Comparative effectiveness of 5 smoking cessation pharmacotherapies in primary care clinics

Smoking Cessation After Initial Treatment Failure With Varenicline or Nicotine Replacement: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Most people who smoke do not quit on their initial attempt.

Objective

To determine the best subsequent strategy for nonabstinence following initial treatment with varenicline or combined nicotine replacement therapy (CNRT).

Design, Setting, and Participants

Using a double-blind, placebo-controlled, sequential multiple assignment randomized trial, 490 volunteers were randomized to receive 6 weeks of varenicline or CNRT. After 6 weeks, nonabstainers were rerandomized to continue, switch, or increase medication dosage for 6 additional weeks. The study was conducted from June 2015 through October 2019 in a Texas tobacco treatment clinic.

Interventions

The initial treatment was 2 mg/d of varenicline or the combined replacement therapy of a 21-mg patch plus 2-mg lozenge. The rerandomized participants either continued with their initial therapies, switched between varenicline and CNRT, or increased dosages either to 3-mg or more of varenicline or to a 42-mg patch and lozenges. All received weekly brief counseling.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence at the end of treatment at 12 weeks.

Results

The 490 randomized participants (210 female [43%], 287 non-Hispanic White [58%], mean age, 48.1 years) smoked an average of 20 cigarettes per day. After the first phase, 54 participants in the CNRT group were abstinent and continued their therapy; of the 191 who were not abstinent, 151 were rerandomized, and the 40 who did not return for rerandomization were assigned to continue their initial CNRT condition in phase 2. The end-of-treatment abstinence rate for the 191 phase 1 nonabstainers was 8% (95% credible interval [CrI], 6% to 10%) for the 90 (47%) who continued at the dosage condition, 14% (CrI, 10% to 18%) for the 50 (33%) who increased their dosage, and 14% (95% CrI, 10% to 18%) for the 51 (34%) who switched to varenicline (absolute risk difference [RD], 6%; 95% CrI, 6% to 11%) with more than 99% posterior probability that either strategy conferred benefit over continuing the initial dosage. After the first phase, 88 participants in the varenicline group were abstinent and continued their therapy; of the 157 who were not abstinent, 122 were rerandomized and 35 who did not return for rerandomization were assigned to continue with the varenicline condition. The end-of-treatment abstinence rate for the 157 phase 1 nonabstainers was 20% (95% CrI, 16% to 26%) for the 39 (32%) who increased their varenicline dosage, 0 (95% CrI, 0 to 0) for the 41 (34%) who switched CNRT, and 3% (95% CrI, 1% to 4%) for the 77 (49%) who were assigned to the continued varenicline condition (absolute RD, -3%; 95% CrI, -4% to -1%) with more than 99% posterior probability that continuing varenicline at the initial dosage was worse than switching to a higher dosage. Furthermore, increasing the varenicline dosage had an absolute RD of 18% (95% CrI, 13% to 24%) and a more than 99% posterior probability of conferring benefit. The secondary outcome of continuous abstinence at 6 months indicated that only increased dosages of the CNRT and varenicline provided benefit over continuation of the initial treatment dosages.

Conclusions and Relevance

For individuals who smoked but did not achieve abstinence after treatment with varenicline, increasing the dosage enhanced abstinence vs continuing, whereas for nonabstainers initially treated with CNRT, a dosage increase or switch to varenicline enhanced abstinence and may be viable rescue strategies.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02271919.

Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Smoking Increase the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapy

Tobacco smoking has been a recognized risk factor for cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Smoking is a chronic relapsing disease and pharmacotherapy is a main component of smoking cessation. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and smoking both increase the risk of CVD and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There are few existing data examining how pharmacological treatment, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, and varenicline, affect smokers suffering with OSA and especially their cardiovascular effects. The aim of this review was to evaluate the effects of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy on OSA with a special emphasis on the cardiovascular system. Results: Only small studies have assessed the effect of NRTs on OSA. Nicotine gum administration showed an improvement in respiratory events but with no permanent results. No specific studies were found on the effect of bupropion on OSA, and a limited number evaluated varenicline's effects on sleep and specifically OSA. Varenicline administration in smokers suffering from OSA reduced the obstructive respiratory events, especially during REM. Studies on second-line medication (nortriptyline, clonidine, cytisine) are even more limited. There are still no studies evaluating the cardiovascular effects of smoking cessation medications on OSA patients. Conclusions: Sleep disturbances are common withdrawal effects during smoking cessation but could be also attributed to pharmacotherapy. Smokers should receive personalized treatment during their quitting attempts according to their individual needs and problems, including OSA. Future studies are needed in order to evaluate the efficacy and safety of smoking cessation medications in OSA patients.

Patient-Level Characteristics Associated with Tobacco Users and Nonusers at a Student-Run Free Clinic

OBJECTIVES

Many tobacco users are motivated to quit but lack the resources to do so. To date, studies characterizing tobacco users at student-run free clinics have used small sample sizes, which may not be large enough to detect differences across key variables. As such, we assessed sociodemographic differences between tobacco users and nonusers at a student-run free clinic using a pooled cross-sectional design.

METHODS

We used patient-level data from the electronic health records for all of the patients who were seen during January 2012 to February 2020 inclusive. Our dependent variable was whether patients self-reported tobacco use. We assessed for differences across age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education level using a multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Across 4264 patients, 28.7% reported tobacco use. When controlling for other factors, greater odds of tobacco use were observed in this cohort for patients who were male (odds ratio [OR] 1.690, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.468-1.944), those with educational attainment of 9th to 11th grade (OR 2.291, 95% CI 1.558-3.369), and those who were high school graduates/completed the General Education Development test (OR 1.849, 95% CI 1.295-2.638) compared with those with less than a high school education. Similarly, patients of older age had greater odds of tobacco use.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found patient-level differences that may need to be integrated into improving the reach of intervention methods. Future research should look at a broader set of metrics (eg, geographic location, socioeconomic status) and ascertain reasons for sociodemographic differences observed.

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This helps to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and ease the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. Although there is high-certainty evidence that NRT is effective for achieving long-term smoking abstinence, it is unclear whether different forms, doses, durations of treatment or timing of use impacts its effects.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords, most recently in April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded studies that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of fewer than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Separate reviews cover studies comparing NRT to control, or to other pharmacotherapies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking abstinence after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and study withdrawals due to treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 68 completed studies with 43,327 participants, five of which are new to this update. Most completed studies recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. We judged 28 of the 68 studies to be at high risk of bias. Restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results for any comparisons apart from the preloading comparison, which tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day whilst still smoking.  There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form plus patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.37; I2 = 12%; 16 studies, 12,169 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg patches are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; I2 = 38%; 5 studies, 1655 participants), and that 21 mg patches are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08; 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3446 participants). Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4395 participants). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 3319 participants). We found no clear evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); or fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence). Cardiac AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no clear evidence of an effect on these outcomes, and rates were low overall. More withdrawals due to treatment were reported in people using nasal spray compared to patches in one study (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46; 1 study, 922 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in people using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two studies (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 544 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum can result in an increase in the chances of successfully stopping smoking. Due to imprecision, evidence was of moderate certainty for patch dose comparisons. There is some indication that the lower-dose nicotine patches and gum may be less effective than higher-dose products. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT before quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is limited. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are reported.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied. However, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco: nicotine withdrawal can produce short-term low mood that antidepressants may relieve; and some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, harms, and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, most recently on 29 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people who smoked, comparing antidepressant medications with placebo or no pharmacological treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used differently. We excluded trials with fewer than six months of follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length for our analyses of harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months' follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Our secondary outcomes were harms and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropouts due to treatment. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 124 studies (48,832 participants) in this review, with 10 new studies added to this update version. Most studies recruited adults from the community or from smoking cessation clinics; four studies focused on adolescents (with participants between 12 and 21 years old). We judged 34 studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not change clinical interpretation of the results.  There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased smoking cessation rates when compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.49 to 1.72; I2 = 16%; 50 studies, 18,577 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that a combination of bupropion and varenicline may have resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I2 = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence to establish whether a combination of bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; I2 = 43%; 15 studies, 4117 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was moderate-certainty evidence that participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs than those taking placebo or no pharmacological treatment. However, results were imprecise and the CI also encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 23 studies, 10,958 participants). Results were also imprecise when comparing SAEs between people randomised to a combination of bupropion and NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.89; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 657 participants) and randomised to bupropion plus varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.42; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1268 participants). In both cases, we judged evidence to be of low certainty. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to AEs than placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.65; I2 = 2%; 25 studies, 12,346 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence that bupropion combined with NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 737 participants) or bupropion combined with varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.45; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1230 participants) had an impact on the number of dropouts due to treatment. In both cases, imprecision was substantial (we judged the evidence to be of low certainty for both comparisons). Bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.80; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7564 participants), and to combination NRT (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 720 participants). However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and single-form NRT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 7613 participants). We also found evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I2 = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), and some evidence that bupropion resulted in superior quit rates to nortriptyline (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants), although this result was subject to imprecision. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion may increase SAEs (moderate-certainty evidence when compared to placebo/no pharmacological treatment). There is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with people receiving placebo or no pharmacological treatment. Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo, although bupropion may be more effective. Evidence also suggests that bupropion may be as successful as single-form NRT in helping people to quit smoking, but less effective than combination NRT and varenicline. In most cases, a paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions regarding harms and tolerability. Further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over other licensed smoking cessation treatments; namely, NRT and varenicline. However, it is important that future studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation measure and report on harms and tolerability.

