Safety of varenicline tartrate and counseling versus counseling alone for smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial for inpatients (STOP study).

INTRODUCTION: Inpatient medical settings offer an opportunistic environment for initiating smoking cessation interventions to patients reflecting on their health. Current evidence has shown the superior efficacy of varenicline tartrate (VT) for smoking cessation compared with other tobacco cessation therapies; however, recent evidence also has highlighted concerns about the safety and tolerability of VT. Given these apprehensions, we aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of VT plus quitline-counseling compared to quitline-counseling alone in the inpatient medical setting. METHODS: Adult patients (n = 392, 20-75 years) admitted with a smoking-related illnesses to 3 hospitals were randomized to receive either 12 weeks of varenicline tartrate (titrated from 0.5mg daily to 1mg twice daily) plus quitline-counseling (VT+C), (n = 196) or quitline-counseling alone (n = 196). RESULTS: VT was well tolerated in the inpatient setting among subjects admitted with acute smoking-related illnesses (mean age 52.8±2.89 and 53.7±2.77 years in the VT+C and counseling alone groups, respectively). The most common self-reported adverse event during the 12-week treatment phase was nausea (16.3% in the VT+C group compared with 1.5% in the counseling alone group). Thirteen deaths occurred during the study period (n = 6 were in the VT+C arm compared with n = 7 in the counseling alone arm). All of these subjects had known comorbidities or developed underlying comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: VT appears to be a safe and well-tolerated opportunistic treatment for inpatient smokers who have related chronic disease. Based on the proven efficacy of varenicline from outpatient studies and our recent inpatient evidence, we suggest it be considered as part of standard care in the hospital setting.

Smoking Termination Opportunity for inPatients (STOP): superiority of a course of varenicline tartrate plus counselling over counselling alone for smoking cessation: a 12-month randomised controlled trial for inpatients.

RATIONALE: Smoking cessation interventions in outpatient settings have been demonstrated to be cost effective. Given this evidence, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of varenicline tartrate plus Quitline-counselling compared with Quitline-counselling alone when initiated in the inpatient setting. METHODS: Adult patients (18-75 years) admitted with a smoking-related illness to three hospitals, were randomised to receive either 12-weeks of varenicline tartrate plus Quitline-counselling, (n=196) or Quitline-counselling alone, (n=196), with 12-months follow-up. RESULTS: For the primary analysis population (intention-to-treat), the proportion of subjects who remained continuously abstinent were significantly greater in the varenicline plus counselling arm (31.1%, n=61) compared with counselling alone (21.4%, n=42; RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.03, p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of varenicline plus counselling when initiated in the inpatient setting has produced a sustained smoking cessation benefit at 12-months follow-up, indicating a successful opportunistic treatment for smokers admitted with smoking related illnesses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ ClinicalTrials.gov identification number: NCT01141855.

Correction: Two-year efficacy of varenicline tartrate and counselling for inpatient smoking cessation (STOP study): A randomized controlled clinical trial.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231095.].

Two-year efficacy of varenicline tartrate and counselling for inpatient smoking cessation (STOP study): A randomized controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Varenicline tartrate is superior for smoking cessation to other tobacco cessation therapies by 52 weeks, in the outpatient setting. We aimed to evaluate the long-term (104 week) efficacy following a standard course of inpatient-initiated varenicline tartrate plus Quitline-counselling compared to Quitline-counselling alone. METHODS: Adult patients (n = 392, 20-75 years) admitted with a smoking-related illnesses to one of three hospitals, were randomised to receive either 12-weeks of varenicline tartrate (titrated from 0.5mg daily to 1mg twice-daily) plus Quitline-counselling, (n = 196) or Quitline-counselling alone, (n = 196), with continuous abstinence from smoking assessed at 104 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 1959 potential participants were screened for eligibility between August 2008 and December 2011. The proportion of participants who remained continuously abstinent (intention-to-treat) at 104 weeks were significantly greater in the varenicline tartrate plus counselling arm (29.2% n = 56) compared to counselling alone (18.8% n = 36; p = 0.02; odds ratio 1.78; 95%CI 1.10 to 2.86, p = 0.02). Twenty-two deaths occurred during the 104 week study (n = 10 for varenicline tartrate plus counselling and n = 12 for Quitline-counselling alone). All of these participants had known or developed underlying co-morbidities. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to examine the efficacy and safety of varenicline tartrate over 104 weeks within any setting. Varenicline tartrate plus Quitline-counselling was found to be an effective opportunistic treatment when initiated for inpatient smokers who had been admitted with tobacco-related disease.

