Randomized controlled trial examining the adjunctive use of nicotine lozenges with MyLastDip: An eHealth smokeless tobacco cessation intervention

Efficacy of pharmacological intervention for smokeless tobacco cessation in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES

Smokeless tobacco (SLT) use is a global burden, and its long-term use can result in health issues like oral cancers, oral potentially malignant disorders, etc. This review assessed the effectiveness of behavioural and pharmacological interventions for SLT cessation, adding new dimensions to the evidence found earlier in the literature, including recent trials.

SEARCH METHODS

Four electronic databases were used in the search: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web-of-Science. Study Selection included randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological and behavioural interventions with or without placebo to help users quit SLT with 3 & 6 months follow-up. Two review writers who separately evaluated abstracts for possible inclusion extracted data from included trials. Mantel-Haenszel's random-effect method was used to assess pooled effects for trial subgroups. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the intervention was evaluated from the reported odds ratios, confidence intervals and quit rates.

RESULTS

Nineteen, consisting of 4575 participants, fulfilled the requirements to be listed in the review. A significant difference was observed at 6 months for pharmacological versus behavioural intervention with a low heterogeneity at a 95% confidence interval. Pooling the fifteen pharmacotherapy-versus-behavioural modification studies in adults, we discovered that pharmacotherapy had a statistically significant impact on raising quit rates by the conclusion of the follow-up period (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.43; 3271 participants) with low heterogeneity (I2 = 19%).

CONCLUSION

Worldwide, there has been minimal data on interventions for SLT cessation, yet the pharmacological interventional methods have been found to be comparatively effective than behavioural intervention. Adequate awareness, health care professionals training, and law implementation are necessary to achieve habit cessation.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

Not Applicable. The present systematic review is registered in PROSPERO's International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration number CRD42023399178 dated 13th Feb 2023).

Interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation

RATIONALE

While combustible tobacco has been the subject of a very large amount of research, smokeless tobacco products receive less attention. Most smokeless tobacco products are very harmful and cause global health inequality. It is therefore important to identify evidence-based cessation aids.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of behavioural and pharmacological interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception to 16 February 2024: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; ClinicalTrials.gov (through CENTRAL); World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (through CENTRAL). We also searched references of eligible studies.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people of any age using smokeless tobacco, regardless of tobacco smoking status. Eligible studies could test any intervention designed to support people to quit smokeless tobacco use, and had to measure abstinence from either all tobacco use or smokeless tobacco use at six months or longer.

OUTCOMES

The outcome of interest was abstinence from all tobacco use or from smokeless tobacco use at six months or longer.

RISK OF BIAS

We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess bias in included studies.

SYNTHESIS METHODS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. We grouped studies by comparisons of eligible interventions and comparators, reporting individual study and pooled effects as appropriate. We used a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model for analyses of behavioural interventions and a fixed effect Mantel-Haenszel model for analyses of pharmacotherapies to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

INCLUDED STUDIES

We included 43 trials of 20,346 people. Thirty-three trials were conducted in North America, five in India, two in Scandinavia, one in Pakistan and one in Turkey. One study was conducted across multiple sites in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. Studies tested behavioural interventions (e.g. cessation counselling and brief advice) and pharmacotherapies (e.g. nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline, and bupropion). We judged five studies to be at low risk of bias overall, 22 at high risk of bias, and the remaining 16 at unclear risk of bias.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

We found moderate-certainty evidence of increased quit rates from counselling compared with minimal support (RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.16; I2 = 69%; 21 studies, n = 7417; downgraded because of heterogeneity), brief advice compared with no support (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.48; I2 = 49%; 7 studies, n = 6271; downgraded because of imprecision), and varenicline compared with placebo (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.68; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, n = 508; downgraded because of imprecision). We found low-certainty evidence (downgraded because of imprecision and risk of bias) of increased quit rates from NRT compared with placebo or no medication (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.33; I2 = 39%; 11 studies, n = 2826). Low-certainty evidence (downgraded because of imprecision) did not show benefit from bupropion compared with placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.44; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, n = 293). We planned subgroup analyses to explore whether smokeless tobacco type affects intervention efficacy, but found insufficient data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cessation counselling, brief advice, and varenicline each probably help more people to quit smokeless tobacco use than minimal or no support, or placebo. NRT may help more people to quit smokeless tobacco use than placebo or no medication. Low-certainty evidence does not currently support bupropion as a smokeless tobacco cessation intervention. Despite the majority of smokeless tobacco users living in South and Southeast Asia, only a minority of trials are conducted in those regions. Future trials should address this imbalance.