A protocol for a cluster randomized trial of care delivery models to improve the quality of smoking cessation and shared decision making for lung cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Patients eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) are those at high risk of lung cancer due to their smoking histories and age. While screening for LCS is effective in lowering lung cancer mortality, primary care providers are challenged to meet beneficiary eligibility for LCS from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, including a patient counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) visit with the use of patient decision aid(s) prior to screening.

METHODS

We will use an effectiveness-implementation type I hybrid design to: 1) identify effective, scalable smoking cessation counseling and SDM interventions that are consistent with recommendations, can be delivered on the same platform, and are implemented in real-world clinical settings; 2) examine barriers and facilitators of implementing the two approaches to delivering smoking cessation and SDM for LCS; and 3) determine the economic implications of implementation by assessing the healthcare resources required to increase smoking cessation for the two approaches by delivering smoking cessation within the context of LCS. Providers from different healthcare organizations will be randomized to usual care (providers delivering smoking cessation and SDM on site) vs. centralized care (smoking cessation and SDM delivered remotely by trained counselors). The primary trial outcomes will include smoking abstinence at 12-weeks and knowledge about LCS measured at 1-week after baseline.

CONCLUSION

This study will provide important new evidence about the effectiveness and feasibility of a novel care delivery model for addressing the leading cause of lung cancer deaths and supporting high-quality decisions about LCS.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

NCT04200534 TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04200534.

Attitudes & behaviors toward the management of tobacco smoking patients: qualitative study with French primary care physicians

Background

Smoking cessation is a major public health issue. In France, primary care physicians (PCP) are the first contact points for tobacco management. The objective of this study was to understand how PCPs are involved in the management of smoking cessation: ownership, commitment, barriers.

Methods

A qualitative study was conducted using group and individual semi-structured techniques with PCPs. A thematic analysis of verbatim transcripts was performed to identify concepts and sub-concepts of interest. Saturation was evaluated retrospectively to ensure adequate sample size.

Results

A sample of 35 PCPs were interviewed, 31 in four focus groups and four in individual interviews. PCPs discussed their roles in the management of tobacco smoking cessation, including the different strategies they are using (e.g., Minimal Intervention Strategy, Motivational Interviewing), the multiple barriers encountered (e.g., lack of time, patients’ resistance to medical advice), the support resources and the treatment and intervention they prescribed (e.g. nicotine replacement therapy, supporting therapist).

Conclusions

This study provides a better understanding of the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of PCPs in managing smoking cessation. Guiding and encouraging patients toward smoking cessation remains a major objective of PCPs. While PCPs reported that progress has been made in recent years in terms of tools, technology and general awareness, they still face major barriers, some of which could be overcome by appropriate training.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01620-8.

Barriers to Building More Effective Treatments: Negative Interactions Amongst Smoking Intervention Components

Meaningfully improved mental and behavioral health treatment is an unrealized dream. Across three factorial experiments, inferential tests in prior studies showed a pattern of negative interactions suggesting that better clinical outcomes are obtained when participants receive fewer rather than more intervention components. Further, relatively few significant main effects were found in these experiments. Modeling suggested that negative interactions amongst components may account for these patterns. This paper evaluates factors that may contribute to such declining benefit: increased attentional or effort burden; components that produce their effects via the same capacity limited mechanisms, making their effects subadditive; and a tipping point phenomenon in which those near a hypothesized "tipping point" for change will benefit markedly from weak intervention while those far from the tipping point will benefit little from even strong intervention. New research should explore factors that cause negative interactions amongst components and constrain the development of more effective treatments.

Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes.

DESIGN

Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results.

SETTING

Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events.

DATA SOURCES

Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model.

RESULTS

Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard.

LIMITATIONS

Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK.

FUTURE WORK

Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Most people who stop smoking gain weight. This can discourage some people from making a quit attempt and risks offsetting some, but not all, of the health advantages of quitting. Interventions to prevent weight gain could improve health outcomes, but there is a concern that they may undermine quitting.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effects of: (1) interventions targeting post-cessation weight gain on weight change and smoking cessation (referred to as 'Part 1') and (2) interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that plausibly affect post-cessation weight gain (referred to as 'Part 2').

SEARCH METHODS

Part 1 - We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; latest search 16 October 2020. Part 2 - We searched included studies in the following 'parent' Cochrane reviews: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, e-cigarettes, and exercise interventions for smoking cessation published in Issue 10, 2020 of the Cochrane Library. We updated register searches for the review of nicotine receptor partial agonists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Part 1 - trials of interventions that targeted post-cessation weight gain and had measured weight at any follow-up point or smoking cessation, or both, six or more months after quit day. Part 2 - trials included in the selected parent Cochrane reviews reporting weight change at any time point.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. Change in weight was expressed as difference in weight change from baseline to follow-up between trial arms and was reported only in people abstinent from smoking. Abstinence from smoking was expressed as a risk ratio (RR). Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the inverse variance method for weight, and Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking.

MAIN RESULTS

Part 1: We include 37 completed studies; 21 are new to this update. We judged five studies to be at low risk of bias, 17 to be at unclear risk and the remainder at high risk.  An intermittent very low calorie diet (VLCD) comprising full meal replacement provided free of charge and accompanied by intensive dietitian support significantly reduced weight gain at end of treatment compared with education on how to avoid weight gain (mean difference (MD) -3.70 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.82 to -2.58; 1 study, 121 participants), but there was no evidence of benefit at 12 months (MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI -3.49 to 0.89; 1 study, 62 participants). The VLCD increased the chances of abstinence at 12 months (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73; 1 study, 287 participants). However, a second study  found that no-one completed the VLCD intervention or achieved abstinence. Interventions aimed at increasing acceptance of weight gain reported mixed effects at end of treatment, 6 months and 12 months with confidence intervals including both increases and decreases in weight gain compared with no advice or health education. Due to high heterogeneity, we did not combine the data. These interventions increased quit rates at 6 months (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.96; 4 studies, 619 participants; I² = 21%), but there was no evidence at 12 months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.06; 2 studies, 496 participants; I² = 26%). Some pharmacological interventions tested for limiting post-cessation weight gain (PCWG) reduced weight gain at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine, phenylpropanolamine, naltrexone). The effects of ephedrine and caffeine combined, lorcaserin, and chromium were too imprecise to give useful estimates of treatment effects. There was very low-certainty evidence that personalized weight management support reduced weight gain at end of treatment (MD -1.11 kg, 95% CI -1.93 to -0.29; 3 studies, 121 participants; I² = 0%), but no evidence in the longer-term 12 months (MD -0.44 kg, 95% CI -2.34 to 1.46; 4 studies, 530 participants; I² = 41%). There was low to very low-certainty evidence that detailed weight management education without personalized assessment, planning and feedback did not reduce weight gain and may have reduced smoking cessation rates (12 months: MD -0.21 kg, 95% CI -2.28 to 1.86; 2 studies, 61 participants; I² = 0%; RR for smoking cessation 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90; 2 studies, 522 participants; I² = 0%). Part 2: We include 83 completed studies, 27 of which are new to this update. There was low certainty that exercise interventions led to minimal or no weight reduction compared with standard care at end of treatment (MD -0.25 kg, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.29; 4 studies, 404 participants; I² = 0%). However, weight was reduced at 12 months (MD -2.07 kg, 95% CI -3.78 to -0.36; 3 studies, 182 participants; I² = 0%). Both bupropion and fluoxetine limited weight gain at end of treatment (bupropion MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.67; 10 studies, 1098 participants; I² = 3%); (fluoxetine MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.53; 2 studies, 144 participants; I² = 38%; low- and very low-certainty evidence, respectively). There was no evidence of benefit at 12 months for bupropion, but estimates were imprecise (bupropion MD -0.26 kg, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.78; 7 studies, 471 participants; I² = 0%). No studies of fluoxetine provided data at 12 months. There was moderate-certainty that NRT reduced weight at end of treatment (MD -0.52 kg, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.05; 21 studies, 2784 participants; I² = 81%) and moderate-certainty that the effect may be similar at 12 months (MD -0.37 kg, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.11; 17 studies, 1463 participants; I² = 0%), although the estimates are too imprecise to assess long-term benefit. There was mixed evidence of the effect of varenicline on weight, with high-certainty evidence that weight change was very modestly lower at the end of treatment (MD -0.23 kg, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.06; 14 studies, 2566 participants; I² = 32%); a low-certainty estimate gave an imprecise estimate of higher weight at 12 months (MD 1.05 kg, 95% CI -0.58 to 2.69; 3 studies, 237 participants; I² = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is no intervention for which there is moderate certainty of a clinically useful effect on long-term weight gain. There is also no moderate- or high-certainty evidence that interventions designed to limit weight gain reduce the chances of people achieving abstinence from smoking.

