Comparative Effectiveness of Postdischarge Smoking Cessation Interventions for Hospital Patients: The Helping HAND 4 Randomized Clinical Trial

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

In 2020, 32.6% of the world's population used tobacco. Smoking contributes to many illnesses that require hospitalisation. A hospital admission may prompt a quit attempt. Initiating smoking cessation treatment, such as pharmacotherapy and/or counselling, in hospitals may be an effective preventive health strategy. Pharmacotherapies work to reduce withdrawal/craving and counselling provides behavioural skills for quitting smoking. This review updates the evidence on interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, to understand the most effective smoking cessation treatment methods for hospitalised smokers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of any type of smoking cessation programme for patients admitted to an acute care hospital.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 7 September 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised studies of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients admitted to hospital quit. Interventions had to start in the hospital (including at discharge), and people had to have smoked within the last month. We excluded studies in psychiatric, substance and rehabilitation centres, as well as studies that did not measure abstinence at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from smoking assessed at least six months after discharge or the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically-validated rates where reported. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 82 studies (74 RCTs) that included 42,273 participants in the review (71 studies, 37,237 participants included in the meta-analyses); 36 studies are new to this update. We rated 10 studies as being at low risk of bias overall (low risk in all domains assessed), 48 at high risk of bias overall (high risk in at least one domain), and the remaining 24 at unclear risk. Cessation counselling versus no counselling, grouped by intensity of intervention Hospitalised patients who received smoking cessation counselling that began in the hospital and continued for more than a month after discharge had higher quit rates than patients who received no counselling in the hospital or following hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.49; 28 studies, 8234 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might account for an additional 76 quitters in every 1000 participants (95% CI 51 to 103). The evidence was uncertain (very low-certainty) about the effects of counselling interventions of less intensity or shorter duration (in-hospital only counselling ≤ 15 minutes: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1417 participants; and in-hospital contact plus follow-up counselling support for ≤ 1 month: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 7 studies, 4627 participants) versus no counselling. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that smoking cessation counselling for at least 15 minutes in the hospital without post-discharge support led to higher quit rates than no counselling in the hospital (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.58; 12 studies, 4432 participants). Pharmacotherapy versus placebo or no pharmacotherapy Nicotine replacement therapy helped more patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.67; 8 studies, 3838 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 62 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 9 to 126). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision (as CI encompassed the possibility of no difference), that varenicline helped more hospitalised patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 4 studies, 829 participants). Evidence for bupropion was low-certainty; the point estimate indicated a modest benefit at best, but CIs were wide and incorporated clinically significant harm and clinically significant benefit (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43, 4 studies, 872 participants). Hospital-only intervention versus intervention that continues after hospital discharge Patients offered both smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge had higher quit rates than patients offered counselling in hospital but not offered post-discharge support (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.38; 7 studies, 5610 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 34 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 to 55). Post-discharge interventions offering real-time counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.60, 8 studies, 2299 participants; low certainty-evidence) and those offering unscheduled counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 2 studies, 1598 participants; very low-certainty evidence) may have little to no effect on quit rates compared to control. Telephone quitlines versus control To provide post-discharge support, hospitals may refer patients to community-based telephone quitlines. Both comparisons relating to these interventions had wide CIs encompassing both possible harm and possible benefit, and were judged to be of very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias (post-discharge telephone counselling versus quitline referral: RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.51; 3 studies, 3260 participants; quitline referral versus control: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.96; 2 studies, 1870 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Offering hospitalised patients smoking cessation counselling beginning in hospital and continuing for over one month after discharge increases quit rates, compared to no hospital intervention. Counselling provided only in hospital, without post-discharge support, may have a modest impact on quit rates, but evidence is less certain. When all patients receive counselling in the hospital, high-certainty evidence indicates that providing both counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge increases quit rates compared to no post-discharge intervention. Starting nicotine replacement or varenicline in hospitalised patients helps more patients to quit smoking than a placebo or no medication, though evidence for varenicline is only moderate-certainty due to imprecision. There is less evidence of benefit for bupropion in this setting. Some of our evidence was limited by imprecision (bupropion versus placebo and varenicline versus placebo), risk of bias, and inconsistency related to heterogeneity. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies to implement, disseminate, and sustain interventions, and to ensure cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy initiated in the hospital is sustained after discharge.

