Tobacco taxation is an essential component of a comprehensive tobacco control strategy. However, to fully realize the benefits it is vital to understand the impact of increased taxes among high-risk subpopulations. Are they influenced to the same extent as the general population? Do they need additional measures to influence smoking behavior? The objectives of this study were to synthesize the evidence regarding differential effects of taxation and price on smoking in: youth, young adults, persons of low socio-economic status, with dual diagnoses, heavy/long-term smokers, and Aboriginal people. Using a better practices approach, a knowledge synthesis was conducted using a systematic review of the literature and an expert advisory panel. Experts were involved in developing the study plan, discussing findings, developing policy recommendations, and identifying priorities for future research. Most studies found that raising cigarette prices through increased taxes is a highly effective measure for reducing smoking among youth, young adults, and persons of low socioeconomic status. However, there is a striking lack of evidence about the impact of increasing cigarette prices on smoking behavior in heavy/long-term smokers, persons with a dual diagnosis and Aboriginals. Given their high prevalence of smoking, urgent attention is needed to develop effective policies for the six subpopulations reviewed. These findings will be of value to policy-makers and researchers in their efforts to improve the effectiveness of tobacco control measures, especially with subpopulations at most risk. Although specific studies are needed, tobacco taxation is a key policy measure for driving success.

Our findings set an agenda for targeting research, improving practice, and informing policy for smoking cessation among young adults. We also demonstrate the value of using 3 complementary approaches: literature review, expert opinion, and target population perspectives.

Background: Evidence-based smoking cessation guidelines recommend nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion SR and varenicline as first-line therapy in combination with behavioural interventions. However, there are limited data to guide clinicians in recommending one form over another, using combinations, or matching individual smokers to particular forms. Objective: To develop decision rules for clinicians to guide differential prescribing practices and tailoring of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. Methods: A Delphi approach was used to build consensus among a panel of 37 international experts from various health disciplines. Through an iterative process, panellists responded to three rounds of questionnaires. Participants identified and ranked ''best practices'' used by them to tailor pharmacotherapy to aid smoking cessation. An independent panel of 10 experts provided cross-validation of findings.Results: There was a 100% response rate to all three rounds. A high level of consensus was achieved in determining the most important priorities: (1) factors to consider in prescribing pharmacotherapy: evidence, patient preference, patient experience; (2) combinations based on: failed attempt with monotherapy, patients with breakthrough cravings, level of tobacco dependence; (3) specific combinations, main categories: (a) two or more forms of NRT, (b) bupropion + form of NRT; (4) specific combinations, subcategories: (1a) patch + gum, (1b) patch + inhaler, (1c) patch + lozenge; (2a) bupropion + patch, (2b) bupropion + gum; (5) impact of comorbidities on selection of pharmacotherapy: contraindications, specific pharmacotherapy useful for certain comorbidities, dual purpose medications; (6) frequency of monitoring determined by patient needs and type of pharmacotherapy. Conclusion: An algorithm and guide were developed to assist clinicians in prescribing pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. There appears to be good justification for ''off-label'' use such as higher doses of NRT or combination therapy in certain circumstances. This practical tool reflects best evidence to date of experts in tobacco cessation.

This report proposes that perfusion scanning in combination with arteriography be included in the diagnostic work-up of the diabetic patient who, because of peripheral vascular complications, is a candidate for surgery. Two cases are reported which illustrate the extremes of the findings: abnormal arteriogram-normal scan indicating large-vessel disease without significant small-vessel involvement. It is suggested that these patients are candidates for vascular reconstruction. The other extreme is the normal arteriogram-abnormal scan indicating small-vessels disease without significant large-vessel involvement. It is apparent that these patients are not candidates for vascular reconstruction.