Intensive smoking cessation counseling versus minimal counseling among hospitalized smokers treated with transdermal nicotine replacement: a randomized trial

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

[Study of correlation between different scales that measure smoking dependence]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the correlation between the degrees of smoking dependence, measured with the Fagerström Test Nicotine Dependence (FTND), Glover-Nilsson Smoking Behavioral Dependence (GN-SBQ) and a measure of self-perceived-dependence (SPD).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional descriptive observational study. SITE: Urban primary health-care center.

PARTICIPANTS

Men and women between 18 and 65 years old, daily smokers, selected by non-random consecutive sampling.

INTERVENTIONS

Self-administration of various questionnaires though an electronic device.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

Age, sex and nicotine dependence assessed by: FTND, GN-SBQ and SPD. Statistical analysis, with SPSS 15.0: descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation analysis and conformity analysis.

RESULTS

Two hundred fourteen smokers were included, 54.7% were women. Median age 52 years (range: 27-65). Depending on the test used, different results of the high/very high degree of dependence were found: FTND 17.3%, GN-SBQ 15.4% and SPD 69.6%. A moderate magnitude (r≈0.5) correlation between the 3 test was found. When assessing concordance, comparing the FTND with SPD, 70.6% of smokers didn't coincide in the severity of dependence, reporting a milder degree of dependence with the FTND than with SPD. Comparing GN-SBQ versus FTND, showed conformity in 44.4% of patients while in 40.7%, the FTND underestimated the severity of dependence. Likewise, when comparing SPD with the GN-SBQ, in the 64% GN-SBQ underestimates, while in 34.1% smokers conformity was demonstrated.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of patients who consider their SPD to be high/very high was four times higher compared to the GN-SBQ or the FNTD; the latter, being the most demanding, categorizing patients with very high dependence. Requiring a FTND score greater than 7 to prescribe drugs for smoking cessation may exclude subsidiary patients from receiving treatment.

Sustained Care Smoking Cessation Intervention for Individuals Hospitalized for Psychiatric Disorders: The Helping HAND 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Smoking among individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) represents a major public health problem. Intervening during a psychiatric hospital stay may provide an opportunity to aid engagement in smoking cessation treatment and facilitate success in quitting.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effectiveness of a multicomponent, sustained care (SusC) smoking cessation intervention in adults with SMI receiving inpatient psychiatric care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Helping HAND 3 randomized clinical trial compared SusC with usual care (UC) among individuals with SMI who smoked daily and were receiving inpatient psychiatric care in Austin, Texas, in a single hospital. The study was conducted from July 2015 through August 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

The UC intervention involved brief smoking cessation information, self-help materials and advice from the admitting nurse, and an offer to provide nicotine replacement therapy during hospitalization. The SusC intervention included 4 main components designed to facilitate patient engagement with postdischarge smoking cessation resources: (1) inpatient motivational counseling; (2) free transdermal nicotine patches on discharge; (3) an offer of free postdischarge telephone quitline, text-based, and/or web-based smoking cessation counseling, and (4) postdischarge automated interactive voice response calls or text messages.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was biochemically verified 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 6-month follow-up. A secondary outcome was self-reported smoking cessation treatment use at 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 353 participants were randomized, of whom 342 were included in analyses (mean [SD] age, 35.8 [12.3] years; 268 White individuals [78.4%]; 280 non-Hispanic individuals [81.9%]; 169 women [49.4%]). They reported smoking a mean (SD) of 16.9 (10.4) cigarettes per day. Participants in the SusC group evidenced significantly higher 6-month follow-up point-prevalence abstinence rates than those in the UC group (8.9% vs 3.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.95 [95% CI, 1.24-6.99]; P = .01). The number needed to treat was 18.5 (95% CI, 9.6-306.4). A series of sensitivity analyses confirmed effectiveness. Finally, participants in the SusC group were significantly more likely to report using smoking cessation treatment over the 6 months postdischarge compared with participants in the UC group (74.6% vs 40.5%; relative risk, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.51-2.25]; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this randomized clinical trial provide evidence for the effectiveness of a scalable, multicomponent intervention in promoting smoking cessation treatment use and smoking abstinence in individuals with SMI following hospital discharge.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02204956.

