[COVID-19 screening strategy in workplaces in the canton of Vaud: what lessons?] / Stratégie de dépistage du Covid-19 dans les entreprises vaudoises : quels enseignements ?

Repetitive screening in enterprises was one of the measures recommended in Switzerland in the fight against COVID-19. In the canton of Vaud, 70 companies participated in the program, 73 % of which were small and medium-sized enterprises. The SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate was 0.07 % out of 70'105 tests performed. The impossibility of teleworking and the reduction of transmission were the main motivations for joining the program. The facilitating elements were the availability of the Cantonal Medical Office, the existence of a starter kit and the support of the hierarchy within the companies. The main obstacles were the arrival of vaccination, the multiplicity of screening providers and the workload. The program was a pragmatic action tool for companies rather than a population-based strategy.

Le dépistage en entreprise était une des mesures de lutte contre l'épidémie de Covid-19 promues par la Confédération. Dans le canton de Vaud, 70 entreprises ont participé au programme, dont 73 % de petites et moyennes entreprises. Le taux de positivité au SARS-CoV-2 a été de 0,07 % sur 70 105 tests réalisés. L'impossibilité du télétravail et la réduction de la transmission ont été les principales motivations d'adhésion. Les éléments facilitateurs ont été la disponibilité de l'Office du médecin cantonal, l'existence d'un starter kit et le soutien de la hiérarchie au sein des entreprises. Les freins principaux ont été l'arrivée de la vaccination, la multiplicité des prestataires de dépistage et la charge de travail. Le programme a représenté un outil d'action pragmatique pour les entreprises plutôt qu'une stratégie à visée populationnelle.

'Break the Chains 2015' community-based HIV prevention campaign for men who have sex with men in Switzerland: non-randomised evaluation and cost analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To study the implementation, effects and costs of Break the Chains, a community-based HIV prevention campaign for men who have sex with men (MSM) in Switzerland, from March to May 2015, which aimed to reduce early HIV transmission by promoting the campaign message to adopt short-term risk reduction followed by HIV testing. DESIGN: Non-randomised evaluation and cost analysis. SETTING: Gay venues in 11 of 26 cantons in Switzerland and national online media campaign. PARTICIPANTS: MSM in online surveys (precampaign n=834, postcampaign n=688) or attending HIV testing centres (n=885); campaign managers (n=9); and campaign staff (n=38) or further intermediaries (n=80) in an online survey. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of MSM at risk of HIV acquisition or transmission who adhered to the campaign message. Secondary outcomes were postcampaign test uptake, knowledge about HIV primary infection and sense of belonging to the gay community. RESULTS: Campaign staff estimated that they contacted 17 145 MSM in 11 cantons. Among 688 respondents to the postcampaign survey, 311 (45.2%) were categorised as MSM at risk. Of 402/688 (58.5%) MSM who had heard about Break the Chains 2015, MSM categorised as being at risk were less likely to report adherence to the campaign message than MSM not at risk (adjusted OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.42). Twenty per cent of MSM with a defined risk of HIV acquisition or transmission who adopted risk reduction declared having done so because of the campaign. Costs for one MSM at risk to adhere to the campaign message were estimated at USD purchasing power parity 36-55. The number of HIV tests in the month after the campaign was twice the monthly average. CONCLUSION: Break the Chains increased HIV testing, implying that community-based campaigns are useful HIV prevention strategies for MSM. Additional interventions are needed to reach MSM at the highest risk of infection more effectively.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers with feedback on the current or potential future biomedical effects of smoking using, for example, measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer or other diseases. OBJECTIVES: The main objective was to determine the efficacy of providing smokers with feedback on their exhaled CO measurement, spirometry results, atherosclerotic plaque imaging, and genetic susceptibility to smoking-related diseases in helping them to quit smoking. SEARCH METHODS: For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in March 2018 and ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP in September 2018 for studies added since the last update in 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria for the review were: a randomised controlled trial design; participants being current smokers; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase smoking cessation rates; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; and an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed results as a risk ratio (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 trials using a variety of biomedical tests interventions; one trial included two interventions, for a total of 21 interventions. We included a total of 9262 participants, all of whom were adult smokers. All studies included both men and women adult smokers at different stages of change and motivation for smoking cessation. We judged all but three studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. We pooled trials in three categories according to the type of biofeedback provided: feedback on risk exposure (five studies); feedback on smoking-related disease risk (five studies); and feedback on smoking-related harm (11 studies). There was no evidence of increased cessation rates from feedback on risk exposure, consisting mainly of feedback on CO measurement, in five pooled trials (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.21; I2 = 0%; n = 2368). Feedback on smoking-related disease risk, including four studies testing feedback on genetic markers for cancer risk and one study with feedback on genetic markers for risk of Crohn's disease, did not show a benefit in smoking cessation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; I2 = 0%; n = 2064). Feedback on smoking-related harm, including nine studies testing spirometry with or without feedback on lung age and two studies on feedback on carotid ultrasound, also did not show a benefit (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.61; I2 = 34%; n = 3314). Only one study directly compared multiple forms of measurement with a single form of measurement, and did not detect a significant difference in effect between measurement of CO plus genetic susceptibility to lung cancer and measurement of CO only (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.56; n = 189). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence about the effects of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. The most promising results relate to spirometry and carotid ultrasound, where moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision and risk of bias, did not detect a statistically significant benefit, but confidence intervals very narrowly missed one, and the point estimate favoured the intervention. A sensitivity analysis removing those studies at high risk of bias did detect a benefit. Moderate-certainty evidence limited by risk of bias did not detect an effect of feedback on smoking exposure by CO monitoring. Low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, did not detect a benefit from feedback on smoking-related risk by genetic marker testing. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.

