Helping Hospitalized Smokers: A Factorial RCT of Nicotine Patches and Counseling

Hospital-Initiated Smoking Cessation Among Patients Admitted with Behavioral Health Conditions

BACKGROUND

Smoking rates among people living with behavioral health conditions (BHC) range from 30 to 65% and are 2-4 times higher than rates found in the general population. Starting tobacco treatment during a hospital stay is effective for smoking cessation, but little is known regarding treatment response among inpatients with BHC.

OBJECTIVE

This study pooled data across multiple clinical trials to determine the relative success in quitting among participants with BHC compared to other study participants.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults who smoke (≥ 18 years old) from five hospital-based smoking cessation randomized clinical trials.

DESIGN

A retrospective analysis using data from the electronic health record to identify participants with primary diagnoses related to BHC. Recruitment and data analysis were conducted from 2011 to 2016. We used propensity score matching to pair patients with BHC to those with similar characteristics and logistic regression to determine differences between groups.

MEASURES

The main outcome was self-reported 30-day abstinence 6 months post-discharge.

RESULTS

Of 6612 participants, 798 patients had a BHC-related primary diagnosis. The matched sample included 642 pairs. Nearly 1 in 3 reported using tobacco medications after hospitalization, with no significant difference between patients with and without BHC (29.3% vs. 31.5%; OR (95% CI) = 0.90 (0.71, 1.14), p = 0.40). Nearly 1 in 5 patients with BHC reported abstinence at 6 months; however, their odds of abstinence were 30% lower than among people without BHC (OR (95% CI) = 0.70 (0.53,0.92), p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

When offered tobacco treatment, hospitalized patients with BHC were as likely as people without BHC to accept and engage in treatment. However, patients with BHC were less likely to report abstinence compared to those without BHC. Hospitals are a feasible and promising venue for tobacco treatment among inpatients with BHC. More studies are needed to identify treatment approaches that help people with BHC achieve long-term abstinence.

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.

Nicotine replacement therapy 'gift cards' for hospital inpatients who smoke: a prospective before-and-after controlled pilot evaluation

INTRODUCTION

A common barrier identified by individuals trying to quit smoking is the cost of cessation pharmacotherapies. The purpose of this evaluation was to: (1) Assess the feasibility of offering nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) 'gift cards' to hospitalised smokers for use posthospitalisation; and, (2) Estimate the effect of providing NRT gift cards on 6-month smoking abstinence.

METHODS

A prospective, quasi-experimental, before-and-after controlled cohort design with random sampling was used to compare patients who had received the Ottawa Model for Smoking Cessation (OMSC) intervention ('control') with patients who received the OMSC plus a $C300 Quit Card ('QCI'), which they could use to purchase any brand or form of NRT from any Canadian pharmacy.

RESULTS

750 Quit Cards were distributed to the three participating hospitals of which 707 (94.3%) were distributed to patients. Of the cards received by patients, 532 (75.2%) were used to purchase NRT. A total of 272 participants completed evaluation surveys (148 control; 124 QCI).Point prevalence abstinence rates adjusted for misreporting among survey responders were 15.3% higher in the QCI group, compared with controls (44.4% vs 29.1%; OR 1.95, 1.18-3.21; p=0.009). Satisfaction was high among participants in both groups, and among staff delivering the QCI. QCI participants rated the intervention as high in terms of motivation, ease of use and helpfulness.

CONCLUSIONS

The NRT gift card appears to be a feasible and effective smoking cessation tool that removes a primary barrier to the use of evidence-based smoking cessation pharmacotherapies, while motivating both patients and health providers.

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

IMPORTANCE

Smoking cessation interventions for hospitalized patients must continue after discharge to improve long-term tobacco abstinence. How health systems can best deliver postdischarge tobacco treatment is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if health system-based tobacco cessation treatment after hospital discharge produces more long-term tobacco abstinence than referral to a community-based quitline.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial was conducted September 2018 to November 2020 in 3 hospitals in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. Cigarette smokers admitted to a study hospital who received brief in-hospital tobacco treatment and wanted to quit smoking were recruited for participation and randomized for postdischarge treatment to health system-based Transitional Tobacco Care Management (TTCM) or electronic referral to a community-based quitline (QL). Both multicomponent interventions offered smoking cessation counseling and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for up to 3 months. Data were analyzed from February 1, 2021, to April 25, 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

TTCM provided 8 weeks of NRT at discharge and 7 automated calls with a hospital-based counselor call-back option. The QL intervention sent referrals from the hospital electronic health record to the state quitline, which offered 5 counseling calls and an NRT sample.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was biochemically verified past 7-day tobacco abstinence at 6 months. Self-reported point-prevalence and continuous tobacco abstinence and tobacco treatment utilization were assessed 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 1409 participants (mean [SD] age, 51.7 [12.6] years; 784 [55.6%] women; mean [SD] 16.4 [10.6] cigarettes/day) were recruited, including 706 randomized to TTCM and 703 randomized to QL. Participants were comparable at baseline, including 216 Black participants (15.3%), 82 Hispanic participants (5.8%), and 1089 White participants (77.3%). At 1 and 3 months after discharge, more TTCM participants than QL participants used cessation counseling (1 month: 245 participants [34.7%] vs 154 participants [21.9%]; 3 months: 248 participants [35.1%] vs 123 participants [17.5%]; P < .001) and pharmacotherapy (1 month: 455 participants [64.4%] vs 324 participants [46.1%]; 3 months: 367 participants [52.0%] vs 264 participants [37.6%]; P < .001). More TTCM than QL participants reported continuous abstinence for 3 months (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.58) and point-prevalence abstinence at 1 month (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.35) and 3 months (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.09-1.37) but not at 6 months (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.99-1.29). The primary outcome, biochemically verified point-prevalence abstinence at 6 months, was not statistically significantly different between groups (19.9% vs 16.9%; RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.92-1.50).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial, biochemically verified tobacco abstinence rates were not significantly different between groups at the 6-month follow-up. However, the health system-based model was superior to the community-based quitline model throughout the 3 months of active treatment. A longer duration of postdischarge treatment may sustain the superiority of the health system-based model.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03603496.