FUNDING

None REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015314.

Randomized Controlled Trial of a Text-Based Smokeless Tobacco Cessation Intervention for Rural and Medically Underserved Communities

INTRODUCTION

Smokeless tobacco use remains prevalent in rural and medically underserved populations, leading to increased rates of tobacco-related cancers and chronic disease. While access to effective cessation programs is limited, text-based interventions may offer a delivery approach with broad reach. This two-armed randomized control trial (RCT) assessed the efficacy of #EnufSnuff.TXT, a text-based smokeless tobacco cessation intervention, in rural and medically underserved communities.

AIMS AND METHODS

We conducted a two-arm RCT assessing #EnufSnuff.TXT, a text-based scheduled reduction intervention paired with text-based cessation support messages compared with the modified Enough Snuff intervention comprised of a cessation education booklet and bi-weekly motivational text messages. We recruited participants via social media and surveyed participants at 3 and 6 months post-randomization. The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6 months.

RESULTS

We recruited and randomized 532 participants. At 3 months post-randomization, the quit rate was significantly higher in #EnufSnuff.TXT arm compared to the Enough Snuff arm for intent-to-treat (ITT) cases (29.2% vs. 19.0%, odd ratios [OR] = 1.75, p = .0066). The quit rate at 6 months post-randomization remained higher in #EnufSNuff.TXT compared to Enough Snuff for ITT cases (23.1% vs. 20.9%, OR = 1.14, p = .5384), although no longer significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first large-scale text-based cessation clinical trial for individuals in underserved areas who use smokeless tobacco. The #EnufSnuff.TXT intervention performed better in the short term; however, both interventions yielded similar quit rates at 6 months post-randomization. Future research should focus on improving long-term abstinence in the #EnufSNuff.TXT intervention.

IMPLICATIONS

Text-based cessation approaches have the potential to increase access to cessation interventions in rural and medically underserved areas and reduce tobacco-related chronic disease morbidity and mortality. Our study shows short-term efficacy from the first-ever randomized controlled trial of a smokeless tobacco cessation intervention, #EnufSnuff.TXT, for rural and medically underserved residents in the United States. Our #EnufSnuff.TXT Intervention offers a scalable solution to reach and provide much-needed access to cessation interventions in medically underserved, rural communities in the United States. This work provides the foundation for further inquiry on augmented text-based approaches to increase cessation in this at-risk group.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

A text-based Reduction Intervention for Smokeless Tobacco Cessation, NCT04315506.

A systematic review on eHealth technology personalization approaches

Despite the widespread use of personalization of eHealth technologies, there is a lack of comprehensive understanding regarding its application. This systematic review aims to bridge this gap by identifying and clustering different personalization approaches based on the type of variables used for user segmentation and the adaptations to the eHealth technology and examining the role of computational methods in the literature. From the 412 included reports, we identified 13 clusters of personalization approaches, such as behavior + channeling and environment + recommendations. Within these clusters, 10 computational methods were utilized to match segments with technology adaptations, such as classification-based methods and reinforcement learning. Several gaps were identified in the literature, such as the limited exploration of technology-related variables, the limited focus on user interaction reminders, and a frequent reliance on a single type of variable for personalization. Future research should explore leveraging technology-specific features to attain individualistic segmentation approaches.

The Impact of Smokers' Information-Seeking Behavior on Smoking Cessation

INTRODUCTION

Smoking has a harmful effect on human body and is rated to be the primary cause of preventable premature disease and death worldwide, while it is responsible for at least 25 life-threatening diseases.

METHODS

An empirical investigation has been carried out through the development and distribution of a structured questionnaire. The sample of empirical investigation consisted of 150 smokers aged over 18 years (response rate 85.7%).

ANALYSIS

Descriptive analysis and correlation control of questionnaire variables are used to report the findings of the study.

