Attitudes and awareness of medical assistance while traveling abroad.

BACKGROUND: With globalization, more and more people travel to countries where they are at risk of injuries and travel-related diseases. To protect travelers' health, it is crucial to understand whether travelers accurately perceive medical assistance resources before and during their trips. This study investigated the need, awareness, and previous usage of overseas emergency medical assistance services (EMAS) among people traveling abroad. METHODS: Anonymous questionnaires were distributed to patients (n = 500) at a travel clinic in Taipei, Taiwan. RESULTS: The results showed that EMAS were important, especially in the following categories: 24-h telephone medical consultation (91.8%), emergent medical repatriation (87.6%), and assistance with arranging hospital admission (87.4%). Patients were less aware of the following services: arrangement of appointments with doctors (70.7%) and monitoring of medical conditions during hospitalization (73.0%). Less than 5% of respondents had a previous experience with EMAS. CONCLUSIONS: EMAS are considered important to people who are traveling abroad. However, approximately 20-30% of travelers lack an awareness of EMAS, and the percentage of travelers who have previously received medical assistance through these services is extremely low. The discrepancy between the need and usage of EMAS emphasizes the necessity to adapt EMAS materials in pre-travel consultations to meet the needs of international travelers.

Combination therapy of varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy is better than varenicline alone: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is a major preventable cause of morbidity and premature death worldwide. Both varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) help achieve smoking cessation. However, limited evidence exists regarding whether combination of varenicline and NRT is more effective than either alone. The aim of this research was to investigate the efficacy and safety of varenicline combined with NRT. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrial.gov, and Cochrane Library was conducted in November 2014. Two authors independently reviewed and selected randomized controlled trials. The quality of the studies was evaluated by the Jadad score. We carried out meta-analysis of both early (abstinence rate assessed before or at the end of treatment) and late (assessed after the end of the treatment) outcomes. RESULTS: Three randomized controlled trials with 904 participants were included in this meta-analysis. All three were comparing combination therapy with varenicline therapy alone. The late outcomes were assessed in 2 of the 3 trials. Both the early and late outcomes were favorable for combination therapy (OR = 1.50, 95 % CI 1.14 to 1.97; OR = 1.62, 95 % CI 1.18 to 2.23, respectively). However, this significance diminished after eliminating a study with pre-cessation treatment using nicotine patch. The most common adverse events were nausea, insomnia, abnormal dreams, and headache. One study reported more skin reactions (14.4 % vs 7.8 %; p = 0.03) associated with combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy is more effective than varenicline alone, especially if pre-cessation treatment of nicotine patch is administrated. Adverse events of combination therapy are similar to mono-therapy except for skin reactions.