[Tobacco cessation: one of the most effective medical measures]

Tobacco smoking is widespread in Germany. An increase in the number of teenagers and young adults that smoke has recently been a cause for concern. The high prevalence in Germany is contrasted by inadequate preventive measures compared to international standards. Smoking behavior should always be inquired about and documented in the same way as vital signs. All smokers, regardless of the reason for contact and motivation, should receive short, low-threshold advice, e.g. using the ABC approach (ask, brief advice, cessation). In addition to repeated advice and referral to further services, the use of nicotine replacement or drug therapy is essential for the success of quitting. The combination of long- and short-acting nicotine replacement products doubles the success rate. Electronic nicotine delivery systems are not recommended for smoking cessation.

Effectiveness of Medical Student Counseling for Hospitalized Patients Addicted to Tobacco (MS-CHAT): a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Low-middle-income countries face an enormous burden of tobacco-related illnesses. Counseling for tobacco cessation increases the chance of achieving quit outcomes, yet it remains underutilized in healthcare settings.

OBJECTIVE

We tested the hypothesis that utilizing trained medical students to counsel hospitalized patients who use tobacco will lead to an increase in patient quit rates, while also improving medical student knowledge regarding smoking cessation counseling.

DESIGN

Investigator-initiated, two-armed, multicenter randomized controlled trial conducted in three medical schools in India.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligibility criteria included age 18-70 years, active admission to the hospital, and current smoking.

INTERVENTION

A medical student-guided smoking cessation program, initiated in hospitalized patients and continued for 2 months after discharge.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day point prevalence of smoking cessation at 6 months. Changes in medical student knowledge were assessed using a pre- and post-questionnaire delivered prior to and 12 months after training.

KEY RESULTS

Among 688 patients randomized across three medical schools, 343 were assigned to the intervention group and 345 to the control group. After 6 months of follow up, the primary outcome occurred in 188 patients (54.8%) in the intervention group, and 145 patients (42.0%) in the control group (absolute difference, 12.8%; relative risk, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.26; p < 0.001). Among 70 medical students for whom data was available, knowledge increased from a mean score of 14.8 (± 0.8) (out of a maximum score of 25) at baseline to a score of 18.1 (± 0.8) at 12 months, an absolute mean difference of 3.3 (95% CI, 2.3-4.3; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Medical students can be trained to effectively provide smoking cessation counseling to hospitalized patients. Incorporating this program into the medical curriculum can provide experiential training to medical students while improving patient quit rates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov . Unique identifier: NCT03521466.

Tobacco-Related Disease, Health Beliefs, and Post-hospital Tobacco Abstinence

INTRODUCTION

Most hospitalized patients who smoke resume after discharge. Associations of tobacco-related disease and health beliefs with post-hospitalization abstinence were examined.

METHODS

This was a cohort study using data from a 2018-2020 multicenter trial of hospitalized adults who smoked and wanted to quit. Tobacco-related disease was defined using primary discharge diagnosis codes. Baseline health beliefs included (1) smoking caused hospitalization, (2) quitting speeds recovery, and (3) quitting prevents future illness. Outcomes included self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge. Separate logistic regression models for each of the three health beliefs were constructed. Models stratified by tobacco-related disease explored effect modification. Analysis was performed in 2022-2023.

RESULTS

Of 1,406 participants (mean age 52 years, 56% females, 77% non-Hispanic White), 31% had tobacco-related disease, 42% believed that smoking caused hospitalization, 68% believed that quitting speeds recovery, and 82% believed that quitting prevents future illness. Tobacco-related disease was associated with higher 1-month point prevalence abstinence in each health belief model (AOR=1.55, 95% CI=1.15, 2.10; 1.53, 95% CI=1.14, 2.05; and 1.64, 95% CI=1.24, 2.19, respectively) and higher 6-month point prevalence abstinence in models including health beliefs 2 and 3. Quitting speeds recovery was the only belief associated with higher 1-month point prevalence abstinence (AOR=1.39, 95% CI=1.05, 1.85). Among patients with tobacco-related disease, the belief that quitting prevents future illness was associated with higher 1-month point prevalence abstinence (AOR=2.00, 95% CI=1.06, 3.78).

CONCLUSIONS

Tobacco-related disease predicts abstinence 1 and 6 months after hospitalization independent of health beliefs. Beliefs that quitting speeds recovery and prevents future illness may serve as targets for smoking-cessation interventions.

Implementation of an "Opt-Out" Tobacco Treatment Program in Six Hospitals in South Carolina

Objective

To describe the implementation an opt-out tobacco treatment program (TTP) in 6 diverse hospitals located in different regions of South Carolina.

Methods

Between March 8, 2021 and December 17, 2021, adult patients (≥ 18 years) admitted to 6 hospitals affiliated with the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) were screened for their cigarette status. Patients who smoked cigarettes were referred to an TTP offering a brief bedside consult and automated post-discharge follow-up calls with an opportunity to receive a referral to the South Carolina Quitline (SCQL). The hospitals included in this study ranged in size from 82 to 715 beds with diverse patient populations. Herein, we report on the results of screening and referring patients to the TTP, delivery of smoking cessation treatments, and patient smoking status assessed in a sample of patients followed 6-weeks after discharge from the hospital.