The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Smoking Cessation Success

The coronavirus pandemic first started in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 and affected the whole world. In our country, new measures to be taken were announced after the first case was seen on March 11, 2020. In this study, patients who admitted to the smoking cessation clinic in 2018 and followed up by phone, regarding smoking cessation status in 2019 were questioned for their smoking cessation status after the coronavirus pandemic in 2020. In this descriptive study, the patients who applied to the smoking cessation outpatient clinic in 2018 were questioned regarding their smoking cessation status after 1 year and after the pandemic. It was investigated whether coronapandemia had an effect on smoking cessation. The data were evaluated by using SPSS 22 software. A value of p < 0.05 was considered significant. A total of 357 individuals with a median of Fagerström score of 7.0 were included in the study. Seventy-one (19.9%) of the subjects used nicotine tape, 268 (75.1%) used varenicline, and 18 (5.0%) used both. When the success of those who quit smoking before pandemic and those who quit smoking after pandemic were compared, a statistically significant relationship was found (p < 0.001). In our study, the rate of smoking cessation after 1 year was 23.7%, and the most common side effects were psychiatric complaints, whereas the rate of smoking cessation during the pandemic period was 31.1%. In order to increase the rate of smoking cessation, which is an important public health problem, more counseling should be provided, during the pandemic period.

Effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for smokers with chronic diseases: A systematic review

AIMS

To systematically summarize seminal studies on the design and effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions targeted at patients with chronic diseases through a critical appraisal of the literature.

DESIGN

A systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

This review included literature identified through a search of six databases up to June 2020.

REVIEW METHODS

This review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The literature search was limited to English-language articles on the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for smokers who were aged ≥18 years and diagnosed with chronic diseases. Data were extracted using the Cochrane Data collection form for intervention reviews of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled trials. The articles were subjected to a quality assessment.

RESULTS

Ten relevant articles were identified. The designs of the interventions were highly heterogeneous, and only six articles reported a significant increase in smoking abstinence among patients with chronic diseases. In the target population, an intervention delivered by healthcare professionals on an intensive schedule was shown to more effectively induce smoking cessation, compared with minimal counselling. However, methodological flaws were identified in most of the included studies.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this review suggest that additional efforts are needed to design smoking cessation interventions for patients with chronic diseases and that further examination of the effectiveness and feasibility of these interventions is warranted.

IMPACT

What problem did the study address? This review evaluated the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions targeted at patients with chronic diseases. What were the main findings? An intervention with an intensive schedule that was delivered by healthcare professionals was shown to more effectively induce smoking cessation in patients with chronic diseases, compared with minimal counselling. More attention and resources should be directed towards smokers with no intention to quit, especially those with chronic diseases. There is an urgent need for generic smoking cessation interventions that use novel approaches to address the unique needs of this population and to integrate such evidence-based interventions into routine care. Where and on whom will the research have impact? The findings of this review may guide nurses, who play a prominent role in raising the issue of smoking cessation with patients, to design appropriate smoking cessation interventions for patients with chronic diseases. The resulting improvements in patients' health would not only benefit patients themselves but also reduce the burden of chronic diseases on healthcare systems.

Feasibility and Acceptability of a Culturally- and Linguistically-Adapted Smoking Cessation Text Messaging Intervention for Latino Smokers

Objective: Assess the feasibility and acceptability of a culturally- and linguistically-adapted smoking cessation text messaging intervention for Latino smokers.

Methods: Using a community-based strategy, 50 Latino smokers were recruited to participate in a smoking cessation pilot study. Participants received a 12-week text messaging intervention and were offered Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) at no cost. We assessed biochemically verified abstinence at 12 weeks, text messaging interactivity with the program, NRT utilization, self-efficacy, therapeutic alliance, and satisfaction.