The effect on medication errors of pharmacists charting medication in an emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and clinical significance of medication errors when (a) pharmacists elicit medication histories in the Emergency Department after medications have been prescribed by doctors and (b) pharmacists obtain and chart medication histories prior to doctors' approval. SETTING: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, a 350 bed South Australian teaching hospital, serving the local adult community. METHOD: Emergency Department patients at risk of medication misadventure were recruited in two phases with a 'usual practice' arm (6 weeks) and a 'pharmacist medication charting' arm (5 weeks) reflecting an alternative intervention. In the 'usual care' arm, medication histories were compiled by a pharmacy researcher after a doctor had completed the medication chart. The researcher-elicited medication histories were compared with the doctors' medication charts and unintentional discrepancies were recorded. In the 'pharmacist medication charting' arm, the same process was followed except the researcher compiled the patients' medication histories at triage, prior to patients seeing a doctor. The medication history was then transcribed onto a medication chart for authorisation by a doctor. In addition, whether resolution of unintentional discrepancies for patients in the 'usual care' arm had occurred by discharge was determined by examining patients' medical records. Main outcome measure Frequency of unintentional discrepancies and medication errors. RESULTS: The study included 45 and 29 patients in the 'usual care' and intervention arms, respectively. In the 'usual care' arm, 75.6% of patients had one or more unintentional discrepancies compared with 3.3% in the 'pharmacist medication charting' arm. This resulted in an average of 2.35 missed doses per patient in the 'usual care' arm and 0.24 in the intervention arm. In addition, an average of 1.04 incorrect doses per patient were administered in the 'usual care' arm and none in the 'pharmacist medication charting' arm. The differences observed between the arms were statistically significant (P < 0.05) and deemed clinically significant by a multidisciplinary panel. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence for pharmacists eliciting medication histories to prepare medication charts at the earliest possible opportunity following a patient's presentation to the Emergency Department.

Improving a pivotal hospital documentation tool utilised by clinical pharmacists.

OBJECTIVE: To improve an adherence documentation tool utilised by Australian Clinical Pharmacists in hospitals. METHOD: Surveys and a focus group session were methods employed to study the perceptions of clinical pharmacists and medical officers on the 'Medication Management Plan (MedMAP)' as an adherence documentation tool and the perceived limitations, if any, of the form. KEY FINDINGS: The MedMAP had limitations which could potentially affect patient care in hospitals. The modified form was successfully trialled over a period of two weeks with favourable results. CONCLUSION: The study identified the shortcomings of the MedMAP form and further underlined the importance of continual auditing of pivotal adherence documentation tools in hospital.

Suspected DLIS interference in the dimension DGNA digoxin assay method and the clinical application of the revised digoxin target range.

The authors present a case of an elderly female patient with heart failure and renal dysfunction treated with digoxin, where 2 commercial immunoassay methods (DRI, Microgenics, and DGNA, Dade Behring) showed a clinically very significant discrepancy on the same plasma sample, viz. 0.5 and 2.3 nmol/L, respectively. The sample was also referred to a third external laboratory that returned a result of 0.9 nmol/L using mFPIA (AxSYM, Abbott). Subsequent ultrafiltration (30,000 Dalton) on the sample essentially eliminated the difference, suggesting an interference from a large molecular weight compound(s), potentially the well-described digoxin-like immunoreactive substance(s) (DLIS). Although further study is required to verify that the DLIS implicated was indeed the interfering species, it does again highlight the importance of careful method selection in the clinical therapeutic drug monitoring laboratory to ensure that such well-established potential problems do not result in inappropriate dosage reduction with consequent lack of adequate drug exposure and serious clinical sequelae.