Results

Smoking prevalence ranged from 14-49% across the 6 hospitals. Among eligible patients reached, 85.6% accepted the bedside consult. Only 3.4% of patients reached were deemed ineligible because they claimed not to be currently smoking cigarettes. The automated post-discharge follow-up calls were answered by 43% of patients, with about a third of those who had relapsed back to smoking accepting the offer of a referral to the SCQL. Overall, about half of the 6,000 patients referred to the TTP received some type of treatment. Self-reported smoking abstinence rates assessed 6-weeks after discharge were similar across the five acute care hospitals ranging from about 20-30%.

Conclusion

The findings demonstrate the broad reach of implementing an opt-out TTP for patients in hospitals of varying size, rurality and patient populations.

Can Treatment Support Mitigate Nicotine Metabolism-Based Disparities in Smoking Abstinence? Secondary Analysis of the Helping HAND 4 Trial

INTRODUCTION

The nicotine metabolite ratio (NMR), a biomarker of CYP2A6-mediated nicotine metabolism, predicts the efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), with fast metabolizers benefiting less than slow metabolizers. Whether treatment support to optimize NRT use (henceforth "treatment support") modifies this pharmacogenetic relationship is unknown.

METHODS

Hospitalized adult daily smokers were assigned to one of two post-discharge smoking cessation interventions offering NRT and counseling: (1) Transitional Tobacco Care Management, which delivered enhanced treatment support via free combination NRT at discharge and automated counseling, and (2) a quitline-based approach representing usual care (UC). The primary outcome was biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence 6 months after discharge. Secondary outcomes were the use of NRT and counseling during the 3-month intervention period. Logistic regression models tested for interactions between NMR and intervention, controlling for sex, race, alcohol use, and BMI.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 321) were classified as slow (n = 80) or fast (n = 241) metabolizers relative to the first quartile of NMR (0.012-0.219 vs. 0.221-3.455, respectively). Under UC, fast (vs. slow) metabolizers had lower odds of abstinence at 6 months (aOR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13-0.95) and similar odds of NRT and counseling use. Compared to UC, enhanced treatment support increased abstinence (aOR 2.13, 95% CI 0.98-4.64) and use of combination NRT (aOR 4.62, 95% CI 2.57-8.31) in fast metabolizers, while reducing abstinence in slow metabolizers (aOR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.87; NMR-by-intervention interaction p = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment support increased abstinence and optimal use of NRT among fast nicotine metabolizers, thereby mitigating the gap in abstinence between fast and slow metabolizers.

IMPLICATIONS

In this secondary analysis of two smoking cessation interventions for recently hospitalized smokers, fast nicotine metabolizers quit at lower rates than slow metabolizers, but providing fast metabolizers with enhanced treatment support doubled the odds of quitting in this group and mitigated the disparity in abstinence between fast and slow metabolizers. If validated, these findings could lead to personalized approaches to smoking cessation treatment that improve outcomes by targeting treatment support to those who need it most.

[Smoking cessation in hospitalised patients - Initiate among inpatients, continue when outpatients - A Position Paper by the German Respiratory Society (DGP) Taskforce for Smoking Cessation]

Tobacco smoking is the greatest preventable health risk. The effects are serious, both individually and societal. Nevertheless, the current prevalence of tobacco smokers in Germany is still high at around 35 %. A recent strong increase in actively smoking adolescents (14- to 17-year-olds, current prevalence approx. 16 %) and young adults (18- to 24-year-olds, current prevalence approx. 41 %) is also a cause for concern. About a third of all inpatients continue smoking while being treated. The hospitalization of active smokers in acute and rehabilitation hospitals serves as a "teachable moment" for initiation of cessation offers. An intervention that begins in hospital and continues for at least a month after discharge results in about 40 % additional smokefree patients. It is scientifically well-researched, effective and cost-efficient. After initiation in hospital these measures can be continued via ambulatory cessation programs, rehabilitation facilities, an Internet or telephone service. In Germany, there are structured and quality-assured cessation offers, both for the inpatient and for the outpatient area. The biggest obstacle to broad establishment of such offers is the lack of reimbursement. Two feasible ways to change this would be the remuneration of the existing OPS 9-501 "Multimodal inpatient treatment for smoking cessation" and the establishment of quality contracts according to § 110a SGB V. An expansion of tobacco cessation measures in healthcare facilities would reduce smoking prevalence, associated burden of disease and consecutive costs.