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.

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.

Providing reviews of evidence to COPD patients: qualitative study of barriers and facilitating factors to patient-mediated practice change.

This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitating factors to people with COPD performing the following actions: (a) reading a manual that contained summaries of evidence on treatments used in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and (b) at a medical consultation, asking questions that were provided in the manual and were designed to prompt doctors to review current treatments in the light of evidence. The manual was developed using current best practice and was designed to facilitate reading and discussion with doctors. In-depth interviews were held with patients who had received the manual. Of 125 intervention participants from a controlled clinical trial of the manual, 16 were interviewed in their homes in and around Adelaide, South Australia. Plain language writing and a simple layout facilitated reading of the manual by participants. Where the content matched the interests of participants this also facilitated reading. On the other hand, some participants showed limited interest in the evidence summaries. Participant comments indicated that they did not see it as possible or acceptable for patients to master research evidence or initiate discussions of evidence with doctors. These appeared to be the main barriers to effectiveness of the manual. If evidence summaries for patients are to be used in disease management, they should be understandable and relevant to patients and provide a basis for discussion between patients and doctors. Work is now needed so that we can both present evidence summaries in a way that is relevant to patients and reduce the barriers to patient-initiated discussions of evidence.