Search

IntroductionSmoking is a strong risk factor for disease severity in Crohn's disease (CD) and cessation improves outcomes. The nicotine metabolite ratio (NMR) predicts cessation success with pharmacotherapy: varenicline doubles cessation over nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for "normal", but not "slow" metabolizers. Varenicline side effects are heightened in slow metabolizers. Methods using NMR to optimize cessation pharmacotherapy have not been evaluated in CD.AimsWe aim to determine the prevalence of smoking in a CD population and then assess these smokers' attitudes toward a personalized metabolism-informed care (MIC) approach to cessation.MethodsIn this observational study, we surveyed 1098 patients visiting an inflammatory bowel disease center about their smoking history. We then evaluated a subgroup of individuals with CD (n = 32) who participated in a randomized controlled trial of smoking cessation using MIC versus usual care. For MIC, medication selection was informed by the NMR (normal ≥0.31 vs. slow ResultsThe baseline prevalence of smoking in our CD population was 13%. Intervention participants reported high rates of satisfaction (85%) and chose a medication that matched their NMR result more often in the MIC group (100% vs. 64%, p = 0.01). Six of 16 (37.5%) patients prescribed varenicline discontinued due to side effects.ConclusionMIC produced high rates of satisfaction and matching between NMR and medication in CD patients, supporting patient acceptance and feasibility of precision smoking cessation in this population. To reduce smoking in CD, therapies such as MIC are needed to maximize efficacy and minimize side effects.

Despite access to effective, safe, and affordable treatment for osteoporosis, at-risk women may choose not to start bisphosphonate therapy. Understanding the reasons women give for rejecting a clinician's offer of treatment during consultations and how clinician's react to these reasons may help clinicians develop more effective strategies for fracture prevention and medication adherence.We conducted a videographic evaluation of encounters in the Osteoporosis Choice randomized trial of a decision aid about bisphosphonates vs. usual primary care. Eligible videos involved consultations with women with an estimated 10-year fragility fracture risk >20% who verbalized at least one reason to not take bisphosphonates. Two reviewers independently reviewed eligible videos and verbatim transcripts, classifying patient views about bisphosphonate use, clinicians response to those views, and patient adherence at 6 months post visit.Eighteen video recordings (12 with decision aid) were eligible for analyses. We identified 37 reasons for and against bisphosphonate therapy. Eleven patients rejected treatment, offering 9 (average of 2 per patient) unique reasons against initiating bisphosphonates (most common: side effects 39% and distrust of medications in general 33%). When physicians conceded to patient views the outcome was no bisphosphonate use. Adherence to choices at 6 months was 100%.The expression of patient preferences is sometimes unfavorable to bisphosphonates treatment even among well-informed patients at high risk for osteoporotic fractures. At 6 months, patients who expressed concerns about these medicines behaved consistently with the decision made during the visit.