Sex differences in smoking cessation: a retrospective cohort study in a psychosocial care unit in Brazil

INTRODUCTION

Despite the results of epidemiological and psychometric studies reporting comparable levels of tobacco dependence among males and females, some clinical studies have detected disparities. Some smoking cessation studies based on clinical setting programs reported poorer outcomes among women than men.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare treatment success and retention between men and women on a smoking cessation program (n = 1,014) delivered at a CAPS-AD unit in Brazil. The psychological intervention lasted 6 weeks for each group of 15 patients. Each patient had to participate in weekly group cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) sessions and individual medical appointments during this period. These appointments were focused on the possibility of prescribing pharmacological treatment (i.e., nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, or nortriptyline) as adjuvants to group therapy.

RESULTS

The women had lower smoking severity at baseline, more clinical symptoms, and lower prevalence of alcohol and drug use disorders and were older than the men. Females had significantly higher levels of success (36.6% vs. 29.7%) and retention (51.6% vs. 41.4%) than males. Sensitivity analysis showed that female gender was significantly associated with both retention and success, among those without drug use disorders only.

CONCLUSION

Depending on the smoking cessation setting (i.e., low and middle-income countries and mental health and addiction care units), females can achieve similar and even higher quit rates than males. Previous drug use disorder was an important confounding variable in the gender outcomes analyses. Future studies should try to replicate these positive smoking cessation effects of CBT-based group therapy plus pharmacotherapy in women.

Cardiovascular safety of naltrexone and bupropion therapy: Systematic review and meta-analyses

Despite being approved for clinical use, evidence of cardiovascular safety (CV) is lacking for treatment with bupropion, naltrexone, or their combination (B-N). The purpose of the study is to determine the relationship between these treatments and the risk of major cardiovascular adverse events (MACE). Phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCT) evaluating bupropion, naltrexone, or B-N versus control with reported incidence of MACE. The meta-analysis included 12 RCTs, 69% for weight loss and 29% for smoking cessation, with 19,176 patients and 7354 patient-years who were randomized to an active treatment (bupropion [n = 2965] or B-N [n = 6980] or naltrexone [n = 249]) versus control (placebo [n = 6968] or nicotine patch [n = 2014]). The mean age was 54 ± 8 years (55% female), and the baseline BMI was 32 ± 5 kg/m² . The additive network meta-analysis model for random effects showed no association between bupropion, B-N, or naltrexone and MACE (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90 [95%CI 0.65-1.25], p = 0.52; OR = 0.97 [95%CI 0.75-1.24], p = 0.79; OR = 1.08 [95%CI 0.71-1.63], p = 0.73, respectively; I² = 0%, p = 0.86). Meta-regression analyses showed no significant association between MACE and potential confounders from RCT demographic disparities (p = 0.58). The statistical power (post hoc two-tailed) for non-inferiority was 91%, giving a strong probability of validity. Naltrexone, bupropion, or B-N is not associated with the incidence of MACE as compared with placebo.

Comparative effects of varenicline or combination nicotine replacement therapy versus patch monotherapy on candidate mediators of early abstinence in a smoking cessation attempt

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The phase-based model of smoking cessation treatment suggests that treatment needs may vary across phases (e.g. pre-cessation, cessation). This study tested the comparative effects of varenicline and combination nicotine replacement therapy (C-NRT) relative to nicotine patch monotherapy on pre-cessation and cessation phase candidate withdrawal, expectancy and motivation mediators; relations between mediators and abstinence; and indirect effects of enhanced treatments on abstinence via candidate mediators.

DESIGN

Secondary mediation analysis of data from the open-label, randomized Wisconsin Smokers' Health Study 2, a comparative effectiveness trial of varenicline or C-NRT, versus patch monotherapy, in adults who smoked, recruited via media and community outreach.

SETTING

Research clinics in Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1051 daily smokers motivated to quit smoking (52.5% female; mean age = 48.1, standard deviation = 11.6).

INTERVENTIONS

Twelve weeks of varenicline (n = 407) or 12 weeks of combination nicotine patch and nicotine lozenge therapy (n = 421), both compared with 12 weeks of patch control condition (n = 230), with individual smoking cessation counseling.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary abstinence outcome was biochemically verified 7-day point-prevalence abstinence 4 weeks post-target quit day (TQD). Candidate mediators (craving, positive smoking expectancies, withdrawal symptoms, and quitting motivation) were assessed via ecological momentary assessment from 1 week prior (pre-cessation phase) to 4 weeks after (cessation phase) the TQD.

FINDINGS

Pre-cessation and cessation mean levels and slopes of craving [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.34-0.79], smoking expectancies (aOR = 0.46-0.79) and quitting motivation (aOR = 1.35-7.21) significantly predicted 4-week post-TQD abstinence (P < 0.05). Significant varenicline mediation occurred via greater suppression in pre-cessation craving [mediated effect (ab) = 0.09, standard error (SE) = 0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.04-0.14] and smoking expectancies (ab = 0.06, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.02-0.12). C-NRT mediation occurred via greater reduction in pre-post-TQD changes in craving (ab = 0.04, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.01-0.08) and expectancies (ab = 0.03, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.001-0.07), relative to patch monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Among adult smokers seeking to quit, varenicline seems to work through its effects on suppression of craving and smoking expectancies pre-cessation while combination nicotine replacement therapy mediation seems to work through cessation-related reduction in craving and smoking expectancies changes.

How health inequalities accumulate and combine to affect treatment value: A distributional cost-effectiveness analysis of smoking cessation interventions

INTRODUCTION

Reduction of health inequality is a goal in health policy, but commissioners lack information on how policies change health inequality. This study illustrates how decision models can be readily extended to produce information on health inequality impacts as well as for population health, using the example of smoking cessation therapies.

METHODS

We retrospectively adapt a model developed for public health guidance to undertake distributional cost effectiveness analysis. We identify and incorporate evidence on how inputs vary by area-level deprivation. Therapies are evaluated in terms of total population health, extent of inequality, and a summary measure of equally distributed equivalent health based on a societal value for inequality aversion. Last, we examine how accounting for social variation in different sets of parameters affects our results.

RESULTS

All interventions increase population health and increase the slope index ofinequality. At estimated levels of health inequality aversion for England, our resultsindicate that the increases in inequality are compensated by the health gains.

DISCUSSION

The inequality impacts are driven by higher benefits of quitting and higher intervention uptake amongst advantaged groups, despite the greater proportion of smokers in disadvantaged groups. Failure to account for differential effects between groups leadsto different conclusions about health inequality impact but does not alter conclusionsabout value for money.

Nicotine replacement therapy sampling for smoking cessation within primary care: results from a pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Within the context of busy clinical settings, health-care providers need practical, evidence-based options to engage smokers in quitting. Sampling of nicotine replacement therapy [i.e. provision of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT starter kits)] is a brief, pragmatic strategy to address this need. We aimed to compare the effects of NRT sampling plus standard care (SC), relative to SC alone, provided by primary care providers during routine clinic visits.

DESIGN

Cluster-randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Twenty-two primary care clinics in South Carolina, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult smokers [n = 1245; 61% female, mean age = 50.7, standard deviation (SD) = 13.5] both motivated and unmotivated to quit, seen during routine clinical visit. Interventions were provider-delivered SC (n = 652, 12 clinics) cessation advice or SC + a 2-week supply of both nicotine patch and lozenge, with minimal instructions on use (n = 593; 10 clinics).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at 6-month follow-up, using intent-to-treat. Additional outcomes included NRT use and quit attempts, assessed at 1, 3 and 6 months following baseline.

FINDINGS

Seven-day point prevalence abstinence rates were significantly higher in the NRT sampling group throughout follow-up, including at 6 months [12 versus 8%, odds ratio (OR) = 1.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.0-2.4]. NRT sampling increased prevalence of any use of NRT (65 versus 25%, OR = 5.8, 95% CI = 4.3-7.7), with higher prevalence of use at 6 months (25 versus 14%, OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.5-2.7). NRT sampling increased the rate of quit attempts in the initial month (24 versus 18%, OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.0-2.3) but had no significant effect on overall rate of quit attempts (48 versus 45%, OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.8-1.7).

CONCLUSION

Providing smokers with a free 2-week starter kit of nicotine replacement therapy increased quit attempts, use of stop smoking medications and smoking abstinence compared with standard care in a primary care setting.

