The effect of smoking nicotine tobacco versus smoking deprivation on motion sickness

BACKGROUND: The experienced smoker maintains adequate nicotine levels by 'puff-by-puff self-control' which also avoids symptomatic nauseating effects of nicotine overdose. It is postulated that there is a varying 'dynamic threshold for nausea' into which motion sickness susceptibility provides an objective toxin-free probe. Hypotheses were that: (i) nicotine promotes motion sickness whereas deprivation protects; and (ii) pleasurable effects of nicotine protect against motion sickness whereas adverse effects of withdrawal have the opposite effect. METHODS: Twenty-six healthy habitual cigarette smokers (mean±SD) 15.3±7.6cigs/day, were exposed to a provocative cross-coupled (coriolis) motion on a turntable, with sequences of 8 head movements every 30s. This continued to the point of moderate nausea. Subjects were tested after either ad-lib normal smoking (SMOKE) or after overnight deprivation (DEPRIV), according to a repeated measures design counter-balanced for order with 1-week interval between tests. RESULTS: Deprivation from recent smoking was confirmed by objective measures: exhaled carbon monoxide CO was lower (P<0.001) for DEPRIV (8.5±5.6ppm) versus SMOKE (16.0±6.3ppm); resting heart rate was lower (P<0.001) for DEPRIV (67.9±8.4bpm) versus SMOKE (74.3±9.5bpm). Mean±SD sequences of head movements tolerated to achieve moderate nausea were more (P=0.014) for DEPRIV (21.3±9.9) versus SMOKE (18.3±8.5). DISCUSSION: Tolerance to motion sickness was aided by short-term smoking deprivation, supporting Hypothesis (i) but not Hypothesis (ii). The effect was was approximately equivalent to half of the effect of an anti-motion sickness drug. Temporary nicotine withdrawal peri-operatively may explain why smokers have reduced risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

Where and how to find data on safety: what do systematic reviews of complementary therapies tell us?

Background: Successfully identifying relevant data for systematic reviews with a focus on safety may require retrieving information from a wider range of sources than for ‘effectiveness’ systematic reviews. Searching for safety data continues to prove a major challenge. Objectives: To examine search methods used in systematic reviews of safety and to investigate indexing. Methods: Systematic reviews focusing on safety of complementary therapies and related interventions were retrieved from comprehensive searches of major databases. Data was extracted on search strategies, sources used and indexing in major databases. Safety related search terms were compared against index terms available on major databases. Data extraction by one researcher using a pre-prepared template was checked for accuracy by a second researcher. Results: Screening of 2563 records resulted in 88 systematic reviews being identified. Information sources used varied with the type of intervention being addressed. Comparison of search terms with available index terms revealed additional potentially relevant terms that could be used in constructing search strategies. Seventy-nine reviews were indexed on PubMed, 84 on EMBASE, 21 on CINAHL, 15 on AMED, 6 on PsycINFO, 2 on BNI and HMIC. The mean number of generic safety-related indexing terms on PubMed records was 2.6. For EMBASE the mean number was 4.8 with at least 61 unique terms being employed. Most frequently used indexing terms and subheadings were adverse effects, side effects, drug interactions and herb-drug interactions. Use of terms specifically referring to safety varied across databases. Conclusions: Investigation of search methods revealed the range of information sources used, a list of which may prove a valuable resource for those planning to conduct systematic reviews of safety. The findings also indicated that there is potential to improve safety-related search strategies. Finally, an insight is provided into indexing of and most effective terms for finding safety studies on major databases.

Starting antidepressant use: a qualitative synthesis of UK and Australian data

Objective To explore people's experiences of starting antidepressant treatment. Design Qualitative interpretive approach combining thematic analysis with constant comparison. Relevant coding reports from the original studies (generated using NVivo) relating to initial experiences of antidepressants were explored in further detail, focusing on the ways in which participants discussed their experiences of taking or being prescribed an antidepressant for the first time. Participants 108 men and women aged 22–84 who had taken antidepressants for depression. Setting Respondents recruited throughout the UK during 2003–2004 and 2008 and 2012–2013 and in Australia during 2010–2011. Results People expressed a wide range of feelings about initiating antidepressant use. People's attitudes towards starting antidepressant use were shaped by stereotypes and stigmas related to perceived drug dependency and potentially extreme side effects. Anxieties were expressed about starting use, and about how long the antidepressant might begin to take effect, how much it might help or hinder them, and about what to expect in the initial weeks. People worried about the possibility of experiencing adverse effects and implications for their senses of self. Where people felt they had not been given sufficient time during their consultation information or support to take the medicines, the uncertainty could be particularly unsettling and impact on their ongoing views on and use of antidepressants as a viable treatment option. Conclusions Our paper is the first to explore in-depth patient existential concerns about start of antidepressant use using multicountry data. People need additional support when they make decisions about starting antidepressants. Health professionals can use our findings to better understand and explore with patients’ their concerns before their patients start antidepressants. These insights are key to supporting patients, many of whom feel intimidated by the prospect of taking antidepressants, especially during the uncertain first few weeks of treatment.

The effect of a selective CXCR2 antagonist (AZD5069) on human blood neutrophil count and innate immune functions.

Abstract AIMS: The aim of the present study was to investigate whether selective antagonism of the cysteine-X-cysteine chemokine receptor-2 (CXCR2) receptor has any adverse effects on the key innate effector functions of human neutrophils for defence against microbial pathogens. METHODS: In a double-blind, crossover study, 30 healthy volunteers were randomized to treatment with the CXCR2 antagonist AZD5069 (100 mg) or placebo, twice daily orally for 6 days. The peripheral blood neutrophil count was assessed at baseline, daily during treatment and in response to exercise challenge and subcutaneous injection of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). Neutrophil function was evaluated by phagocytosis of Escherichia coli and by the oxidative burst response to E. coli. RESULTS: AZD5069 treatment reversibly reduced circulating neutrophil count from baseline by a mean [standard deviation (SD)] of -1.67 (0.67) ×10(9) l(-1) vs. 0.19 (0.78) ×10(9) l(-1) for placebo on day 2, returning to baseline by day 7 after the last dose. Despite low counts on day 4, a 10-min exercise challenge increased absolute blood neutrophil count, but the effect with AZD5069 was smaller and not sustained, compared with placebo treatment. Subcutaneous G-CSF on day 5 caused a substantial increase in blood neutrophil count in both placebo- and AZD5069-treated subjects. Superoxide anion production in E. coli-stimulated neutrophils and phagocytosis of E. coli were unaffected by AZD5069 (P = 0.375, P = 0.721, respectively vs. baseline, Day 4). AZD5069 was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: CXCR2 antagonism did not appear adversely to affect the mobilization of neutrophils from bone marrow into the peripheral circulation, phagocytosis or the oxidative burst response to bacterial pathogens. This supports the potential of CXCR2 antagonists as a treatment option for diseases in which neutrophils play a pathological role.