A smoking quitline integrated with clinician counselling at outpatient health facilities in Vietnam: a single-arm prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Limited evidence is available about the combination of multiple smoking cessation modalities in low- and middle-income countries. The study aimed to assess the feasibility of a smoking cessation intervention that integrates follow-up counselling phone calls and scheduled text messages with brief advice from physicians in Vietnam.

METHODS

This was a single-arm intervention study. Smokers were referred to the study Quitline after brief advice by physicians at three rural district hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam. Following referral, participants received nine counselling phone calls in 12 months and a scheduled text message service that lasted for three months. Participants who reported smoking cessation for at least 30 days at the 12-month follow-up were invited for a urinary cotinine test to confirm cessation.

RESULTS

The Quitline centre had 431 referrals from participating hospitals. Among them, 221 (51.3%) were enrolled. After the baseline phone call, 141 (63.8%) participated in all 4 follow-up calls within the first month and 117 (52.9%) participated in all phone calls in 12 months. The median number of successful phone calls was 8 (interquartile range: 6 - 8). At the end of the study, 90 (40.7%) self-reported abstinence from smoking over the previous 30 days. Among them, 22 (24.4%) submitted a sample for cotinine test, of which 13 (59.1% of those tested) returned a negative result. The proportion of biochemically-verified quitters was 5.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of brief advice and referral from healthcare facilities, Quitline counselling phone calls, and scheduled text messaging was feasible in rural health facilities in northern Vietnam.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12619000554167 .

Factors associated with changes in inpatients' smoking pattern during hospitalization and one month after discharge: A cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Smokers are frequent users of healthcare services. Admissions to hospital can serve as a "teachable moment" for quitting smoking. Clinical guidelines recommend initiating smoking cessation services during hospitalization; however, in Southern European countries less than 5% of inpatients receive a brief intervention for smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were (i) to examine rates of smoking abstinence during and after hospitalization; (ii) to measure changes in smoking patterns among persons who continued smoking after discharge; and (iii) to identify predictors of abstinence during hospitalization and after discharge.

METHODS

A cohort study of a representative sample of current adult smokers hospitalized in two Spanish and two Portuguese hospitals. We surveyed smokers during hospitalization and recontacted them one month after discharge. We used a 25-item ad hoc questionnaire regarding their smoking pattern, the smoking cessation intervention they have received during hospitalization, and hospital and sociodemographic characteristics. We performed a descriptive analysis using the chi-square test and a multivariate logistic regression to characterize the participant, hospital, and smoking cessation intervention (5As model) characteristics associated with smoking abstinence.

RESULTS

Smoking patients from both countries presented high abstinence rates during hospitalization (Spain: 76.4%; Portugal: 70.2%); however, after discharge, their abstinence rates decreased to 55.3% and 46.8%, respectively. In Spain, smokers who tried to quit before hospital admission showed higher abstinence rates, and those who continued smoking reduced a mean of five cigarettes the number of cigarettes per day (p ≤ 0.001). In Portugal, abstinence rates were higher among women (p = 0.030), those not living with a smoker (p = 0.008), those admitted to medical-surgical wards (p = 0.035), who consumed their first cigarette within 60 min after waking (p = 0.006), and those who were trying to quit before hospitalization (p = 0.043).

CONCLUSIONS

Half of the smokers admitted into the Spanish hospitals are abstinent one month after discharge or have reduced their cigarettes per day. Nevertheless, success rates could be increased by implementing evidence-based tobacco cessation programs at the organizational-level, including post-discharge active quitting smoking support.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Three-quarters of the inpatients who smoke remain abstinent during hospitalization and over half achieve to maintain their abstinence or at least reduce their consumption one month after discharge, proving that admission to hospitals is an excellent teachable moment to quit smoking.

Supporting smoking cessation and preventing relapse following a stay in a smoke-free setting: a meta-analysis and investigation of effective behaviour change techniques

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Admission to a smoke-free setting presents a unique opportunity to encourage smokers to quit. However, risk of relapse post-discharge is high, and little is known about effective strategies to support smoking cessation following discharge. We aimed to identify interventions that maintain abstinence following a smoke-free stay and determine their effectiveness, as well as the probable effectiveness of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) used in these interventions.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies of adult smokers aged ≥ 18 years who were temporarily or fully abstinent from smoking to comply with institutional smoke-free policies. Institutions included prison, inpatient mental health, substance misuse or acute hospital settings. A Mantel-Haenszel random-effects meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted using biochemically verified abstinence (7-day point prevalence or continuous abstinence). BCTs were defined as 'promising' in terms of probable effectiveness (if BCT was present in two or more long-term effective interventions) and feasibility (if BCT was also delivered in ≥ 25% of all interventions).

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies (intervention n = 9041, control n = 6195) were included: 23 RCTs (intervention n = 6593, control n = 5801); three non-randomized trials (intervention n = 845, control n = 394) and 11 cohort studies (n = 1603). Meta-analysis of biochemically verified abstinence at longest follow-up (4 weeks-18 months) found an overall effect in favour of intervention [risk ratio (RR) = 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.08-1.49, I²  = 42%]. Nine BCTs (including 'pharmacological support', 'goal-setting (behaviour)' and 'social support') were characterized as 'promising' in terms of probable effectiveness and feasibility.