Results: Participants were 44.8 years old on average (SD 9.80), and they were primarily male (66%) and had no health insurance (78%). Most of the participants were born in Mexico (82%) and were light smokers (1–10 CPD) (68%). All participants requested the first order of NRT, and 66% requested a refill. Participants sent an average of 39.7 text messages during the 12-week intervention (SD 82.70). At 12 weeks, 30% of participants were biochemically verified abstinent (88% follow-up rate) and working alliance mean value was 79.2 (SD 9.04). Self-efficacy mean score increased from 33.98 (SD 10.36) at baseline to 40.05 (SD 17.65) at follow-up (p = 0.04). The majority of participants (90.9%, 40/44) reported being very or extremely satisfied with the program.

Conclusion: A culturally- and linguistically-adapted smoking cessation text messaging intervention for Latinos offers a promising strategy to increase the use of NRT, generated high satisfaction and frequent interactivity, significantly increased self-efficacy, produced high therapeutic alliance, and resulted in noteworthy cessation rates at the end of treatment. Additional testing as a formal randomized clinical trial is warranted.

Enhancing nicotine replacement therapy usage and adherence through a mobile intervention: Secondary data analysis of a single-arm feasibility study in Mexico

INSTRODUCTION

Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) is an effective treatment for smoking cessation. However, medication usage and adherence remain a challenge that contributes to low smoking cessation rates. In Mexico, 8 in 10 smokers are interested in quitting. However, only 6% of Mexican smokers use medication for smoking cessation. The objective of this study is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a mobile health (mHealth) intervention to increase usage and adherence of NRT in Mexico.

METHODS

The study involves a secondary data analysis. Forty smokers were recruited to participate in a single-arm pilot study. Participants received an mHealth intervention that uses tablet-based decision support software to drive a 12-week text messaging smoking cessation program and pharmacotherapy support. The intervention allows two-way interactivity text messaging between participants and a tobacco treatment specialist. NRT was offered to participants in accordance with practice guidelines in Mexico. Outcome measures included utilization of NRT, text messaging interactivity with the program, and biochemically verified abstinence at 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Thirty smokers met the criteria for use of NRT. Average age of participants was 38.1 years (SD=10.7), and they were primarily male (56.7%) with at least an undergraduate degree (60%). All participants requested NRT at baseline, and 60% requested a refill at week 4. During the 12-week intervention period, participants sent 620 messages to the program (mean=20.6, SD=18.34) of which 79 messages (12.7%) were related to NRT. Three themes were identified in the messages related to NRT: enthusiasm, instructions, and side effects. At 12 weeks, 40% of participants reported using NRT <75% of the days. Finally, 30% of participants (9/30) were biochemically verified abstinent using intention-to-treat analysis at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

An mHealth intervention appears to offer a promising strategy to increase usage and adherence of NRT in Mexico. Additional testing as a formal randomized clinical trial appears warranted.

Adaptation of a sustained care cessation intervention for smokers hospitalized for psychiatric disorders: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) smoke at disproportionately higher rates than those without SMI, have lifespans 25-32 years shorter, and thus bear an especially large burden of tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. Several recent studies demonstrate that smokers with SMI can successfully quit smoking with adequate support. Further evidence shows that using technology to deliver sustained care interventions to hospitalized smokers can lead to smoking cessation up to 6 months after discharge. The current comparative effectiveness trial adapts a technology-assisted sustained care intervention designed for smokers admitted to a general hospital and tests whether this approach can produce higher cessation rates compared to usual care for smokers admitted to a psychiatric inpatient unit.

METHODS

A total of 353 eligible patients hospitalized for psychiatric illness are randomized by cohort into one of two conditions, Sustained Care (SusC) or Usual Care (UC), and are followed for six months after discharge. Participants assigned to UC receive brief tobacco education delivered by a hospital nurse during or soon after admission. Those assigned to SusC receive a 40-min, in-hospital motivational counseling intervention. Upon discharge, they also receive up to 8 weeks of free nicotine patches, automated interactive voice response (IVR) telephone and text messaging, and access to cessation counseling resources lasting 3 months post discharge. Smoking cessation outcomes are measured at 1-, 3- and 6-months post hospital discharge.

