayed phases. RESULTS: Complete response in the acute phase was observed in 83.3 percent of the patients on the PD schedule and in 80 percent of those on the OD schedule. In the delayed phase, complete response was observed in 76.7 percent and 66.7 percent of the patients on the PD schedule and OD schedule, respectively. The overall rate of complete response was 66.7 percent in the PD group and 46.7 percent in the OD group. In the PD group, there were 73.3 percent of nausea-free patients as opposed to 66.7 percent in the OD group. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the PD schedule was superior to the OD schedule in controlling emesis in cancer chemotherapy, although this difference was not statistically significant.

Mental health in older adult recipients of primary care services: is depression the key issue? Identification, treatment and the general practitioner.

OBJECTIVES: Mental health services for older people in primary care are relatively underdeveloped. This study has sought to determine the nature and extent of mental health problems in older people presenting to primary care and to compare this with the detection and management of mental health problems by the primary health care team (PHCT). METHOD: Participants were patients aged 65 years and above attending a representative inner city general practice. Screening tools included the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE). The PHCT used a brief checklist to rate participants for the presence of mental health problems. Follow-up interviews using the Geriatric Mental State (GMSA), Cambridge Examination for Mental Disorders in the Elderly (CAMDEX)-cognitive subscale (CAMCOG), National Adult Reading Test (NART), were carried out. RESULTS: A high level of psychological morbidity was identified at screening (48.1%). There was a considerable degree of agreement between the HADS and GMSA, and the MMSE and GMSA at follow-up. Agreement rates between the PHCT and initial screening tools were low suggesting under-recognition of mental health problems at primary care level by the PHCT. Contributory factors included: short consultation times with a concentration on physical symptoms; few patients presenting explicitly with mental health problems; few decisions to treat or refer patients; and the general practitioners tended to monitor, or defer decisions. CONCLUSIONS: This study found lower levels of severe mental health problems, especially depression, than reported elsewhere, but higher prevalence of psychological distress. High levels of physical and mental health co-morbidity were found. These findings suggest that planning for primary care services needs to adopt a flexible assessment model. The development of effective, time-limited protocols and screening tools to assist the PHCT in improving their identification rates is recommended. This needs to be supported by the availability of appropriate treatments for the psychological distress.