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic review and meta-analyses indicate that behavioural and pharmacological support is effective in maintaining smoking abstinence following a stay in a smoke-free institution. Several behaviour change techniques may help to maintain smoking abstinence up to 18 months post-discharge.

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.

Engagement and Effectiveness of a Smoking Cessation Quitline Intervention in a Thoracic Surgery Clinic

Importance

Smoking quitline programs effectively promote smoking cessation in outpatient primary care settings.

Objective

To examine the factors associated with smoking quitline engagement and smoking cessation among patients undergoing thoracic surgery who consented to a quitline electronic referral.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective cohort study was conducted from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018, among 111 active smoking patients referred to the quitline from a thoracic surgery outpatient clinic visit. Patients were divided into operative and nonoperative cohorts.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were engagement rates in the quitline program and successful smoking cessation. Secondary outcomes were self-reported point prevalence abstinence at 1 month and 6 months after the smoking quit date.

Results

Of 111 patients (62 men; mean [SD] age, 61.8 [11.2] years) who had a quitline referral, 58 (52%) underwent surgery, and 32 of these 58 patients (55%) participated in the program. Of the 53 nonoperative patients (48%), 24 (45%) participated in the program. In the operative cohort, there was no difference in the smoking cessation rate between quitline participants and nonparticipants (21 of 32 [66%] vs 16 of 6 [62%]; P = .79) or in point prevalence abstinence at 1 month (23 of 32 [72%] vs 14 of 25 [56%]; P = .27) or 6 months (14 of 28 [50%] vs 6 of 18 [33%]; P = .36). Similarly, in the nonoperative cohort, there was no difference in the smoking cessation rate between quitline participants and nonparticipants (8 of 24 [33%] vs 11 of 29 [38%]; P = .78) or in point prevalence abstinence at 1 month (7 of 24 [29%] vs 8 of 27 [30%]; P = .99) or 6 months (6 of 23 [26%] vs 6 of 25 [24%]; P = .99). Regardless of quitline participation, operative patients had a 1.8-fold higher proportion of successful smoking cessation compared with nonoperative patients (37 of 58 [64%] vs 19 of 53 [36%]; P = .004) as well as a 2.2-fold higher proportion of 1-month point prevalence abstinence (37 of 57 [65%] vs 15 of 51 [29%]; P < .001) and a 1.8-fold higher proportion of 6-month point prevalence abstinence (20 of 45 [44%] vs 12 of 48 [25%]; P = .05). Having surgery doubled the odds of smoking cessation (odds ratio, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.06-5.64; P = .04) and quitline engagement tripled the odds of remaining smoke free at 6 months (odds ratio, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.03-12.38; P = .04).

Conclusions and Relevance

Patients undergoing thoracic surgery were nearly twice as likely to quit smoking as those who did not have an operation, and smoking quitline participation further augmented point prevalence abstinence. Improved smoking cessation rates, even among nonoperative patients, were associated with appropriate outpatient counseling and intervention.

Evaluation of a Systems-Based Tobacco Cessation Program Using Bedside Volunteers

INTRODUCTION

Hospitalization and post-discharge provide an opportune time for tobacco cessation. This study tested the feasibility, uptake, and cessation outcomes of a hospital-based tobacco cessation program, delivered by volunteers to the bedside with post-discharge referral to Quitline services. Patient characteristics associated with Quitline uptake and cessation were assessed.

METHODS

Between February and November 2016, trained hospital volunteers approached inpatient tobacco users on six pilot units. Volunteers shared a cessation brochure and used the ASK-ADVISE-CONNECT model to connect ready to quit patients to the Delaware Quitline via fax-referral. Volunteers administered a follow-up survey to all admitted tobacco users via telephone or email at 3-months post-discharge.

RESULTS

Of the 743 admitted tobacco users, 531 (72%) were visited by a volunteer, and 97% (531/547) of those approached, accepted the visit. Over one-third (201/531; 38%) were ready to quit and fax-referred to the Quitline, and 36% of those referred accepted Quitline services. At 3 months post-discharge, 37% (135/368) reported not using tobacco in the last 30 days; intent-to-treat cessation rate was 18% (135/743). In a multivariable regression model of Quitline fax-referral completion, receiving nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) during hospitalization was the strongest predictor (odds ratios [OR] = 1.97; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.34 to 2.90). In a model of 3-month cessation, receiving Quitline services (OR = 3.21, 95% CI = 1.35 to 7.68) and having coronary artery disease (OR = 2.28; 95% CI = 1.11 to 4.68) were associated with tobacco cessation, but a volunteer visit was not.

CONCLUSIONS

An "opt-out" tobacco cessation service using trained volunteers is feasible for connecting patients to Quitline services.

IMPLICATIONS

This study demonstrates the feasibility of a systems-based approach to link inpatients to evidence-based treatment for tobacco use. This model used trained bedside volunteers to connect inpatients to a state-funded Quitline after discharge that offers free cessation treatment of telephone coaching and cessation medications. Receiving NRT during hospitalization positively impacted Quitline referral, and engagement with Quitline resources was critical to tobacco abstinence post-discharge. Future work is needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and sustainability of this volunteer model.

Promoting cessation in hospitalized smoking patients: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES The objective of this review was to evaluate high intensity post-discharge follow-up strategies to promote smoking cessation in hospitalized patients. METHODS A systematic review was performed, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA - P) protocol. The databases used for research were: PubMed, LILACS/BIREME, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane and Scielo. The included articles were randomized clinical trials, published from 1990 to 2018, which evaluated in-hospital and post-discharge intervention, and provided a minimum of 30-day care post discharge. The studies aimed to evaluate tobacco cessation. RESULTS Fourteen studies were selected for analysis. Across studies, pharmacotherapy was consistently effective for smoking cessation. Communication technologies likewise were consistently effective for cessation and post-discharge access. CONCLUSION Effective strategies exist. The challenge for future trials is to determine the best approaches for different clinical contexts, to promote cessation.