CONCLUSION

Results from this comparative effectiveness trial will add to our understanding of acceptable and effective smoking cessation approaches for patients hospitalized with SMI.

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.

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.

Comparison of two smoking cessation interventions for inpatients

Objective:

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two cognitive behavioral therapy-based smoking cessation interventions initiated during hospitalization and to evaluate the factors related to relapse after discharge.

Methods:

This was a prospective randomized study involving 90 smokers hospitalized in a university hospital. We collected data related to sociodemographic characteristics, reasons for admission, smoking-related diseases, smoking history, the degree of nicotine dependence (ND), and the level of craving. Patients were divided into two treatment groups: brief intervention (BrInter, n = 45); and intensive intervention with presentation of an educational video (InInterV, n=45). To assess relapse, all patients were assessed by telephone interview in the first, third, and sixth months after discharge. Abstinence was confirmed by measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO).

Results:

Of the 90 patients evaluated, 55 (61.1%) were male. The mean age was 51.1 ± 12.2 years. The degree of ND was elevated in 39 (43.4%), and withdrawal symptoms were present in 53 (58.9%). The mean eCO at baseline was 4.8 ± 4.5 ppm. The eCO correlated positively with the degree of ND (r = 0.244; p = 0.02) and negatively with the number of smoke-free days (r = −0.284; p = 0.006). There were no differences between the groups in terms of the variables related to socioeconomic status, smoking history, or hospitalization. Of the 81 patients evaluated at 6 months, 33 (40.7%) remained abstinent (9 and 24 BrInter and InInterV group patients, respectively; p = 0.001), and 48 (59.3%) had relapsed (31 and 17 BrInter and InInterV group patients, respectively; p= 0.001). Moderate or intense craving was a significant independent risk factor for relapse, with a relative risk of 4.0 (95% CI: 1.5-10.7; p < 0.00001).

Conclusions:

The inclusion of an educational video proved effective in reducing relapse rates. Craving is a significant risk factor for relapse.

Evaluation of smoking cessation treatment initiated during hospitalization in patients with heart disease or respiratory disease

Objective:

To evaluate the effectiveness of a smoking cessation program, delivered by trained health care professionals, in patients hospitalized for acute respiratory disease (RD) or heart disease (HD).

Methods:

Of a total of 393 patients evaluated, we included 227 (146 and 81 active smokers hospitalized for HD and RD, respectively). All participants received smoking cessation treatment during hospitalization and were followed in a cognitive-behavioral smoking cessation program for six months after hospital discharge.

Results:

There were significant differences between the HD group and the RD group regarding participation in the cognitive-behavioral program after hospital discharge (13.0% vs. 35.8%; p = 0.003); smoking cessation at the end of follow-up (29% vs. 31%; p < 0.001); and the use of nicotine replacement therapy (3.4% vs. 33.3%; p < 0.001). No differences were found between the HD group and the RD group regarding the use of bupropion (11.0% vs. 12.3%; p = 0.92). Varenicline was used by only 0.7% of the patients in the HD group.

Conclusions:

In our sample, smoking cessation rates at six months after hospital discharge were higher among the patients with RD than among those with HD, as were treatment adherence rates. The implementation of smoking cessation programs for hospitalized patients with different diseases, delivered by the health care teams that treat these patients, is necessary for greater effectiveness in smoking cessation.