Pharmacological Approach to Smoking Cessation: An Updated Review for Daily Clinical Practice

Tobacco use is one of the major public health concerns and it is the most preventable cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Smoking cessation reduces subsequent cardiovascular events and mortality. Smoking is a real chronic disorder characterized by the development of an addiction status mainly due to nicotine. This condition makes the smokers generally unable to quit smoking without help. Different strategies are available to treat smoking dependence that include both non-pharmacological (behavioral counselling) and pharmacological therapies. Currently, it is well accepted that smoking cessation drugs are effective and safe in real-world settings. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline, bupropion and cytisine are the main pharmacological strategies available for smoking cessation. Their efficacy and safety have been proved even in patients with chronic cardiovascular disease. Each of these drugs has peculiar characteristics and the clinician should customize the smoking cessation strategy based on currently available scientific evidence and patient's preference, paying particular attention to those patients having specific cardiovascular and psychiatric comorbidities. The present document aims to summarize the current viable pharmacological strategies for smoking cessation, also discussing the controversial issue regarding the use of alternative tobacco products, in order to provide useful practical indications to all physicians, mainly to those involved in cardiovascular prevention.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Whilst the pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco. Firstly, nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms and antidepressants may relieve these. Additionally, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, safety and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Specialized Register, which includes reports of trials indexed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO, clinicaltrials.gov, the ICTRP, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in May 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited smokers, and compared antidepressant medications with placebo or no treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used in a different way. We excluded trials with less than six months follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length in safety analyses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months follow-up, expressed as a risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. Similarly, we presented incidence of safety and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropout due to drug, as RRs (95% CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 115 studies (33 new to this update) in this review; most recruited adult participants from the community or from smoking cessation clinics. We judged 28 of the studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk did not change clinical interpretation of the results. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased long-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.52 to 1.77; I² = 15%; 45 studies, 17,866 participants). There was insufficient evidence to establish whether participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs compared to those taking placebo. Results were imprecise and CIs encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I² = 0%; 21 studies, 10,625 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded one level due to imprecision). We found high-certainty evidence that use of bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to adverse events of the drug than placebo (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.56; I² = 19%; 25 studies, 12,340 participants). Participants randomized to bupropion were also more likely to report psychiatric AEs compared with those randomized to placebo (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.37; I² = 15%; 6 studies, 4439 participants). We also looked at the safety and efficacy of bupropion when combined with other non-antidepressant smoking cessation therapies. There was insufficient evidence to establish whether combination bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.51; I² = 52%; 12 studies, 3487 participants), or whether combination bupropion and varenicline resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I² = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). We judged the certainty of evidence to be low and moderate, respectively; in both cases due to imprecision, and also due to inconsistency in the former. Safety data were sparse for these comparisons, making it difficult to draw clear conclusions. A meta-analysis of six studies provided evidence that bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.79; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 6286 participants), whilst there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and NRT (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; I² = 18%; 10 studies, 8230 participants). We also found some evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I² = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), whilst there was insufficient evidence to determine whether bupropion or nortriptyline were more effective when compared with one another (RR 1.30 (favouring bupropion), 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants). There was no evidence that any of the other antidepressants tested (including St John's Wort, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)) had a beneficial effect on smoking cessation. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion also increases the number of adverse events, including psychiatric AEs, and there is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with placebo. However, there is no clear evidence to suggest whether people taking bupropion experience more or fewer SAEs than those taking placebo (moderate certainty). Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo. Evidence suggests that bupropion may be as successful as NRT and nortriptyline in helping people to quit smoking, but that it is less effective than varenicline. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the other antidepressants tested, such as SSRIs, aid smoking cessation, and when looking at safety and tolerance outcomes, in most cases, paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions. Due to the high-certainty evidence, further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over front-line smoking cessation aids already available. However, it is important that where studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation are carried out they measure and report safety and tolerability clearly.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Optimized Smoking Treatment Delivered in Primary Care

Background

The effectiveness of smoking cessation treatment is limited in real-world use, perhaps because we have not selected the components of such treatments optimally nor have treatments typically been developed for and evaluated in real-world clinical settings.

Purpose

To validate an optimized smoking cessation treatment package that comprises intervention components identified as effective in factorial screening experiments conducted as per the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST).

Methods

Adult smokers motivated to quit were recruited from primary care clinics (N = 623). Participants were randomized to receive either recommended usual care (R-UC; 10 min of in-person counseling, 8 weeks of nicotine patch, and referral to quitline services) or abstinence-optimized treatment (A-OT; 3 weeks of prequit mini-lozenges, 26 weeks of nicotine patch + mini-lozenges, three in-person and eight phone counseling sessions, and 7-11 automated calls to prompt medication use). The key outcomes were self-reported and biochemically confirmed (carbon monoxide, CO <6 ppm) 7-day point-prevalence abstinence.

Results

A-OT participants had significantly higher self-reported abstinence rates than R-UC participants at 4, 8, 16, and 26 weeks (ORs: 1.91-3.05; p <. 001). The biochemically confirmed 26-week abstinence rates were lower than the self-reported 26-week rates, but revealed a similar treatment effect size (OR = 2.94, p < .001). There was no moderation of treatment effects on 26-week abstinence by demographic, psychiatric, or nicotine dependence variables. A-OT had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for 26-week CO-confirmed abstinence of $7,800.

Conclusions

A smoking cessation treatment that is optimized via MOST development meaningfully enhances cessation rates beyond R-UC smoking treatment in smokers seen in primary care.

Clinical Trial Registration

NCT02301403.

Combined nicotine patch with gum versus nicotine patch alone in smoking cessation in Hong Kong primary care clinics: a randomised controlled trial

Background

The prevalence of daily cigarette smoking has dropped to 10% in Hong Kong (HK) in 2017, however, smoking still kills 5700 persons per year. Studies suggest that abstinence rates are higher with combined NRT than single NRT, although local data on safety and benefits of combined NRT are lacking. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of combined NRT with single NRT among HK Chinese.

Methods

This is a one-year, two-arm, parallel randomised trial. Five hundred sixty smokers, who smoked ≥10 cigarettes/day for ≥1 year, were randomized to combined and single NRT. Combined NRT group received counseling and nicotine patch & gum. Single NRT group received counselling and nicotine patch. Primary outcome was abstinence rate measured as self-reported 7-day point prevalence with CO validated at 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes included smoking abstinence rates at 4, 12, & 26 weeks. Crude odds ratio and p-value were reported from logistic regression without adjustment; for trend analysis, adjusted odds ratio (AOR) and p-value were reported from Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) (controlling for time). All AORs were adjusted for age, sex, baseline CO and clusters.

Results

Abstinence rates at 4, 12, 26 and 52 weeks were all higher in the combined NRT group (35.8, 21.9, 16.8, 20.1%) compared with the single NRT group (28, 16.8, 11.2, 14.3%). At 4 weeks, combined NRT group was more likely to quit smoking (OR 1.43, 95% CI, 1.00 to 2.05) than the single NRT group. From GEE analysis, combined NRT group had a significantly higher abstinence rate (23.6%) than the single NRT group (17.6%) across repeated measures at all-time points. Combined NRT group was more likely to quit smoking (OR 1.43, 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.77). No significant difference in the side effect profile was detected between groups.

Conclusions

Smokers given 8 weeks of combined NRT were more likely to quit smoking at 4, 12, 26 and 52 weeks compared with single NRT. Combined NRT was as well tolerated as single NRT and it should be further promoted in our community.

Trial registration

NCT03836560 from ClinicalTrial.gov, 9 Feb 2019.

Presentation of lung cancer in primary care

Survival from lung cancer has seen only modest improvements in recent decades. Poor outcomes are linked to late presentation, yet early diagnosis can be challenging as lung cancer symptoms are common and non-specific. In this paper, we examine how lung cancer presents in primary care and review roles for primary care in reducing the burden from this disease. Reducing rates of smoking remains, by far, the key strategy, but primary care practitioners (PCPs) should also be pro-active in raising awareness of symptoms, ensuring lung cancer risk data are collected accurately and encouraging reluctant patients to present. PCPs should engage in service re-design and identify more streamlined diagnostic pathways—and more readily incorporate decision support into their consulting, based on validated lung cancer risk models. Finally, PCPs should ensure they are central to recruitment in future lung cancer screening programmes—they are uniquely placed to ensure the right people are targeted for risk-based screening programmes. We are now in an era where treatments can make a real difference in early-stage lung tumours, and genuine progress is being made in this devastating illness—full engagement of primary care is vital in effecting these improvements in outcomes.