Leptin and smoking cessation: secondary analyses of a randomized controlled trial assessing physical activity as an aid for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Smokers have a lower body weight compared to non-smokers. Smoking cessation is associated with weight gain in most cases. A hormonal mechanism of action might be implicated in weight variations related to smoking, and leptin might be implicated. We made secondary analyses of an RCT, with a hypothesis-free exploratory approach to study the dynamic of leptin following smoking cessation. METHODS: We measured serum leptin levels among 271 sedentary smokers willing to quit who participated in a randomized controlled trial assessing a 9-week moderate-intensity physical activity intervention as an aid for smoking cessation. We adjusted leptin for body fat levels. We performed linear regressions to test for an association between leptin levels and the study group over time. RESULTS: One year after smoking cessation, the mean serum leptin change was +3.23 mg/l (SD 4.89) in the control group and +1.25 mg/l (SD 4.86) in the intervention group (p of the difference < 0.05). When adjusted for body fat levels, leptin was higher in the control group than in the intervention group (p of the difference < 0.01). The mean weight gain was +2.91 (SD 6.66) Kg in the intervention and +3.33 (SD 4.47) Kg in the control groups, respectively (p not significant). CONCLUSIONS: Serum leptin levels significantly increased after smoking cessation, in spite of substantial weight gain. The leptin dynamic might be different in chronic tobacco users who quit smoking, and physical activity might impact the dynamic of leptin in such a situation. Clinical trial registration number: NCT00521391.

Predictors of weight change in sedentary smokers receiving a standard smoking cessation intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Quitting smoking is associated with weight gain, which may threaten motivation to engage or sustain a quit attempt. The pattern of weight gained by smokers treated according to smoking cessation guidelines has been poorly described. We aimed to determine the weight gained after smoking cessation and its predictors, by smokers receiving individual counseling and nicotine replacement therapies for smoking cessation. METHODS: We performed an ancillary analysis of a randomized controlled trial assessing moderate physical activity as an aid for smoking cessation in addition to standard treatment in sedentary adult smokers. We used mixed longitudinal models to describe the evolution of weight over time, thus allowing us to take every participant into account. We also fitted a model to assess the effect of smoking status and reported use of nicotine replacement therapy at each time point. We adjusted for intervention group, sex, age, nicotine dependence, and education. RESULTS: In the whole cohort, weight increased in the first 3 months, and stabilized afterwards. Mean 1-year weight gain was 3.3kg for women and 3.9kg for men (p = .002). Higher nicotine dependence and male sex were associated with more weight gained during abstinence. Age over median was associated with continuing weight gain during relapse. There was a nonsignificant trend toward slower weight gain with use of nicotine replacement therapies. CONCLUSION: Sedentary smokers receiving a standard smoking cessation intervention experience a moderate weight gain, limited to the first 3 months. Older age, male sex, and higher nicotine dependence are predictors of weight gain.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS: For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in July 2012 for studies added since the last update in 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, a pooled effect was estimated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials using a variety of biomedical tests. Two pairs of trials had sufficiently similar recruitment, setting and interventions to calculate a pooled effect; there was no evidence that carbon monoxide (CO) measurement in primary care (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) or spirometry in primary care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81) increased cessation rates. We did not pool the other 11 trials due to the presence of substantial clinical heterogeneity. Of the remaining 11 trials, two trials detected statistically significant benefits: one trial in primary care detected a significant benefit of lung age feedback after spirometry (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62) and one trial that used ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries and photographs of plaques detected a benefit (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.04 to 7.41) but enrolled a population of light smokers and was judged to be at unclear risk of bias in two domains. Nine further trials did not detect significant effects. One of these tested CO feedback alone and CO combined with genetic susceptibility as two different interventions; none of the three possible comparisons detected significant effects. One trial used CO measurement, one used ultrasonography of carotid arteries and two tested for genetic markers. The four remaining trials used a combination of CO and spirometry feedback in different settings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment on smoking cessation. Of the fifteen included studies, only two detected a significant effect of the intervention. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial but the evidence is not optimal. A trial of carotid plaque screening using ultrasound also detected a significant effect, but a second larger study of a similar feedback mechanism did not detect evidence of an effect. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in terms of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analyses; neither of these found evidence of an effect. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.