RESULTS

Information about passive smoking, smoking consequences, and current therapies in quitting smoking were rated highest among smoke-related information needs. The main sources of information were family/relatives/friends/colleagues and Internet and less important factors were formal sources like medical staff, health professionals, and primary health care services. Ε-health literacy is correlated with higher self-efficacy, positive intention to quit smoking, and better educational level while is negatively correlated with increasing age.

CONCLUSIONS

The creation of specialized programs and upgraded information services is fundamental for successful smoking cessation. These programs and services should be addressed to all socioeconomic groups and combined with the improvement in smokers' e-health literacy will contribute to a higher self-efficacy and finally drive them to quit smoking.

Feasibility of a text-based reduction intervention in helping rural and underserved smokeless tobacco users quit

INTRODUCTION

Smokeless tobacco (ST) use significantly affects morbidity and mortality and remains disproportionally prevalent in rural and medically underserved communities. Few programs exist for rural smokeless tobacco users. Text-based interventions may increase the reach of cessation interventions; yet, none has tested them in ST users. We evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a text-based Scheduled Gradual Reduction (SGR) intervention in rural and underserved ST users.

METHODS

ST users were randomized in 2:1 fashion to the SGR group (N = 65), a text-based reduction program plus text-based support counseling messages or text-based support messages only group (N = 33). We surveyed participants at 30-days post intervention initiation to assess feasibility and acceptability and examined self-report 7-day point prevalence cessation at 30-days and 6-months post intervention initiation in the two arms.

RESULTS

We achieved benchmarks for feasibility and acceptability. Among the SGR participants 51% (n = 48) reported that intervention was useful in helping them quit, 83% (n = 48) indicated that they would recommend the intervention to a friend. Over 95% (n = 39) of SGR participants said that they read all alert texts. The SGR participants had a higher quit rate at 30-days compared to support messages alone (SGR = 21.5%, Control = 9.1%, p = 0.1627, Cohen's d equivalent = 0.56, medium effect). However, the quit rate at 6-months was 21% (p = 0.9703) for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A text-based intervention was feasible and acceptable among underserved ST users. SGR helped promote short-term cessation. The text-based interventions both had long-term efficacy. Given that text-based interventions have the potential to increase reach in underserved ST users, further testing is warranted.

Outcomes and Device Usage for Fully Automated Internet Interventions Designed for a Smartphone or Personal Computer: The MobileQuit Smoking Cessation Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Many best practice smoking cessation programs use fully automated internet interventions designed for nonmobile personal computers (desktop computers, laptops, and tablets). A relatively small number of smoking cessation interventions have been designed specifically for mobile devices such as smartphones.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the efficacy and usage patterns of two internet-based best practices smoking cessation interventions.

METHODS

Overall, 1271 smokers who wanted to quit were randomly assigned to (1) MobileQuit (designed for-and constrained its use to-mobile devices, included text messaging, and embodied tunnel information architecture) or (2) QuitOnline (designed for nonmobile desktop or tablet computers, did not include text messages, and used a flexible hybrid matrix-hierarchical information architecture). Primary outcomes included self-reported 7-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence at 3- and 6-month follow-up assessments. Program visits were unobtrusively assessed (frequency, duration, and device used for access).

RESULTS

Significantly more MobileQuit participants than QuitOnline participants reported quitting smoking. Abstinence rates using intention-to-treat analysis were 20.7% (131/633) vs 11.4% (73/638) at 3 months, 24.6% (156/633) vs 19.3% (123/638) at 6 months, and 15.8% (100/633) vs 8.8% (56/638) for both 3 and 6 months. Using Complete Cases, MobileQuit's advantage was significant at 3 months (45.6% [131/287] vs 28.4% [73/257]) and the combined 3 and 6 months (40.5% [100/247] vs 25.9% [56/216]) but not at 6 months (43.5% [156/359] vs 34.4% [123/329]). Participants in both conditions reported their program was usable and helpful. MobileQuit participants visited their program 5 times more frequently than did QuitOnline participants. Consistent with the MobileQuit's built-in constraint, 89.46% (8820/9859) of its visits were made on an intended mobile device, whereas 47.72% (691/1448) of visits to QuitOnline used an intended nonmobile device. Among MobileQuit participants, 76.0% (459/604) used only an intended mobile device, 23.0% (139/604) used both mobile and nonmobile devices, and 0.1% (6/604) used only a nonmobile device. Among QuitOnline participants, 31.3% (137/438) used only the intended nonmobile devices, 16.7% (73/438) used both mobile and nonmobile devices, and 52.1% (228/438) used only mobile devices (primarily smartphones).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence for optimizing intervention design for smartphones over a usual care internet approach in which interventions are designed primarily for use on nonmobile devices such as desktop computers, laptops. or tablets. We propose that future internet interventions should be designed for use on all of the devices (multiple screens) that users prefer. We forecast that the approach of designing internet interventions for mobile vs nonmobile devices will be replaced by internet interventions that use a single Web app designed to be responsive (adapt to different screen sizes and operating systems), share user data across devices, embody a pervasive information architecture, and complemented by text message notifications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01952236; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01952236 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6zdSxqbf8).