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes to ease the transition from cigarette smoking to abstinence. It works by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. Although there is clear evidence that NRT used after smoking cessation is effective, it is unclear whether higher doses, longer durations of treatment, or using NRT before cessation add to its effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to one another.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, and trial registries for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search: April 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up less than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Trials comparing NRT to control, and trials comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered elsewhere.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking abstinence was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and study withdrawals due to treatment. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 63 trials with 41,509 participants. Most recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day. We judged 24 of the 63 studies to be at high risk of bias, but restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results, apart from in the case of the preloading comparison. There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form + patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.36, 14 studies, 11,356 participants; I² = 4%). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29, 5 studies, 1655 participants; I² = 38%), and that 21 mg are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08, 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence (again limited by imprecision) also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41, 3 studies, 3446 participants; I² = 0%). Five studies comparing 4 mg gum to 2 mg gum found a benefit of the higher dose (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.83, 5 studies, 856 participants; I² = 63%); however, results of a subgroup analysis suggest that only smokers who are highly dependent may benefit. Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward; there was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44, 9 studies, 4395 participants; I² = 0%). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05, 8 studies, 3319 participants; I² = 0%). We found no evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); 16-hour versus 24-hour daily patch use; duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); tapering of patch dose versus abrupt patch cessation; fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence); duration of nicotine gum use; ad lib versus fixed dosing of fast-acting NRT; free versus purchased NRT; length of provision of free NRT; ceasing versus continuing patch use on lapse; and participant- versus clinician-selected NRT. However, in most cases these findings are based on very low- or low-certainty evidence, and are the findings from single studies.AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no evidence of an effect on cardiac AEs, SAEs or withdrawals. Rates of these were low overall. Significantly more withdrawals due to treatment were reported in participants using nasal spray in comparison to patch in one trial (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46, 922 participants; very low certainty) and in participants using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two trials (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50, 2 studies, 544 participants; I² = 0%; low certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT, and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum, can increase the chances of successfully stopping smoking. For patch dose comparisons, evidence was of moderate certainty, due to imprecision. Twenty-one mg patches resulted in higher quit rates than 14 mg (24-hour) patches, and using 25 mg patches resulted in higher quit rates than using 15 mg (16-hour) patches, although in the latter case the CI included one. There was no clear evidence of superiority for 42/44 mg over 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT prior to quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is of low and very low certainty. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are both measured and reported.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Pharmacotherapy for the Treatment of Tobacco Use Disorder in Primary Care for Resident Physicians

INTRODUCTION

Though the prevalence of smoking has decreased, it remains the second leading risk for early death and disability worldwide. At the primary care level, the combined use of behavioral interventions and pharmacotherapy has been shown to be more effective in reduction of smoking. Among behavioral interventions, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) provides a useful framework for helping patients quit smoking.

METHODS

This 90-minute workshop was led by two facilitators, a general internist who practices as a primary care physician and a clinical psychologist with content expertise in CBT. This pairing provided complementary perspectives to allow for learner engagement. To evaluate the workshop, we used a pre-/postsurvey that was administered at the beginning and the end of the workshop. Participants were asked how often they incorporated (presurvey) and intended to incorporate (postsurvey) CBT as part of smoking cessation counseling in their clinical practices.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant change in learners' perceived usefulness of CBT for smoking cessation from pre- to postworkshop.

DISCUSSION

Our workshop is a unique contribution to the literature. Limitations of our study include not knowing the long-term effect of knowledge acquisition or decay. Our future direction will be to produce training that applies CBT to other common chronic diseases that have a huge behavioral component in primary care, such as insomnia, chronic pain, and obesity.

Pilot Study of an Internet-Based, Simulated Teachable Moment for Smoking Cessation

Introduction

The internet has the potential to overcome geographic limitations for smoking cessation interventions, but further telehealth-based studies of utility are required.

Aims

To investigate the efficacy of an internet-based version of a quit smoking approach using a personalised video to create a simulated teachable moment.

Methods

Smokers within Australia were recruited through a dedicated website. After consent, eligible subjects, aged ≥30 years with a non-smoking partner, uploaded pictures of themselves, their partner and family, to be inserted into a video depicting the subject having a heart attack due to smoking, with consequences to them and their family. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) began prior to the quit attempt. The video was shown during two videoconference counselling sessions, with follow-up phone calls and text messaging support. Smoking status at 6 months by self-report (primary endpoint) was verified by partner/proxy and salivary cotinine (NicAlert™).

Results/Findings

Seventy seven smokers were screened, of whom 50 were eligible, and 17 of these (34%) were enrolled; 11 men and 6 women, aged 41.5 ± 6.9 years, daily cigarette consumption 20.8 ± 8.9, Heaviness of Smoking Index score 3.7 ± 1.7. Participants reported feeling personally involved with the video (5.9 ± 1.1), which felt real (5.8 ± 1.1) and emotionally moving (5.6 ± 1.5) [7-point Likert Scale]. A similar video response was reported by the four participants (24%), who due to bandwidth limitations, watched the video after the counselling session instead of during it. Non-smoking rates at 6 months were 65% (11/17) by self-report with proxy confirmation, and 47% (8/17) by self-report with biologic confirmation. Three non-smokers by self-report could not provide a valid NicAlert™ result due to current NRT use. One participant who by self-report smoked once in the prior 14-days was assessed as a non-smoker by both proxy and NicAlert™.

Conclusions

This pilot study demonstrates efficacy for an internet-based version of a quit smoking program based on creating a simulated teachable moment. The findings provide support for further research into this technique, with the internet enabling greater reach than face-to-face.

Effectiveness of auricular acupuncture combined with nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to establish if the auricular acupuncture treatment can play a complementary role in enhancing the smoking cessation rate of the smokers receiving conventional therapy, such as NRT and behavioral counseling.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study. Republic of Korea Air Force soldiers who visited the clinic with the intention to quit smoking from September 2016 to March 2017 were reviewed. The smoking cessation program consisted of a 6-weeks treatment period with follow-up at 3 and 6 months from the baseline. Smokers who chose to receive nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) were compared with those who chose to receive auricular acupuncture combined with NRT. Both groups received behavioral counseling.

RESULTS

A total of 148 subjects were reviewed in the study. Of the 86 smokers who received combination therapy, 41 achieved continuous abstinence (47.7%), while 19 out of the 62 smokers stayed abstinent from the NRT group (30.6%). There was a significant difference between the two groups (p=0.037). Minnesota Nicotine Withdrawal Scale scores significantly decreased after the treatment in both groups, but there was no significant difference between the two groups (p=0.681). No serious adverse events were reported from both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that conventional treatments, such as NRT and behavioral counseling, when combined with auricular acupuncture could be a safer and more effective smoking cessation treatment than conventional treatments alone.

Nicotine replacement therapy sampling via primary care: Methods from a pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Primary care is the most important point of healthcare contact for smokers. Brief physician advice to quit, based on the 5As/AAR model, offers some efficacy but is inconsistently administered and has limited population impact. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) sampling, defined as provision of a brief NRT starter kit, when added to the 5As/AAR, is well-suited to primary care because it is simple, brief, and can be provided to all smokers. This article describes the design and methods of an ongoing comparative effectiveness trial testing standard care vs. standard care + NRT sampling within primary care.

METHODS

Smokers were recruited directly from primary care practices between July 2014 and December 2017 within an established network of South Carolina clinics. Interventions were delivered randomly by clinic personnel, and phone-based follow-ups were centrally coordinated by research staff to track outcomes through six months post-intervention. Primary study aims are to examine the impact of NRT sampling on smoking, inclusive of cessation, quit attempts, and uptake of evidence-based treatment.

RESULTS

Twenty-two clinics were recruited. Across clinics, patient census ranged from 985 to 10,957 and number of providers ranged from 1 to 63. Average patient age across clinics was 52.9 years and smoking prevalence across ranged from 10.6% to 28.5%.

CONCLUSION

Improving the effectiveness and reach of brief interventions within primary care could have a considerable impact on population quit rates. We consider the advantages and disadvantages of key methodological decisions relevant to the design of future primary care-based cessation trials.

[Interventions for smoking cessation in 2018]

Smoking cessation treatments have been proved effective to stop smoking. For pharmacological treatments, nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) as well as bupropion allow to increase 6 month-abstinence rates by more than 80% in comparison with placebo while varenicline prescription doubles success rates in the same conditions. These results mean that for 10 smokers who quit with placebo, 18 are expected to quit with NRT or bupropion and 28 are expected to quit with varenicline. Varenicline is 50% more effective than nicotine patch and 70% more effective than nicotine gum. Nevertheless, a combination including NRT patch and oral nicotine forms is as effective as varenicline, thus leading to encourage the prescription of a combination NRT when NRT are chosen. For these three pharmacological treatments, cardiovascular as well as neuropsychiatric tolerance were not found statistically different from placebo in randomized controlled trials. Yet, bupropion prescription leads to an increasing risk of seizure (1/1000 to 1/1500). For behavioral treatment, motivational interviewing as well as cognitive behavior therapies are been proven to be effective to stop smoking but few smokers have access to this treatment. Smoking cessation mobile application and smartphone application seem to be promising in terms of effectiveness and might be useful to reach more smokers.

An RCT with the combination of varenicline and bupropion for smoking cessation: clinical implications for front line use

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Despite the availability of several efficacious smoking cessation treatments, fewer than 25% of smokers who quit remain abstinent 1 year post-treatment. This study aimed to determine if varenicline and bupropion combination treatment would result in higher abstinence rates than varenicline alone.