Comparative effectiveness of post-discharge strategies for hospitalized smokers: Study protocol for the Helping HAND 4 randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death in the US. A hospital admission provides smokers with a unique opportunity to stop smoking because it requires temporary tobacco abstinence while illness may enhance motivation to quit. Hospital interventions must continue post-discharge to increase tobacco abstinence long-term, but how best to accomplish this remains unclear. Building on two previous randomized controlled trials, each of which tested smoking cessation interventions that began in hospital and continued after discharge, this trial compares two interventions that provide sustained smoking cessation treatment after hospital discharge with the goal of improving long-term smoking cessation rates among hospitalized smokers.

METHODS/DESIGN

Helping HAND 4 is a three-site randomized controlled trial that compares the effectiveness of two active interventions for producing validated past 7-day tobacco abstinence 6 months after hospital discharge. Smokers who are admitted to three hospitals receive a standard in-hospital smoking intervention, and those who plan to quit smoking after discharge are recruited and randomly assigned to two interventions that begin at discharge, Personalized Tobacco Care Management (PTCM) or Quitline eReferral. Each lasts 3 months. At discharge, PTCM provides 8 weeks of free nicotine replacement (NRT; a participant's choice of patch, gum, lozenge, or a combination) and then proactive smoking cessation support using an automated communication platform and live contact with a tobacco treatment specialist who is based in the health care system. In the eReferral condition, a direct referral is made from the hospital electronic health record to a community-based resource, the state's telephone quitline. The quitline provides up to 8 weeks of free NRT and offers behavioral support via a series of phone calls from a trained coach. Outcomes are assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge. The study hypothesis is that PTCM will produce higher quit rates than eReferral.

DISCUSSION

Helping HAND 4 is a pragmatic trial that aims to evaluate interventions in real-world conditions. This project will give hospital systems critical evidence-based tools for meeting National Hospital Quality Measures for tobacco treatment and maximizing their ability to improve cessation rates and overall health for the millions of smokers hospitalized annually in the US.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospectively registered prior to start of enrollment at Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03603496 (July 27, 2018). https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S00084MJ&selectaction=Edit&uid=U00002G7&ts=2&cx=ff0oxn.

Improving Smoking Cessation Outcomes Through Tailored-Risk Patient Messages at a University Hospital Tobacco Cessation Service

BACKGROUND

Postdischarge follow-up is a critical step for increasing effectiveness of hospital smoking cessation treatment. A quality improvement project was undertaken at an academic medical center tobacco cessation consult service to evaluate whether a tailored message (TM) linking immediate risks of continued smoking-particularly carbon monoxide exposure-to hospital recovery would stimulate more patient interest in the hospital's cessation treatment, including agreement to postdischarge follow-up, compared to patients receiving the usual treatment protocol with a standard message (SM) regarding more general health benefits of abstinence.

METHODS

Data from 697 smokers ordered/referred for smoking cessation treatment in 2013 who received either the SM (January-April; n = 323) or the TM (April-November; n =374) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Multivariate regression analysis showed that the TM was associated with significantly greater agreement for follow-up (odds ratio [OR] = 10.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.66-32.04, p < 0.0001) than the SM. Those patients who received the TM were more willing to try to remain abstinent postdischarge (willingness score = 10, p = 0.0052) and engaged in longer consults (consult time > 10 minutes, p = 0.0075) than SM patients. TM patients also self-reported a higher continuous abstinence rate (OR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.17-3.66, p = 0.0130] at follow-up than SM.

CONCLUSION

Linking risks of continued smoking, particularly carbon monoxide exposure, to hospital patients' immediate recovery following discharge in a treatment protocol resulted in longer consult times and increased agreement to follow-up compared to the usual protocol message. The TM was integrated into the hospital tobacco cessation intervention as standard of care.

Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A number of treatments can help smokers make a successful quit attempt, but many initially successful quitters relapse over time. Several interventions have been proposed to help prevent relapse.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether specific interventions for relapse prevention reduce the proportion of recent quitters who return to smoking.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in May 2019 for studies mentioning relapse prevention or maintenance in their title, abstracts, or keywords.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of relapse prevention interventions with a minimum follow-up of six months. We included smokers who quit on their own, were undergoing enforced abstinence, or were participating in treatment programmes. We included studies that compared relapse prevention interventions with a no intervention control, or that compared a cessation programme with additional relapse prevention components with a cessation programme alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 81 studies (69,094 participants), five of which are new to this update. We judged 22 studies to be at high risk of bias, 53 to be at unclear risk of bias, and six studies to be at low risk of bias. Fifty studies included abstainers, and 30 studies helped people to quit and then tested treatments to prevent relapse. Twenty-eight studies focused on special populations who were abstinent because of pregnancy (19 studies), hospital admission (six studies), or military service (three studies). Most studies used behavioural interventions that tried to teach people skills to cope with the urge to smoke, or followed up with additional support. Some studies tested extended pharmacotherapy. We focused on results from those studies that randomised abstainers, as these are the best test of relapse prevention interventions. Of the 12 analyses we conducted in abstainers, three pharmacotherapy analyses showed benefits of the intervention: extended varenicline in assisted abstainers (2 studies, n = 1297, risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.41, I² = 82%; moderate-certainty evidence), rimonabant in assisted abstainers (1 study, RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.55), and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in unaided abstainers (2 studies, n = 2261, RR 1.24, 95% Cl 1.04 to 1.47, I² = 56%). The remainder of analyses of pharmacotherapies in abstainers had wide confidence intervals consistent with both no effect and a statistically significant effect in favour of the intervention. These included NRT in hospital inpatients (2 studies, n = 1078, RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.60, I² = 0%), NRT in assisted abstainers (2 studies, n = 553, RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.40, I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence), extended bupropion in assisted abstainers (6 studies, n = 1697, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.35, I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence), and bupropion plus NRT (2 studies, n = 243, RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.87, I² = 66%; low-certainty evidence). Analyses of behavioural interventions in abstainers did not detect an effect. These included studies in abstinent pregnant and postpartum women at the end of pregnancy (8 studies, n = 1523, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11, I² = 0%) and at postpartum follow-up (15 studies, n = 4606, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09, I² = 3%), studies in hospital inpatients (5 studies, n = 1385, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.47, I² = 58%), and studies in assisted abstainers (11 studies, n = 5523, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.11, I² = 52%; moderate-certainty evidence) and unaided abstainers (5 studies, n = 3561, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16, I² = 1%) from the general population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural interventions that teach people to recognise situations that are high risk for relapse along with strategies to cope with them provided no worthwhile benefit in preventing relapse in assisted abstainers, although unexplained statistical heterogeneity means we are only moderately certain of this. In people who have successfully quit smoking using pharmacotherapy, there were mixed results regarding extending pharmacotherapy for longer than is standard. Extended treatment with varenicline helped to prevent relapse; evidence for the effect estimate was of moderate certainty, limited by unexplained statistical heterogeneity. Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, did not detect a benefit from extended treatment with bupropion, though confidence intervals mean we could not rule out a clinically important benefit at this stage. Low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, did not show a benefit of extended treatment with nicotine replacement therapy in preventing relapse in assisted abstainers. More research is needed in this area, especially as the evidence for extended nicotine replacement therapy in unassisted abstainers did suggest a benefit.

Effects of post-discharge counseling and medication utilization on short and long-term smoking cessation among hospitalized patients

Numerous studies have tested the effect of multicomponent post-discharge smoking cessation interventions on post-discharge smoking cessation, and many are effective. However, little is known regarding the relative efficacy of the different intervention components on short or long-term cessation. The present study is a secondary analysis (n = 984) of a randomized controlled trial for hospitalized smokers that took place at two large hospitals in Kansas from 2011 to 2014. All study participants were offered post-discharge quitline services. Pharmacotherapy was recommended during bedside tobacco treatment. The study outcomes were self-reported cessation at 1-month and biochemically verified cessation at 6-months post-randomization. During the post-discharge period, 69% of participants completed at least one quitline call and 28% of participants reported using cessation pharmacotherapy. After controlling for known predictors of cessation among hospitalized smokers, both the number of total quitline calls completed post-discharge and use of cessation pharmacotherapy post-discharge were predictive of cessation at 1-month. After accounting for predictors of cessation and quitting at 1-month, total post-discharge quitline calls was associated with cessation at 6-months (OR [95% CI] = 1.23 [1.12, 1.35], p < 0.001) while post-discharge cessation pharmacotherapy use was not. The results suggest that both engagement in quitline services and use pharmacotherapy independently facilitate cessation beyond the influence of known clinical characteristics associated with cessation. Over the longer term, the effect of engaging in quitline services persists while the effect of pharmacotherapy diminishes. To optimize outcomes, future research should investigate methods to increase utilization of medications and promote sustained counseling engagement in order to sustain the effects of treatment during the post-discharge period.

•

Counseling and pharmacotherapy are effective interventions for helping hospitalized smokers quit smoking, but the relative contribution of each intervention component to short or long-term abstinence is not well understood

•

This secondary analysis of a large clinical trial found that quitline counseling and pharmacotherapy – when used after hospital discharge - were associated with increased odds of quitting smoking at 1-month follow up

•

Controlling for early abstinence at 1 month, only post-discharge quitline counseling remained predictive of cessation at 6-months follow-up

•

Pharmacotherapy and quitline counseling independently facilitate short-term abstinence, while long-term abstinence is facilitated by engagement in quitline counseling services

•

Hospitals could work directly with state quitlines to integrate counseling into post-discharge care

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation increase the likelihood of achieving abstinence in a quit attempt. It is plausible that providing support, or, if support is offered, offering more intensive support or support including particular components may increase abstinence further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of adding or increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition. We also looked at studies which directly compare behavioural interventions matched for contact time, where pharmacotherapy is provided to both groups (e.g. tests of different components or approaches to behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in June 2018 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline, that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount or type of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact (defined as face-to-face or telephone). The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, a different type of personal contact, written information, or no behavioural support at all. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women and trials which did not set out to assess smoking cessation at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates, if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-three studies, 36 of which were new to this update, met the inclusion criteria, representing 29,536 participants. Overall, we judged 16 studies to be at low risk of bias and 21 studies to be at high risk of bias. All other studies were judged to be at unclear risk of bias. Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of studies at high risk of bias. We pooled all studies comparing more versus less support in the main analysis. Findings demonstrated a benefit of behavioural support in addition to pharmacotherapy. When all studies of additional behavioural therapy were pooled, there was evidence of a statistically significant benefit from additional support (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.22, I² = 8%, 65 studies, n = 23,331) for abstinence at longest follow-up, and this effect was not different when we compared subgroups by type of pharmacotherapy or intensity of contact. This effect was similar in the subgroup of eight studies in which the control group received no behavioural support (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43, I² = 20%, n = 4,018). Seventeen studies compared interventions matched for contact time but that differed in terms of the behavioural components or approaches employed. Of the 15 comparisons, all had small numbers of participants and events. Only one detected a statistically significant effect, favouring a health education approach (which the authors described as standard counselling containing information and advice) over motivational interviewing approach (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.94, n = 378).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking increases quit rates. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 20%, based on a pooled estimate from 65 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of specific components that comprise behavioural support.