Levels of exhaled carbon monoxide measured during an intervention program predict 1-year smoking cessation: a retrospective observational cohort study

Life-long smoking cessation is a critical public health objective, but it is difficult for numerous people. This study aimed to identify the independent predictors of 1-year abstinence in smokers motivated to quit and participating in an intervention program. This 6-year retrospective observational cohort study was conducted in smokers who participated in an intervention program. The exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) was sequentially measured on day 1, 8, 15, and 22 of the intervention program. The primary outcome measure was smoking status at 1 year of follow-up. A total of 162 participants were enrolled and divided into a successful quit group (n = 52) and unsuccessful quit group (n = 110). Using a multivariate logistic regression analysis, we reported that the intention to quit (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.475, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.169-1.862, P-value = 0.001), varenicline use (AOR = 3.199, 95% CI = 1.290-7.934, P -value = 0.012) and the exhaled CO level on day 8 (AOR = 0.937, 95% CI = 0.885-0.992, P-value = 0.025) independently predicted 1-year smoking cessation. Moreover, the level of exhaled CO < 4.5 parts per million on day 8 significantly predict successful 1-year smoking cessation (area under curve 0.761, sensitivity 88.2%, and specificity 57.8%, P-value < 0.001). These independent predictors including intention to quit, varenicline use, and exhaled CO level on day 8, may help primary care physicians rearrange resources and refine the strategies for intervention programs to achieve a higher rate of long-term smoking cessation.

QUITTING SMOKING

IDENTIFYING PREDICTORS OF SUCCESS: Researchers in Korea identify key predictors that pinpoint people most likely to quit smoking successfully during intervention programs. Millions are spent each year supporting people to quit smoking. However, successful quitters remain in the minority, with only 9-35 per cent of those in intervention programs abstaining for at least a year. Hsin-Kuo Ko at Taipei Veterans General Hospital and co-workers identified key independent indicators of successful abstinence in 162 smokers attending an intervention program. Alongside having a high intention to quit and using varenicline medication, a potential predictor is having an exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) level of less than 4.5 parts-per-million by day 8 of the course. Exhaled CO is higher in smokers than in non-smokers. Measuring CO levels one week into courses may be a useful biomarker to identify those fully committed to quit.

Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Individual counselling from a smoking cessation specialist may help smokers to make a successful attempt to stop smoking.

OBJECTIVES

The review addresses the following hypotheses:1. Individual counselling is more effective than no treatment or brief advice in promoting smoking cessation.2. Individual counselling is more effective than self-help materials in promoting smoking cessation.3. A more intensive counselling intervention is more effective than a less intensive intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for studies with counsel* in any field in May 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized trials with at least one treatment arm consisting of face-to-face individual counselling from a healthcare worker not involved in routine clinical care. The outcome was smoking cessation at follow-up at least six months after the start of counselling.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors extracted data in duplicate. We recorded characteristics of the intervention and the target population, method of randomization and completeness of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically-validated rates where available. In analysis, we assumed that participants lost to follow-up continued to smoke. We expressed effects as a risk ratio (RR) for cessation. Where possible, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect (Mantel-Haenszel) model. We assessed the quality of evidence within each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 49 trials with around 19,000 participants. Thirty-three trials compared individual counselling to a minimal behavioural intervention. There was high-quality evidence that individual counselling was more effective than a minimal contact control (brief advice, usual care, or provision of self-help materials) when pharmacotherapy was not offered to any participants (RR 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 1.77; 27 studies, 11,100 participants; I² = 50%). There was moderate-quality evidence (downgraded due to imprecision) of a benefit of counselling when all participants received pharmacotherapy (nicotine replacement therapy) (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.51; 6 studies, 2662 participants; I² = 0%). There was moderate-quality evidence (downgraded due to imprecision) for a small benefit of more intensive counselling compared to brief counselling (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.53; 11 studies, 2920 participants; I² = 48%). None of the five other trials that compared different counselling models of similar intensity detected significant differences.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that individually-delivered smoking cessation counselling can assist smokers to quit. There is moderate-quality evidence of a smaller relative benefit when counselling is used in addition to pharmacotherapy, and of more intensive counselling compared to a brief counselling intervention.