DESIGN

A double-blind, randomized, parallel-group smoking cessation clinical trial in which participants were exposed to 12 weeks of treatment and followed for 12 months.

SETTING

Hospital-based out-patient clinic in Texas, USA specializing in cancer prevention.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 385 community smokers (58.44% male) who smoked 1 pack of cigarettes/day [mean = 19.66 cigarettes/day, standard deviation (SD) = 9.45]; had average carbon monoxide (CO) of 26.43 parts per million (SD = 13.74); and were moderately dependent (Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence = 4.79; SD = 2.07).

INTERVENTIONS AND COMPARATOR

Smokers were randomized in a 3 : 1 (active: Placebo) ratio to 12 weeks of treatment as follows: placebo (n = 56), varenicline (Var; n = 166), and varenicline + bupropion (Combo; n = 163).

MEASUREMENTS

A priori primary outcome: prolonged abstinence at 12 months.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

7-day point prevalence abstinence and continuous abstinence; all abstinence measures at end of treatment and 6-month follow-ups.

FINDINGS

Intention-to-treat analysis: the Combo group (n = 163) failed to demonstrate superiority to the Var group (n = 166) for prolonged abstinence at 12 months [odds ratio (OR) = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.50-1.64], supported by Bayes factor = 0.06. Both the Var (OR = 6.66, 95% CI = 1.61-59.27) and Combo groups (OR = 6.06, 95% CI = 1.45-54.09) demonstrated superiority to the Placebo group (n = 56; score = 8.38, P < 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of bupropion to varenicline treatment does not appear to increase smoking abstinence rates above that of varenicline alone. The findings support previous research showing a consistently favorable effect of both varenicline and the combination of varenicline and bupropion on smoking cessation compared with placebo.

Efficacy and Safety of Varenicline for Smoking Cessation in Schizophrenia: A Meta-Analysis

Objective: Smoking represents a major public health problem among patients with schizophrenia. To this end, some studies have investigated the efficacy of varenicline for facilitating smoking cessation in schizophrenia patients. The present review seeks to synthesize the results of these studies as well as document the reported side effects of using this medication. Methods: An electronic search was performed using five major databases: PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Included in the current analysis were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that have investigated the effect of varenicline in promoting smoking cessation in patients with schizophrenia. Risk of bias among included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's quality assessment tool. Results: Among the 828 screened articles, only four RCTs, which involved 239 participants, were eligible for meta-analysis. In patients with schizophrenia, varenicline treatment when compared to placebo significantly reduced the number of cigarettes consumed per day [SMD (95% CI) = 0.89(0.57-1.22)] and expired carbon monoxide levels [SMD (95% CI) = 0.50 (0.06-0.94)] respectively. Conclusion: Despite a limited number of studies included in the meta-analysis, our results suggest that varenicline is an effective and safe drug to assist smoking cessation in patients with schizophrenia. Future large-scale well-designed RCTs are required to validate these findings.

UPMC Prescription for Wellness: A Quality Improvement Case Study for Supporting Patient Engagement and Health Behavior Change

Addressing patient health and care behaviors that underlie much of chronic disease continues to challenge providers, medical practices, health systems, and insurers. Improving health and care as described by the Quadruple Aim requires innovation at the front lines of clinical care: the doctor-patient interaction and office practice. This article describes the use of Lean Six Sigma in a quality improvement (QI) effort to design an effective and scalable method for physicians to prescribe health coaching for healthy behaviors in a primary care medical home within a large integrated delivery and financing system. Building on the national Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation-funded Prescription for Health multisite demonstration, this QI case study provides important lessons for transforming patient-physician-practice support systems to better address lifestyle and care management challenges critical to producing better outcomes.

Effect of exercise type on smoking cessation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Exercise is one choice of additional treatment for smoking cessation by relieving nicotine withdrawal symptoms and smoking craving. The possible mechanism of the effect of exercise on relieving nicotine withdrawal symptoms and smoking craving is including affect, biological, and cognitive hypotheses. Evidence suggests that different types of exercise have different effects on these mechanisms. Therefore, type of exercise might have effect on smoking cessation. The purpose of this study is to systematically review randomized controlled trials to gain insight into which types of exercise are effective for smoking cessation.

Methods

Publications were systemically searched up to November 2016 in several databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, PEDro, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library), using the following keywords: “physical activity”, “exercise”, “smoking”, “tobacco” and “cigarette”. The methodological quality was assessed independently by two authors. Meta-analysis was conducted to examine the effectiveness of the type of exercise on smoking cessation. The quality of the evidence was assessed and rated according to the GRADE approach.

Results

20 articles on 19 studies were judged to meet the selection criteria (seven low-risk of bias RCTs and 12 high-risk of bias RCTs). The findings revealed low quality evidence for the effectiveness of yoga for smoking cessation at the end of the treatment. The evidence found for no effect of aerobic exercise, resisted exercise, and a combined aerobic and resisted exercise program on smoking cessation was of low to moderate quality. Furthermore, very low to low quality evidence was found for no effect of physical activity on smoking cessation.

Conclusions

There was no effect of aerobic exercise, resisted exercise, physical activity and combined aerobic and resisted exercise on smoking cessation. There was a positive effect on smoking cessation at the end of treatment in the program where yoga plus cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) was used. However, which of the two work is still to be studied.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13104-017-2762-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Combination nicotine replacement therapy: strategies for initiation and tapering

Several studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated the efficacy of combination nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for patients who wish to quit smoking. However, there is limited guidance with respect to initiation and tapering of combination NRT. We attempt to review the evidence and rationale behind combination NRT, present the dosing used in combination NRT studies, and propose a step-down approach for tapering of combination NRT with integration of behavioral strategies.

Cigarette smoking and depression comorbidity: systematic review and proposed theoretical model

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Despite decades of research on co-occurring smoking and depression, cessation rates remain consistently lower for depressed smokers than for smokers in the general population, highlighting the need for theory-driven models of smoking and depression. This paper provides a systematic review with a particular focus upon psychological states that disproportionately motivate smoking in depression, and frame an incentive learning theory account of smoking-depression co-occurrence.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, PsychINFO and CINAHL to December 2014, which yielded 852 papers. Using pre-established eligibility criteria, we identified papers focused on clinical issues and motivational mechanisms underlying smoking in established, adult smokers (i.e. maintenance, quit attempts and cessation/relapse) with elevated symptoms of depression. Two reviewers determined independently whether papers met review criteria. We included 297 papers in qualitative synthesis.

RESULTS

Our review identified three primary mechanisms that underlie persistent smoking among depressed smokers: low positive affect, high negative affect and cognitive impairment. We propose a novel application of incentive learning theory which posits that depressed smokers experience greater increases in the expected value of smoking in the face of these three motivational states, which promotes goal-directed choice of smoking behavior over alternative actions.

CONCLUSIONS

The incentive learning theory accounts for current evidence on how depression primes smoking behavior and provides a unique framework for conceptualizing psychological mechanisms of smoking maintenance among depressed smokers. Treatment should focus upon correcting adverse internal states and beliefs about the high value of smoking in those states to improve cessation outcomes for depressed smokers.

Effects of Global Payment and Accountable Care on Tobacco Cessation Service Use: An Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death and disability. New payment and delivery system models including global payment and accountable care have the potential to increase use of cost-effective tobacco cessation services.

OBJECTIVE

To examine how the Alternative Quality Contract (AQC) established in 2009 by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts (BCBSMA) has affected tobacco cessation service use.

DESIGN

We used 2006-2011 BCBSMA claims and enrollment data to compare adults 18-64 years in AQC provider organizations to adults in non-AQC provider organizations. We examined the AQC's effects on all enrollees; a subset at high risk of tobacco-related complications due to certain medical conditions; and behavioral health service users.

MAIN MEASURES

We examined use of: (1) any cessation treatment (pharmacotherapy or counseling); (2) varenicline or bupropion; (3) nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs); (4) cessation counseling; and (4) combination therapy (pharmacotherapy plus counseling). We also examined duration of pharmacotherapy use and number of counseling visits among users.

KEY RESULTS

Rates of tobacco cessation treatment use were higher following implementation of the AQC relative to the comparison group overall (2.02 vs. 1.87 %, p < 0.0001), among enrollees at risk for tobacco-related complications (4.97 vs. 4.66 %, p < 0.0001), and among behavioral health service users (3.67 vs. 3.25 %, p < 0.0001). Statistically significant increases were found for use of varenicline or bupropion alone, counseling alone, and combination therapy, but not for NRT use, pharmacotherapy duration, or number of counseling visits among users.

CONCLUSIONS

In its initial three years, the AQC was associated with increases in use of tobacco cessation services.