Rapid relapse to smoking following hospital discharge

Many of nearly 7 million smokers who are hospitalized each year plan to stay quit after they leave the hospital. Most, however, relapse after discharge. This is a secondary analysis of a large Midwestern hospital-based smoking cessation trial that occurred between July 2011 and May 2013 to better understand how quickly smokers relapse and the predictors of rapid relapse. Of 942 participants who completed follow up, 25% returned to smoking within a day after hospital discharge. Among these rapid relapses, 36.6% relapsed within one-hour of leaving the hospital, 35.3% between one and 24 h, and 28.1% relapsed one-day post-discharge. Predictors with the highest odds for rapid relapse (within a day of hospital discharge) included tobacco use during hospitalization (OR, 7.37, [95% CI, 3.85–14.13], P < 0.01); low confidence for quitting (OR, 2.07, [95% CI, 1.49–2.88], P < 0.01); and not setting a quit date (OR, 1.76, [95% CI, 1.25–2.48], P < 0.01). Other significant predictors included higher nicotine dependence, shorter length of stay, and depression. Patients who are vulnerable to rapid relapse may benefit from policies that discourage leaving the hospital to smoke. In addition, hospital interventions that target smokers' confidence in quitting, encourage setting a quit date, and addressing nicotine dependence and depression may also be effective at supporting smoker's intentions to make their pre-admission cigarette their last.

Clinical Trials Registration NCT01305928

Telephone counselling for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Telephone services can provide information and support for smokers. Counselling may be provided proactively or offered reactively to callers to smoking cessation helplines.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of telephone support to help smokers quit, including proactive or reactive counselling, or the provision of other information to smokers calling a helpline.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP for studies of telephone counselling, using search terms including 'hotlines' or 'quitline' or 'helpline'. Date of the most recent search: May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials which offered proactive or reactive telephone counselling to smokers to assist smoking cessation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We pooled studies using a random-effects model and assessed statistical heterogeneity amongst subgroups of clinically comparable studies using the I² statistic. In trials including smokers who did not call a quitline, we used meta-regression to investigate moderation of the effect of telephone counselling by the planned number of calls in the intervention, trial selection of participants that were motivated to quit, and the baseline support provided together with telephone counselling (either self-help only, brief face-to-face intervention, pharmacotherapy, or financial incentives).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 104 trials including 111,653 participants that met the inclusion criteria. Participants were mostly adult smokers from the general population, but some studies included teenagers, pregnant women, and people with long-term or mental health conditions. Most trials (58.7%) were at high risk of bias, while 30.8% were at unclear risk, and only 11.5% were at low risk of bias for all domains assessed. Most studies (100/104) assessed proactive telephone counselling, as opposed to reactive forms.Among trials including smokers who contacted helplines (32,484 participants), quit rates were higher for smokers receiving multiple sessions of proactive counselling (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.61; 14 trials, 32,484 participants; I² = 72%) compared with a control condition providing self-help materials or brief counselling in a single call. Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate.In studies that recruited smokers who did not call a helpline, the provision of telephone counselling increased quit rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.35; 65 trials, 41,233 participants; I² = 52%). Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate. In subgroup analysis, we found no evidence that the effect of telephone counselling depended upon whether or not other interventions were provided (P = 0.21), no evidence that more intensive support was more effective than less intensive (P = 0.43), or that the effect of telephone support depended upon whether or not people were actively trying to quit smoking (P = 0.32). However, in meta-regression, telephone counselling was associated with greater effectiveness when provided as an adjunct to self-help written support (P < 0.01), or to a brief intervention from a health professional (P = 0.02); telephone counselling was less effective when provided as an adjunct to more intensive counselling. Further, telephone support was more effective for people who were motivated to try to quit smoking (P = 0.02). The findings from three additional trials of smokers who had not proactively called a helpline but were offered telephone counselling, found quit rates were higher in those offered three to five telephone calls compared to those offered just one call (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.44; 2602 participants; I² = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling aids smokers who seek help from quitlines, and moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling increases quit rates in smokers in other settings. There is currently insufficient evidence to assess potential variations in effect from differences in the number of contacts, type or timing of telephone counselling, or when telephone counselling is provided as an adjunct to other smoking cessation therapies. Evidence was inconclusive on the effect of reactive telephone counselling, due to a limited number studies, which reflects the difficulty of studying this intervention.

Critical steps in the path to using cessation pharmacotherapy following hospital-initiated tobacco treatment

Background

Hospital-initiated smoking cessation interventions utilizing pharmacotherapy increase post-discharge quit rates. Use of smoking cessation medications following discharge may further increase quit rates. This study aims to identify individual, smoking-related and hospitalization-related predictors of engagement in three different steps in the smoking cessation pharmacotherapy utilization process: 1) receiving medications as inpatient, 2) being discharged with a prescription and 3) using medications at 1-month post-hospitalization, while accounting for associations between these steps.

Methods

Study data come from a clinical trial (N = 1054) of hospitalized smokers interested in quitting who were randomized to recieve referral to a quitline via either warm handoff or fax. Variables were from the electronic health record, the state tobacco quitline, and participant self-report. Relationships among the predictors and the steps in cessation medication utilization were assessed using bivariate analyses and multivariable path analysis.