Clinical evaluation of iron treatment efficiency among non-anemic but iron-deficient female blood donors: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency without anemia is related to adverse symptoms that can be relieved by supplementation. Since a blood donation can induce such an iron deficiency, we investigated the clinical impact of iron treatment after a blood donation. METHODS: One week after donation, we randomly assigned 154 female donors with iron deficiency without anemia, aged below 50 years, to a four-week oral treatment of ferrous sulfate versus a placebo. The main outcome was the change in the level of fatigue before and after the intervention. Aerobic capacity, mood disorder, quality of life, compliance and adverse events were also evaluated. Hemoglobin and ferritin were used as biological markers. RESULTS: The effect of the treatment from baseline to four weeks of iron treatment was an increase in hemoglobin and ferritin levels to 5.2 g/L (P < 0.01) and 14.8 ng/mL (P < 0.01), respectively. No significant clinical effect was observed for fatigue (-0.15 points, 95% confidence interval -0.9 points to 0.6 points, P = 0.697) or for other outcomes. Compliance and interruption for side effects was similar in both groups. Additionally, blood donation did not induce overt symptoms of fatigue in spite of the significant biological changes it produces. CONCLUSIONS: These data are valuable as they enable us to conclude that donors with iron deficiency without anemia after a blood donation would not clinically benefit from iron supplementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00981877.

Participation in a population-based physical activity programme as an aid for smoking cessation: a randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: Exercise combined with nicotine therapy may help smoking cessation and minimise weight gain after quitting. Low participation in vigorous-intensity physical activity programmes precludes their population-wide applicability. In a randomised controlled trial, we tested whether a population-based moderate-intensity physical activity programme increases quit rates among sedentary smokers receiving nicotine therapy. METHODS: Participants (n=481; 57% male; mean age, 42.2 years (SD 10.1); mean cigarette consumption, 27 (SD 10.2) per day) were offered a nine-week smoking cessation programme consisting of a weekly 15-minute counselling session and the prescription of nicotine replacement therapy. In addition, participants in the physical activity group (n=229) also took part in a programme of moderate-intensity physical activity implemented at the national level, and offering nine weekly 60-minute sessions of physical activity. To ensure equal contact conditions, participants in the control group (n=252) attended weekly 60-minute health behaviour education sessions unrelated to physical activity. The primary outcome was continuous CO-verified smoking abstinence rates at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Continuous smoking abstinence rates were high and similar in the physical activity group and the control group at the end of the intervention (47% versus 46%, p=0.81) and at 1-year follow-up (27% versus 29%, p=0.71). The mean weight gain after one year was 4.4 kg and 6.2 kg among sustained quitters of the physical activity and control groups, respectively (p=0.06). CONCLUSION: Participation in a population-based moderate-intensity physical activity programme for 9 weeks in addition to a comprehensive smoking cessation programme did not significantly increase smoking cessation rates. A non-significant reduction in weight gain was observed among participants who quit smoking in the physical activity group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; US National Institutes for Health (available online at http://clinicaltrials.gov/; CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00521391).

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We systematically searched the Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2008 Issue 4, MEDLINE (1966 to January 2009), and EMBASE (1980 to January 2009). We combined methodological terms with terms related to smoking cessation counselling and biomedical measurements. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate a pooled effect was estimated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect method. MAIN RESULTS: We included eleven trials using a variety of biomedical tests. Two pairs of trials had sufficiently similar recruitment, setting and interventions to calculate a pooled effect; there was no evidence that CO measurement in primary care (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) or spirometry in primary care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81) increased cessation rates. We did not pool the other seven trials. One trial in primary care detected a significant benefit of lung age feedback after spirometry (RR 2.12; 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62). One trial that used ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries and photographs of plaques detected a benefit (RR 2.77; 95% CI 1.04 to 7.41) but enrolled a population of light smokers. Five trials failed to detect evidence of a significant effect. One of these tested CO feedback alone and CO + genetic susceptibility as two different intervention; none of the three possible comparisons detected significant effects. Three others used a combination of CO and spirometry feedback in different settings, and one tested for a genetic marker. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in term of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analysis.

