Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
A Pilot Study to Evaluate the Use of Automated Nicotine Metabolite Ratio Reporting Within Primary Care as an Implementation Strategy to Increase the Use of Tobacco Treatments.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schnoll Robert, Leone Frank T, Bauer Anna-Marika, Wileyto E Paul, Wollack Colin, Stevens Nathaniel, Blumenthal Daniel, Foster Casey, Koita Fodie, Villasenor Julia, Jenssen Brian P
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Concerns about safety and effectiveness of tobacco treatments reduce their use. We explored integrating the nicotine metabolite ratio (NMR), and messaging about its potential for improving safety and effectiveness, as a strategy to increase the use of tobacco treatments within primary care.
AIMS AND METHODS: Through a prospective cohort design, we explored the effects of integrating NMR testing within primary care on the provision of tobacco treatment; 65 patients completed assessments including NMR before a clinic visit. At the clinic visit, patients' clinicians received an electronic health record (EHR) alert about the patient's NMR and personalized treatment recommendations to improve effectiveness and safety. Being asked about smoking and advised to quit, and a referral for tobacco treatment or medication prescription, were assessed within 30 days of the appointment and were compared to a usual care cohort (N = 85).
RESULTS: The NMR and usual care cohorts reported similar rates of being asked about smoking (92.3% vs. 92.9%, p = 1.0), being advised to quit (72.3% vs. 74.1%, p = .85), being referred for tobacco treatment (23.1% vs. 36.5%, p = .11), and receiving tobacco use medications (20% vs. 27.1%, p = .34). In the NMR cohort, fast versus slow metabolizers were more likely to receive medication (26% vs. 0%, p = .003) and all patients who received varenicline (n = 8) were fast metabolizers.
CONCLUSIONS: NMR results and treatment recommendations did not increase tobacco treatment rates in primary care, although it may increase treatment rates and the use of varenicline for fast metabolizers. Future studies could test ways to use the NMR to increase tobacco treatment rates in clinical settings.
IMPLICATIONS: This study generated a novel implementation strategy, namely an EHR alert about patients' NMR and personalized treatment recommendations, in an effort to increase tobacco treatment rates in primary care. While the strategy did not increase tobacco treatment rates, it may have boosted the rate of varenicline prescription for patients who metabolize nicotine faster, aligning with evidence-based practice.
AIMS AND METHODS: Through a prospective cohort design, we explored the effects of integrating NMR testing within primary care on the provision of tobacco treatment; 65 patients completed assessments including NMR before a clinic visit. At the clinic visit, patients' clinicians received an electronic health record (EHR) alert about the patient's NMR and personalized treatment recommendations to improve effectiveness and safety. Being asked about smoking and advised to quit, and a referral for tobacco treatment or medication prescription, were assessed within 30 days of the appointment and were compared to a usual care cohort (N = 85).
RESULTS: The NMR and usual care cohorts reported similar rates of being asked about smoking (92.3% vs. 92.9%, p = 1.0), being advised to quit (72.3% vs. 74.1%, p = .85), being referred for tobacco treatment (23.1% vs. 36.5%, p = .11), and receiving tobacco use medications (20% vs. 27.1%, p = .34). In the NMR cohort, fast versus slow metabolizers were more likely to receive medication (26% vs. 0%, p = .003) and all patients who received varenicline (n = 8) were fast metabolizers.
CONCLUSIONS: NMR results and treatment recommendations did not increase tobacco treatment rates in primary care, although it may increase treatment rates and the use of varenicline for fast metabolizers. Future studies could test ways to use the NMR to increase tobacco treatment rates in clinical settings.
IMPLICATIONS: This study generated a novel implementation strategy, namely an EHR alert about patients' NMR and personalized treatment recommendations, in an effort to increase tobacco treatment rates in primary care. While the strategy did not increase tobacco treatment rates, it may have boosted the rate of varenicline prescription for patients who metabolize nicotine faster, aligning with evidence-based practice.