Results

Twenty-eight percent of patients reported using medication at 1-month post-discharge. Receipt of smoking cessation medications while hospitalized (OR = 2.09, 95%CI [1.39, 3.15], p < .001) and discharge with a script (OR = 4.88, 95%CI [3.34, 7.13], p < .001) were independently associated with medication use at 1-month post-hospitalization. The path analysis also revealed that the likelihood of being discharged with a script was strongly influenced by receipt of medication as an inpatient (OR = 6.61, 95%CI [4.66, 9.38], p < .001). A number of other treatment- and individual-level factors were associated with medication use in the hospital, receipt of a script, and use post-discharge.

Conclusions

To encourage post-discharge smoking cessation medication use, concerted effort should be made to engage smokers in tobacco treatment while in hospital. The individual and hospital-level factors associated with each step in the medication utilization process provide good potential targets for future implementation research to optimize treatment delivery and outcomes.

Trial registration

Number: NCT01305928.

Date registered: February 24, 2011.

Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A number of treatments can help smokers make a successful quit attempt, but many initially successful quitters relapse over time. Several interventions have been proposed to help prevent relapse.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether specific interventions for relapse prevention reduce the proportion of recent quitters who return to smoking.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in February 2018 for studies mentioning relapse prevention or maintenance in their title, abstracts, or keywords.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of relapse prevention interventions with a minimum follow-up of six months. We included smokers who quit on their own, were undergoing enforced abstinence, or were participating in treatment programmes. We included studies that compared relapse prevention interventions with a no intervention control, or that compared a cessation programme with additional relapse prevention components with a cessation programme alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 77 studies (67,285 participants), 15 of which are new to this update. We judged 21 studies to be at high risk of bias, 51 to be at unclear risk of bias, and five studies to be at low risk of bias. Forty-eight studies included abstainers, and 29 studies helped people to quit and then tested treatments to prevent relapse. Twenty-six studies focused on special populations who were abstinent because of pregnancy (18 studies), hospital admission (five studies), or military service (three studies). Most studies used behavioural interventions that tried to teach people skills to cope with the urge to smoke, or followed up with additional support. Some studies tested extended pharmacotherapy.We focused on results from those studies that randomised abstainers, as these are the best test of relapse prevention interventions. Of the 12 analyses we conducted in abstainers, three pharmacotherapy analyses showed benefits of the intervention: extended varenicline in assisted abstainers (2 studies, n = 1297, risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.41, I² = 82%; moderate certainty evidence), rimonabant in assisted abstainers (1 study, RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.55), and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in unaided abstainers (2 studies, n = 2261, RR 1.24, 95% Cl 1.04 to 1.47, I² = 56%). The remainder of analyses of pharmacotherapies in abstainers had wide confidence intervals consistent with both no effect and a statistically significant effect in favour of the intervention. These included NRT in hospital inpatients (2 studies, n = 1078, RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.60, I² = 0%), NRT in assisted abstainers (2 studies, n = 553, RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.40, I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), extended bupropion in assisted abstainers (6 studies, n = 1697, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.35, I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence), and bupropion plus NRT (2 studies, n = 243, RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.87, I² = 66%; low certainty evidence). Analyses of behavioural interventions in abstainers did not detect an effect. These included studies in abstinent pregnant and postpartum women at end of pregnancy (8 studies, n = 1523, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11, I² = 0%) and at postpartum follow-up (15 studies, n = 4606, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09, I² = 3%), studies in hospital inpatients (4 studies, n = 1300, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.11, I² = 0%), and studies in assisted abstainers (10 studies, n = 5408, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.13, I² = 56%; moderate certainty evidence) and unaided abstainers (5 studies, n = 3561, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16, I² = 1%) from the general population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural interventions that teach people to recognise situations that are high risk for relapse along with strategies to cope with them provided no worthwhile benefit in preventing relapse in assisted abstainers, although unexplained statistical heterogeneity means we are only moderately certain of this. In people who have successfully quit smoking using pharmacotherapy, there were mixed results regarding extending pharmacotherapy for longer than is standard. Extended treatment with varenicline helped to prevent relapse; evidence for the effect estimate was of moderate certainty, limited by unexplained statistical heterogeneity. Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, did not detect a benefit from extended treatment with bupropion, though confidence intervals mean we could not rule out a clinically important benefit at this stage. Low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, did not show a benefit of extended treatment with nicotine replacement therapy in preventing relapse in assisted abstainers. More research is needed in this area, especially as the evidence for extended nicotine replacement therapy in unassisted abstainers did suggest a benefit.

Smoking behaviours of Hong Kong Chinese hospitalised patients and predictors of smoking abstinence after discharge: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Patients admitted to hospitals represent an excellent teachable moment for smoking cessation, as they are required to abstain from tobacco use during hospitalisation. Nevertheless, smoking behaviours of hospitalised patients, and factors that lead to smoking abstinence thereafter, remain relatively underexplored, particularly in a Hong Kong Chinese context. This study aimed to examine the smoking behaviours of hospitalised patients and explore factors leading to their abstaining from cigarette use after being hospitalised.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional design was employed.

SETTING

This study was conducted in three outpatient clinics in different regions in Hong Kong.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 382 recruited Chinese patients.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The patients were asked to complete a structured questionnaire that assessed their smoking behaviours before, during and after hospitalisation.

RESULTS

The results indicated 23.6% of smokers smoked secretly during their hospital stay, and about 76.1% of smokers resumed smoking after discharge. Multivariate logistic regression analysis found that number of days of hospitalisation admission in the preceding year (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.27; p=0.036), patients' perceived correlation between smoking and their illness (OR 1.08; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.17; p=0.032), withdrawal symptoms experienced during hospitalisation (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.97; p=0.027) and smoking cessation support from healthcare professionals (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.36; p=0.014) were significant predictors of smoking abstinence after discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study will aid development of appropriate and innovative smoking cessation interventions that can help patients achieve more successful smoking abstinence and less relapse.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02866760.