The Family Check-Up Online Program for Parents of Middle School Students: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Research has established that skillful family management during adolescence protects youth from a variety of mental health and behavioral problems. Interventions associated with this research have focused on parenting skills as the mediator that links early risk factors with a profile of later behavioral risk, including problem behavior, substance use, and school failure. Fortunately, positive changes in family management skills have been linked to meaningful improvements in adolescent behavior, and these improvements have been significant across a variety of cultural groups.

Objective

We describe the background, research design, and intervention components of an electronic health version of the Family Check-Up program that is targeting middle school children and is being evaluated in a randomized controlled trial for its usability, feasibility, and efficacy.

Methods

We used an iterative formative research process to develop an electronic health version of the Family Check-Up program. In our ongoing randomized controlled trial, eligible families are randomly assigned to 1 of 3 conditions: Family Check-Up Online-only (n≈100), Family Check-Up Online + Coach (n≈100), and a waitlist control condition (middle school as usual; n≈100). We are conducting assessments at baseline, 3 months following randomization (posttest), and at follow-ups scheduled for 6 months and 12 months.

Results

This randomized controlled trial project was funded in 2015. Participant recruitment was completed in spring 2018 and enrollment is ongoing. Follow-up assessments will be completed in 2019.

Conclusions

The innovative Family Check-Up Online program has the potential to help address many of the barriers that more traditional school-based behavioral mental health implementation strategies have yet to solve, including staffing and resources to implement family-centered support within schools.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03060291; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03060291 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/70f8keeN4)

Trial Registration

RR1-10.2196/11106

Commencing and Persisting With a Web-Based Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Insomnia: A Qualitative Study of Treatment Completers

Background

Computerized cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CCBT-I) has a growing evidence base as a stand-alone intervention, but it is less clear what factors may limit its acceptability and feasibility when combined with clinical care.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators to use of an adjunctive CCBT-I program among depressed patients in a psychiatric clinic by using both quantitative and qualitative approaches.

Methods

We conducted the qualitative component of the study using face-to-face or telephone interviews with participants who had enrolled in a clinical trial of a CCBT-I program as an adjunctive treatment in a psychiatric clinical setting. In line with the grounded theory approach, we used a semistructured interview guide with new thematic questions being formulated during the transcription and data analysis, as well as being added to the interview schedule. A range of open and closed questions addressing user experience were asked of all study participants who completed the 12-week trial in an online survey.

Results

Three themes emerged from the interviews and open questions, consistent with nonadjunctive CCBT-I implementation. Identification with the adjunctive intervention’s target symptom of insomnia and the clinical setting were seen as key reasons to engage initially. Persistence was related to factors to do with the program, its structure, and its content, rather than any nonclinical factors. The survey results showed that only the key active behavioral intervention, sleep restriction, was rated as a major problem by more than 15% of the sample. In this clinical setting, the support of the clinician in completing the unsupported program was highlighted, as was the need for the program and clinical treatment to be coordinated.

Conclusions

The use of a normally unsupported CCBT-I program as an adjunctive treatment can be aided by the clinician’s approach. A key behavioral component of the intervention, specific to insomnia treatment, was identified as a major problem for persistence. As such, clinicians need to be aware of when such components are delivered in the program and coordinate their care accordingly, if the use of the program is to be optimized.