Effects of Nicotine Patch vs Varenicline vs Combination Nicotine Replacement Therapy on Smoking Cessation at 26 Weeks: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Smoking cessation medications are routinely used in health care; it is vital to identify medications that most effectively treat this leading cause of preventable mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacies of varenicline, combination nicotine replacement therapy (C-NRT), and the nicotine patch for 26-week quit rates.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Three-group randomized intention-to-treat clinical trial occurring from May 2012 to November 2015 among smokers recruited in the Madison, Wisconsin, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, communities; 65.5% of smokers offered the study (2687/4102) refused participation prior to randomization.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to one of three 12-week open-label smoking cessation pharmacotherapy groups: (1) nicotine patch only (n = 241); (2) varenicline only (including 1 prequit week; n = 424); and (3) C-NRT (nicotine patch + nicotine lozenge; n = 421). Six counseling sessions were offered.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was carbon monoxide-confirmed self-reported 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes were carbon monoxide-confirmed self-reported initial abstinence, prolonged abstinence at 26 weeks, and point-prevalence abstinence at weeks 4, 12, and 52.

RESULTS

Among 1086 smokers randomized (52% women; 67% white; mean age, 48 years; mean of 17 cigarettes smoked per day), 917 (84%) provided 12-month follow-up data. Treatments did not differ on any abstinence outcome measure at 26 or 52 weeks, including point-prevalence abstinence at 26 weeks (nicotine patch, 22.8% [55/241]; varenicline, 23.6% [100/424]; and C-NRT, 26.8% [113/421]) or at 52 weeks (nicotine patch, 20.8% [50/241]; varenicline, 19.1% [81/424]; and C-NRT, 20.2% [85/421]). At 26 weeks, the risk differences for abstinence were, for patch vs varenicline, -0.76% (95% CI, -7.4% to 5.9%); for patch vs C-NRT, -4.0% (95% CI, -10.8% to 2.8%); and for varenicline vs C-NRT, -3.3% (95% CI, -9.1% to 2.6%). All medications were well tolerated, but varenicline produced more frequent adverse events than did the nicotine patch for vivid dreams, insomnia, nausea, constipation, sleepiness, and indigestion.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among adults motivated to quit smoking, 12 weeks of open-label treatment with nicotine patch, varenicline, or C-NRT produced no significant differences in biochemically confirmed rates of smoking abstinence at 26 weeks. The results raise questions about the relative effectiveness of intense smoking pharmacotherapies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01553084.

Rates and predictors of renewed quitting after relapse during a one-year follow-up among primary care patients

BACKGROUND

Most people who quit smoking relapse within a year of quitting. Little is known about what prompts renewed quitting after relapse or how often this results in abstinence.

PURPOSE

This study seeks to identify rates, efficacy, and predictors of renewed quit attempts after relapse during a 1-year follow-up.

METHODS

Primary care patients in a comparative effectiveness trial of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies reported daily smoking every 6-12 weeks for 12 months to determine relapse, renewed quitting, and 12-month abstinence rates.

RESULTS

Of 894 known relapsers, 291 (33%) renewed quitting for at least 24 h, and 99 (34%) of these were abstinent at follow-up. The average latency to renewed quitting was 106 days and longer latencies predicted greater success. Renewed quitting was more likely for older, male, less dependent smokers, and later abstinence was predicted by fewer depressive symptoms and longer past abstinence.

CONCLUSIONS

Renewed quitting is common and produces meaningful levels of cessation.

A comparative study of different modalities of treatment in nicotine dependence syndrome

There are different modalities for management of Nicotine dependence, but it is still inconclusive which is the best modality for the treatment of Nicotine dependence syndrome (NDS). In this background the present study was carried out to assess the efficacy and to compare different modalities for the treatment of NDS.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed as NDS as per ICD-10 were taken up for study. These patients were administered proforma to elicit sociodemographic details, Fagerstrom test for Nicotine Dependence, Questionnaire of Smoking Urges-Brief and breath analysis was done using carbon monoxide meter. Assessment was done at base line and at weekly follow-ups for 12 weeks. Patients were divided into six groups randomly. Group A received BUP at a dose of 150mg/day for 3 days; subsequently increased to 300mg/day, Group B: for initial 6 weeks Nicotine gum of 4mg every 1-2 hourly was used and next 6 weeks every 2-4 hourly was used, Group C: BI, Group D: BI+BUP, Group E: BI+NRT, Group F received BUP+NRT+BI.

RESULTS

The quit rates at end of the study were BUP-30%, NRT-26.66%, BI-23.33%, BI+BUP-43.33%, BI+NRT-33.33%, and BI+BUP+NRT-50%. BI+BUP+NRT had 2-3 times more quit rates than the individual modality treatment group.

CONCLUSION

There was no statistically significant difference between the study groups, but there was clinical difference in quit rates. Among the groups BI+BUP+NRT had higher quit rates compared to other groups. Combination modalities yield better quit rates than individual modalities.

Integration of tobacco cessation services into multidisciplinary lung cancer care: rationale, state of the art, and future directions

Tobacco use is the largest risk factor for lung cancer and many lung cancer patients still smoke at the time of diagnosis. Although clinical practice guidelines recommend that all patients receive evidence-based tobacco treatment, implementation of these services in oncology practices is inconsistent and inadequate. Multidisciplinary lung cancer treatment programs offer an ideal environment to optimally deliver effective smoking cessation services. This article reviews best practice recommendations and current status of tobacco treatment for oncology patients, and provides recommendations to optimize delivery of tobacco treatment in multidisciplinary practice.

Primary Care Provider-Delivered Smoking Cessation Interventions and Smoking Cessation Among Participants in the National Lung Screening Trial

IMPORTANCE

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) found a reduction in lung cancer mortality among participants screened with low-dose computed tomography vs chest radiography. In February 2015, Medicare announced its decision to cover annual lung screening for patients with a significant smoking history. These guidelines promote smoking cessation treatment as an adjunct to screening, but the frequency and effectiveness of clinician-delivered smoking cessation interventions delivered after lung screening are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association between the reported clinician-delivered 5As (ask, advise, assess, assist [talk about quitting or recommend stop-smoking medications or recommend counseling], and arrange follow-up) after lung screening and smoking behavior changes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A matched case-control study (cases were quitters and controls were continued smokers) of 3336 NLST participants who were smokers at enrollment examined participants' rates and patterns of 5A delivery after a lung screen and reported smoking cessation behaviors.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Prevalence of the clinician-delivered 5As and associated smoking cessation after lung screening.

RESULTS

Delivery of the 5As 1 year after screening were as follows: ask, 77.2%; advise, 75.6%; assess, 63.4%; assist, 56.4%; and arrange follow-up, 10.4%. Receipt of ask, advise, and assess was not significantly associated with quitting in multivariate models that adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, screening results, nicotine dependence, and motivation to quit. Assist was associated with a 40% increase in the odds of quitting (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.21-1.63), and arrange was associated with a 46% increase in the odds of quitting (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.19-1.79).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Assist and arrange follow-up delivered by primary care providers to smokers who were participating in the NLST were associated with increased quitting; less intensive interventions (ask, advise, and assess) were not. However, rates of assist and arrange follow-up were relatively low. Our findings confirm the need for and benefit of clinicians taking more active intervention steps in helping patients who undergo screening to quit smoking.

Paths to tobacco abstinence: A repeated-measures latent class analysis

OBJECTIVE

Knowledge of smoking change processes may be enhanced by identifying pathways to stable abstinence. We sought to identify latent classes of smokers based on their day-to-day smoking status in the first weeks of a cessation attempt. We examined treatment effects on class membership and compared classes on baseline individual differences and 6-month abstinence rates.

METHOD

In this secondary analysis of a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial (N = 1,433) of 5 smoking cessation pharmacotherapies (nicotine patch, nicotine lozenge, bupropion SR, patch and lozenge, or bupropion SR and lozenge), we conducted repeated-measures latent class analysis of daily smoking status (any smoking vs. none) for the first 27 days of a quit attempt. Treatment and covariate relations with latent class membership were examined. Distal outcome analysis compared confirmed 6-month abstinence rates among the latent classes.

RESULTS

A 5-class solution was selected. Three-quarters of smokers were in stable smoking or abstinent classes, but 25% were in classes with unstable abstinence probabilities over time. Active treatment (compared to placebo), and particularly the patch and lozenge combination, promoted early quitting. Latent classes differed in 6-month abstinence rates and on several baseline variables, including nicotine dependence, quitting history, self-efficacy, sleep disturbance, and minority status.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeated-measures latent class analysis identified latent classes of smoking change patterns affected by treatment, related to known risk factors, and predictive of distal outcomes. Tracking behavior early in a change attempt may identify prognostic patterns of change and facilitate adaptive treatment planning.

Time-varying processes involved in smoking lapse in a randomized trial of smoking cessation therapies

INTRODUCTION

Researchers have increasingly begun to gather ecological momentary assessment (EMA) data on smoking, but new statistical methods are necessary to fully unlock information from such data. In this paper, we use a new technique, the logistic time-varying effect model (logistic TVEM), to examine the odds of smoking in the 2 weeks after a quit attempt.