Nicotine replacement therapy versus control for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), including gum, transdermal patch, intranasal spray and inhaled and oral preparations, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to placebo or 'no NRT' interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search is July 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in people motivated to quit which compared NRT to placebo or to no treatment. We excluded trials that did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months, except for those in pregnancy (where less than six months, these were excluded from the main analysis). We recorded adverse events from included and excluded studies that compared NRT with placebo. Studies comparing different types, durations, and doses of NRT, and studies comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered in separate reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 136 studies; 133 with 64,640 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The majority of studies were conducted in adults and had similar numbers of men and women. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day at the start of the studies. We judged the evidence to be of high quality; we judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias but restricting the analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the result. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.61). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 56 trials, 22,581 participants) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.75, 51 trials, 25,754 participants) for nicotine patch; 1.52 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.74, 8 trials, 4439 participants) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials, 976 participants) for nicotine inhalator; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials, 887 participants) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the definition of abstinence, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. A subset of six trials conducted in pregnant women found a statistically significant benefit of NRT on abstinence close to the time of delivery (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.69; 2129 participants); in the four trials that followed up participants post-partum the result was no longer statistically significant (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.86; 1675 participants). Adverse events from using NRT were related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. Attempts to quantitatively synthesize the incidence of various adverse effects were hindered by extensive variation in reporting the nature, timing and duration of symptoms. The odds ratio (OR) of chest pains or palpitations for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.88 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.57, 15 included and excluded trials, 11,074 participants). However, chest pains and palpitations were rare in both groups and serious adverse events were extremely rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that all of the licensed forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhalator and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50% to 60%, regardless of setting, and further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect. The relative effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT. NRT often causes minor irritation of the site through which it is administered, and in rare cases can cause non-ischaemic chest pain and palpitations.

Accuracy of self-reported smoking abstinence in clinical trials of hospital-initiated smoking interventions

AIMS

To estimate the prevalence and predictors of failed biochemical verification of self-reported abstinence among participants enrolled in trials of hospital-initiated smoking cessation interventions.

DESIGN

Comparison of characteristics between participants who verified and those who failed to verify self-reported abstinence.

SETTINGS

Multi-site randomized clinical trials conducted between 2010 and 2014 in hospitals throughout the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Recently hospitalized smokers who reported tobacco abstinence 6 months post-randomization and provided a saliva sample for verification purposes (n = 822).

MEASUREMENTS

Outcomes were salivary cotinine-verified smoking abstinence at 10 and 15 ng/ml cut-points. Predictors and correlates included participant demographics and tobacco use; hospital diagnoses and treatment; and study characteristics collected via surveys and electronic medical records.

FINDINGS

Usable samples were returned by 69.8% of the 1178 eligible trial participants who reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence. The proportion of participants verified as quit was 57.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 54.4, 61.2; 10 ng/ml cut-off] or 60.6% (95% CI = 57.2, 63.9; 15 ng/ml). Factors associated independently with verification at 10 ng/ml were education beyond high school education [odds ratio (OR) = 1.51; 95% CI = 1.07, 2.11], continuous abstinence since hospitalization (OR = 2.82; 95% CI = 2.02, 3.94), mailed versus in-person sample (OR = 3.20; 95% CI = 1.96, 5.21) and race. African American participants were less likely to verify abstinence than white participants (OR = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.44, 0.93). Findings were similar for verification at 15 ng/ml. Verification rates did not differ by treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

In the United States, high rates (40%) of recently hospitalized smokers enrolled in smoking cessation trials fail biochemical verification of their self-reported abstinence.

Interactive Voice Response Calls to Promote Smoking Cessation after Hospital Discharge: Pooled Analysis of Two Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Hospitalization offers smokers an opportunity to quit smoking. Starting cessation treatment in hospital is effective, but sustaining treatment after discharge is a challenge. Automated telephone calls with interactive voice response (IVR) technology could support treatment continuance after discharge.

OBJECTIVE

To assess smokers' use of and satisfaction with an IVR-facilitated intervention and to test the relationship between intervention dose and smoking cessation.

DESIGN

Analysis of pooled quantitative and qualitative data from the intervention groups of two similar randomized controlled trials with 6-month follow-up.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 878 smokers admitted to three hospitals. All received cessation counseling in hospital and planned to stop smoking after discharge.

INTERVENTION

After discharge, participants received free cessation medication and five automated IVR calls over 3 months. Calls delivered messages promoting smoking cessation and medication adherence, offered medication refills, and triaged smokers to additional telephone counseling.

MAIN MEASURES

Number of IVR calls answered, patient satisfaction, biochemically validated tobacco abstinence 6 months after discharge.

KEY RESULTS

Participants answered a median of three of five IVR calls; 70% rated the calls as helpful, citing the social support, access to counseling and medication, and reminders to quit as positive factors. Older smokers (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.20-1.54 per decade) and smokers hospitalized for a smoking-related disease (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.21-2.23) completed more calls. Smokers who completed more calls had higher quit rates at 6-month follow-up (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.30-1.70, for each additional call) after multivariable adjustment for age, sex, education, discharge diagnosis, nicotine dependence, duration of medication use, and perceived importance of and confidence in quitting.

CONCLUSIONS

Automated IVR calls to support smoking cessation after hospital discharge were viewed favorably by patients. Higher IVR utilization was associated with higher odds of tobacco abstinence at 6-month follow-up. IVR technology offers health care systems a potentially scalable means of sustaining tobacco cessation interventions after hospital discharge.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers NCT01177176, NCT01714323.