ClinicalTrial

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612000985886; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=362875&isReview=true (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6njjhl42X)

Interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation

BACKGROUND

Use of smokeless tobacco (ST) can lead to tobacco dependence and long-term use can lead to health problems including periodontal disease, cancer, and cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of behavioural and pharmacologic interventions for the treatment of ST use.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialised register in June 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of behavioural or pharmacological interventions to help users of ST to quit with follow-up of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We summarised outcomes as risk ratios (RRs). For subgroups of trials with similar types of intervention and without substantial statistical heterogeneity, we estimated pooled effects using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 34 trials that met the inclusion criteria, of which nine were new for this update, representing over 16,000 participants. There was moderate quality evidence from two studies suggesting that varenicline increases ST abstinence rates (risk ratio [RR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.68, 507 participants). Pooled results from two trials of bupropion did not detect a benefit of treatment at six months or longer (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.44, 293 participants) but the confidence interval was wide. Neither nicotine patch (five trials, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.37, 1083 participants) nor nicotine gum (two trials, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.43, 310 participants) increased abstinence. Pooling five studies of nicotine lozenges did increase tobacco abstinence (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.59, 1529 participants) but confidence in this estimate is low as the result is sensitive to the exclusion of three trials which did not use a placebo control.Statistical heterogeneity was evident among the 17 trials of behavioural interventions: eight of them reported statistically and clinically significant benefits; six suggested benefit but with wide CIs and no statistical significance; and three had similar intervention and control quit rates and relatively narrow CIs. Heterogeneity was not explained by study design (individual or cluster randomization), whether participants were selected for interest in quitting, or specific intervention components. In a post hoc subgroup analysis, trials of behavioural interventions incorporating telephone support, with or without oral examination and feedback, were associated with larger effect sizes, but oral examination and feedback alone were not associated with benefit.In one trial an interactive website increased abstinence more than a static website. One trial comparing immediate cessation using nicotine patch versus a reduction approach using either nicotine lozenge or brand switching showed greater success for the abrupt cessation group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline, nicotine lozenges and behavioural interventions may help ST users to quit. Confidence in results for nicotine lozenges is limited. Confidence in the size of effect from behavioural interventions is limited because the components of behavioural interventions that contribute to their impact are not clear.

Randomized Controlled Trial of the Combined Effects of Web and Quitline Interventions for Smokeless Tobacco Cessation

BACKGROUND

Use of smokeless tobacco (moist snuff and chewing tobacco) is a significant public health problem but smokeless tobacco users have few resources to help them quit. Web programs and telephone-based programs (Quitlines) have been shown to be effective for smoking cessation. We evaluate the effectiveness of a Web program, a Quitline, and the combination of the two for smokeless users recruited via the Web.

OBJECTIVES

To test whether offering both a Web and Quitline intervention for smokeless tobacco users results in significantly better long-term tobacco abstinence outcomes than offering either intervention alone; to test whether the offer of Web or Quitline results in better outcome than a self-help manual only Control condition; and to report the usage and satisfaction of the interventions when offered alone or combined.

METHODS

Smokeless tobacco users (N= 1,683) wanting to quit were recruited online and randomly offered one of four treatment conditions in a 2×2 design: Web Only, Quitline Only, Web + Quitline, and Control (printed self-help guide). Point-prevalence all tobacco abstinence was assessed at 3- and 6-months post enrollment.

RESULTS

69% of participants completed both the 3- and 6-month assessments. There was no significant additive or synergistic effect of combining the two interventions for Complete Case or the more rigorous Intent To Treat (ITT) analyses. Significant simple effects were detected, individually the interventions were more efficacious than the control in achieving repeated 7-day point prevalence all tobacco abstinence: Web (ITT, OR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.03, 1.94, p = .033) and Quitline (ITT: OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.13, 2.11, p = .007). Participants were more likely to complete a Quitline call when offered only the Quitline intervention (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = .054, .093, p = .013), the number of website visits and duration did not differ when offered alone or in combination with Quitline. Rates of program helpfulness (p <.05) and satisfaction (p <.05) were higher for those offered both interventions versus offered only quitline.

CONCLUSION

Combining Web and Quitline interventions did not result in additive or synergistic effects, as have been found for smoking. Both interventions were more effective than a self-help control condition in helping motivated smokeless tobacco users quit tobacco. Intervention usage and satisfaction were related to the amount intervention content offered. Usage of the Quitline intervention decreased when offered in combination, though rates of helpfulness and recommendations were higher when offered in combination.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00820495; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00820495.