METHODS

Data are from a subsample of participants from a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies who achieved initial abstinence (N = 1,106, 58% female). Participants completed up to 4 EMA assessments per day during the 2 weeks after their quit day. Predictors include baseline nicotine dependence, EMA measures of craving and negative affect, and whether an individual was assigned to a placebo, monotherapy, or combination therapy condition. Time-varying effects of these predictors were estimated using logistic TVEM.

RESULTS

Cravings were a significant predictor of smoking throughout the entire 2 weeks postquit, whereas the effect of baseline dependence became nonsignificant by the second week, and the effect of negative affect increased over time. Individuals in the monotherapy and combination therapy conditions had decreased odds of smoking compared with placebo in the first week postquit, but these differences were nonsignificant in the second week.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that pharmacotherapies are more effective compared with placebo earlier in a quit attempt, when the effect of baseline nicotine dependence on smoking is stronger, whereas the effect of craving and negative affect increased over time. Future cessation therapies may be more successful by providing additional support in the second week after quit attempt.

Quit and smoking reduction rates in vape shop consumers: a prospective 12-month survey

Aims: Here, we present results from a prospective pilot study that was aimed at surveying changes in daily cigarette consumption in smokers making their first purchase at vape shops. Modifications in products purchase were also noted. Design: Participants were instructed how to charge, fill, activate and use their e-cigarettes (e-cigs). Participants were encouraged to use these products in the anticipation of reducing the number of cig/day smoked. Settings: Staff from LIAF contacted 10 vape shops in the province of the city of Catania (Italy) that acted as sponsors to the 2013 No Tobacco Day. Participants: 71 adult smokers (≥18 years old) making their first purchase at local participating vape shops were asked by professional retail staff to complete a form. Measurements: Their cigarette consumption was followed-up prospectively at 6 and 12 months. Details of products purchase (i.e., e-cigs hardware, e-liquid nicotine strengths and flavours) were also noted. Findings: Retention rate was elevated, with 69% of participants attending their final follow-up visit. At 12 month, 40.8% subjects could be classified as quitters, 25.4% as reducers and 33.8% as failures. Switching from standard refillables (initial choice) to more advanced devices (MODs) was observed in this study (from 8.5% at baseline to 18.4% at 12 month) as well as a trend in decreasing the e-liquid nicotine strength, with more participants adopting low nicotine strength (from 49.3% at baseline to 57.1% at 12 month). Conclusions: We have found that smokers purchasing e-cigarettes from vape shops with professional advice and support can achieve high success rates.

Behavioral Interventions to Enhance Smoking Cessation

In the United States, the rate of cigarette smoking has significantly declined over the past 2 decades, but much more work is needed, as almost 20% of adults still smoke and smoking continues to be the leading preventable cause of death. Furthermore, rates of smoking in certain subpopulations have remained relatively stable and have historically been neglected in smoking cessation research. Pharmacotherapy (both prescription and over-the-counter) and behavioral support are known to aid cessation, and their combination is more effective than either alone. There are significant barriers to access, use, and adherence, however, especially with pharmacotherapy. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to provide an update and overview of the numerous behavioral approaches that have been used to enhance smoking cessation. The research described can be classified into the type of approach used, the setting in which it is delivered, and the population targeted. Regardless of the classification, all the approaches attempt to provide smokers with the information, motivation, and behavioral skills thought to be necessary for achieving initial cessation and sustained abstinence. Recommendations for future research on behavioral smoking cessation are also included.

Comparative Effectiveness of Post-Discharge Strategies for Hospitalized Smokers: study protocol for the Helping HAND 2 randomized controlled trial

Background

Smoking cessation interventions for hospitalized smokers are effective in promoting smoking cessation, but only if the tobacco dependence treatment continues after the patient leaves the hospital. Sustaining tobacco dependence treatment after hospital discharge is a challenge for health care systems. Our previous single-site randomized controlled trial demonstrated the effectiveness of an intervention that facilitated the delivery of comprehensive tobacco cessation treatment, including both medication and counseling, after hospital discharge. We subsequently streamlined the intervention model to increase its potential for dissemination. This new model is being tested in a larger multi-site trial with broader eligibility criteria in order to enroll a more representative sample of hospitalized smokers. This paper describes the trial design and contrasts it with the earlier study.

Methods/Design

A 2-arm, 3-site randomized controlled trial is testing the hypothesis that a multi-component Sustained Care intervention is more effective than Standard Care in helping hospitalized cigarette smokers stop smoking after hospital discharge. The trial enrolls adult daily cigarette smokers who are admitted to 1 of 3 participating hospitals in Massachusetts or Pennsylvania. Participants receive the same smoking cessation intervention in the hospital. They are randomly assigned to receive either Standard Care or Sustained Care after hospital discharge. Participants in the Sustained Care arm receive a free 3-month supply of FDA-approved smoking cessation medication and 5 interactive voice response calls that provide tailored motivational messages, medication refills, and access to a live tobacco treatment counselor. Participants in the Standard Care arm receive a smoking cessation medication recommendation and information about community resources. Outcomes are assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge. The primary outcome is biochemically-validated tobacco abstinence for the past 7 days at 6-month follow-up. Other outcome measures include self-reported tobacco abstinence measures, use of medication and counseling after discharge, hospital readmissions, and program cost-effectiveness.

Discussion

We adapted a proven intervention for hospitalized smokers to enhance its potential for dissemination and are testing it in a multi-site trial. Study enrollment data suggests that the trial achieved the goal of recruiting a broader sample of hospitalized smokers.

Trial registration

Comparative Effectiveness of Post-Discharge Strategies for Hospitalized Smokers (Helping HAND2) NCT01714323. Registered October 22, 2012.

Success rates with nicotine personal vaporizers: a prospective 6-month pilot study of smokers not intending to quit

Background

Electronic cigarettes (e-Cigs) are an attractive long-term alternative nicotine source to conventional cigarettes. Although they may assist smokers to remain abstinent during their quit attempt, studies using first generation e-Cigs report low success rates. Second generation devices (personal vaporisers - PVs) may result in much higher quit rates, but their efficacy and safety in smoking cessation and/or reduction in clinical trials is unreported.

Method

We conducted a prospective proof-of-concept study monitoring modifications in smoking behaviour of 50 smokers (unwilling to quit) switched onto PVs. Participants attended five study visits: baseline, week-4, week-8, week-12 and week-24. Number of cigarettes/day (cigs/day) and exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) levels were noted at each visit. Smoking reduction/abstinence rates, product usage, adverse events and subjective opinions of these products were also reviewed.

Results

Sustained 50% and 80% reduction in cigs/day at week-24 was reported in 15/50 (30%) and 7/50 (14%) participants with a reduction from 25cigs/day to 6cigs/day (p < 0.001) and 3cigs/day (p < 0.001), respectively. Smoking abstinence (self-reported abstinence from cigarette smoking verified by an eCO ≤10 ppm) at week-24 was observed in 18/50 (36%) participants, with 15/18 (83.3%) still using their PVs at the end of the study. Combined 50% reduction and smoking abstinence was shown in 33/50 (66%) participants. Throat/mouth irritation (35.6%), dry throat/mouth (28.9%), headache (26.7%) and dry cough (22.2%) were frequently reported early in the study, but waned substantially by week-24. Participants’ perception and acceptance of the products was very good.

Conclusion

The use of second generation PVs substantially decreased cigarette consumption without causing significant adverse effects in smokers not intending to quit.

Trial registration

(ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02124200)

Tobacco use and cessation for cancer survivors: an overview for clinicians

Approximately 30% of all cancer deaths in the United States are caused by tobacco use and smoking. Cancers of eighteen sites have been causally linked to smoking, the most common of which are the lung, head and neck, bladder, and esophagus. While quit rates and quit attempt rates are relatively high shortly after a cancer diagnosis, the recidivism rates are also high. Therefore, screening, treating, and preventing relapse to tobacco use is imperative among patients with and survivors of cancer. To date, research has consistently shown that a combination of pharmacologic and behavioral interventions is needed to achieve the highest smoking cessation rates, with a recent emphasis on individualized treatment as a most promising approach. Challenges in health care systems, including the lack of appropriate resources and provider training, have slowed the progress in addition to important clinical considerations relevant to the treatment of tobacco dependence (eg, a high degree of comorbidity with psychiatric disorders and other substance use disorders). However, continued tobacco use has been shown to limit the effectiveness of major cancer treatments and to increase the risk of complications and of developing secondary cancers. The authors recommend that oncology providers screen all patients for tobacco use and refer users to specialized treatment when available. Alternatively, oncology clinicians can provide basic advice on tobacco use cessation and pharmacotherapy and/or referral to outside resources (eg, quitlines). Herein, the authors summarize the current knowledge on tobacco use and its treatment, with a focus on the related available evidence for patients with and survivors of cancer.