The impact of iron supplementation efficiency in female blood donors with a decreased ferritin level and no anaemia. Rationale and design of a randomised controlled trial: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is no recommendation to screen ferritin level in blood donors, even though several studies have noted the high prevalence of iron deficiency after blood donation, particularly among menstruating females. Furthermore, some clinical trials have shown that non-anaemic women with unexplained fatigue may benefit from iron supplementation. Our objective is to determine the clinical effect of iron supplementation on fatigue in female blood donors without anaemia, but with a mean serum ferritin < or = 30 ng/ml. METHODS/DESIGN: In a double blind randomised controlled trial, we will measure blood count and ferritin level of women under age 50 yr, who donate blood to the University Hospital of Lausanne Blood Transfusion Department, at the time of the donation and after 1 week. One hundred and forty donors with a ferritin level < or = 30 ng/ml and haemoglobin level >/= 120 g/l (non-anaemic) a week after the donation will be included in the study and randomised. A one-month course of oral ferrous sulphate (80 mg/day of elemental iron) will be introduced vs. placebo. Self-reported fatigue will be measured using a visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes are: score of fatigue (Fatigue Severity Scale), maximal aerobic power (Chester Step Test), quality of life (SF-12), and mood disorders (Prime-MD). Haemoglobin and ferritin concentration will be monitored before and after the intervention. DISCUSSION: Iron deficiency is a potential problem for all blood donors, especially menstruating women. To our knowledge, no other intervention study has yet evaluated the impact of iron supplementation on subjective symptoms after a blood donation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00689793.

Effectiveness of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment (eg, exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer) as an aid for smoking cessation. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline (1966-2004) and EMBASE (1980-2004). STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled smoking cessation interventions using biomedical tests with at least 6 months follow-up. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently screened all search results (titles and abstracts) for possible inclusion. Each reviewer then extracted data from the selected studies, and assessed their methodological quality based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 4049 retrieved references, eight trials were retained for data extraction and analysis. Three trials isolated the effect of exhaled CO on smoking cessation rates resulting in the following ORs and 95% CIs: 0.73 (0.38 to 1.39), 0.93 (0.62 to 1.41) and 1.18 (0.84 to 1.64). Measurement of exhaled CO and spirometry were used together in three trials, resulting in the following ORs (95% CI): 0.60 (0.25 to 1.46), 2.45 (0.73 to 8.25) and 3.50 (0.88 to 13.92). Spirometry results alone were used in one other trial with an OR (95% CI) of 1.21 (0.60 to 2.42). Ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries performed on light smokers gave an OR (95% CI) of 3.15 (1.06 to 9.31). CONCLUSIONS: Scarcity and limited quality of the current evidence does not support the hypothesis that biomedical risk assessment increases smoking cessation as compared with the standard treatment.

Effectiveness of a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention for hospitalized patients.

Debate exists about how intense smoking cessation interventions for hospitalized patients should be. In this study we assessed the effectiveness of a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention for hospitalized patients, without follow-up phone calls. We designed a cohort study with a historical control group, in the Department of Medicine of an 850-bed teaching hospital. One hundred and seventeen consecutive eligible smokers received the intervention, and 113 smokers hospitalized before the implementation of the intervention constituted the historical control group. The 30-min smoking cessation intervention was performed by a trained resident without any follow-up contact. Counseling was matched to smokers' motivation to quit, and accompanied by a self-help booklet. Nicotine replacement therapy was prescribed when indicated. All patients received a questionnaire to evaluate their smoking habits 6 months after they left hospital. We counted patients lost to follow-up as continuous smokers and smoking abstinence was validated by patients' physicians. Validated smoking cessation rates were 23.9% in the intervention group and 9.7% in the control group (odds ratio 2.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.4-6.2). After adjusting for potential confounders, intervention was still effective with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.26 (95% confidence interval: 1.04-4.95). Among those who continued to smoke 6 months after hospitalization, the likelihood of reporting any decrease of cigarette consumption was higher in the intervention cohort (70.8 vs. 42.7%, P=0.001). A low-intensity smoking cessation intervention, based on two visits without any follow-up contact, is associated with a higher quit rate at 6 months than that for historical control patients. Our findings show that a low-intensity smoking cessation intervention, based on two visits without any follow-up contact, is associated with a higher quit rate at 6 months than that for historical control patients.