Combination Therapies for Smoking Cessation: A Hierarchical Bayesian Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT

Treatment guidelines recommend the use of combination therapies for smoking cessation, particularly behavioral therapy (BT) as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy. However, these guidelines rely on previous reviews with important limitations. This study's objective was to evaluate the efficacy of combination therapies compared with monotherapies, using the most rigorous data available.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs of pharmacotherapies, BTs, or both were conducted. The Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed databases were systematically searched from inception to July 2015. Inclusion was restricted to RCTs reporting biochemically validated abstinence at 12 months. Direct and indirect comparisons were made in 2015 between therapies using hierarchical Bayesian models.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The search identified 123 RCTs meeting inclusion criteria (60,774 participants), and data from 115 (57,851 participants) were meta-analyzed. Varenicline with BT increased abstinence more than other combinations of a pharmacotherapy with BT (varenicline versus bupropion: OR=1.56, 95% credible interval [CrI]=1.07, 2.34; varenicline versus nicotine patch: OR=1.65, 95% CrI=1.10, 2.51; varenicline versus short-acting nicotine-replacement therapies: OR=1.68, 95% CrI=1.15, 2.53). Adding BT to any pharmacotherapy compared with pharmacotherapy alone was inconclusive, owing to wide CrIs (OR=1.17, CrI=0.60, 2.12). Nicotine patch with short-acting nicotine-replacement therapy appears safe and increases abstinence versus nicotine-replacement monotherapy (OR=1.63, CrI=1.06, 3.03). Data are limited concerning other pharmacotherapy combinations and their safety and tolerability.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that combination therapy benefits may be less than previously thought. Combined with BT, varenicline increases abstinence more than other pharmacotherapy with BT combinations.

Implementation of the Tobacco Tactics intervention versus usual care in Trinity Health community hospitals

Background

Guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) implementation framework, a National Institutes of Health-sponsored study compared the nurse-administered Tobacco Tactics intervention to usual care. A prior paper describes the effectiveness of the Tobacco Tactics intervention. This subsequent paper provides data describing the remaining constructs of the RE-AIM framework.

Methods

This pragmatic study used a mixed methods, quasi-experimental design in five Michigan community hospitals of which three received the nurse-administered Tobacco Tactics intervention and two received usual care. Nurses and patients were surveyed pre- and post-intervention.

Measures included reach (patient participation rates, characteristics, and receipt of services), adoption (nurse participation rates and characteristics), implementation (pre-to post-training changes in nurses' attitudes, delivery of services, barriers to implementation, opinions about training, documentation of services, and numbers of volunteer follow-up phone calls), and maintenance (continuation of the intervention once the study ended).

Results

Reach: Patient participation rates were 71.5 %. Compared to no change in the control sites, there were significant pre- to post-intervention increases in self-reported receipt of print materials in the intervention hospitals (n = 1370, p < 0.001). Adoption: In the intervention hospitals, all targeted units and several non-targeted units participated; 76.0 % (n = 1028) of targeted nurses and 317 additional staff participated in the training, and 92.4 % were extremely or somewhat satisfied with the training. Implementation: Nurses in the intervention hospitals reported increases in providing advice to quit, counseling, medications, handouts, and DVD (all p < 0.05) and reported decreased barriers to implementing smoking cessation services (p < 0.001). Qualitative comments were very positive (“user friendly,” “streamlined,” or “saves time”), although problems with showing patients the DVD and charting in the electronic medical record were noted. Maintenance: Nurses continued to provide the intervention after the study ended.

Conclusions

Given that nurses represent the largest group of front-line providers, this intervention, which meets Joint Commission guidelines for treating inpatient smokers, has the potential to have a wide reach and to decrease smoking, morbidity, and mortality among inpatient smokers. As we move toward more population-based interventions, the RE-AIM framework is a valuable guide for implementation.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01309217

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0511-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Factors associated with study attrition in a pilot randomised controlled trial to explore the role of exercise-assisted reduction to stop (EARS) smoking in disadvantaged groups

Background

Study attrition has the potential to compromise a trial’s internal and external validity. The aim of the present study was to identify factors associated with participant attrition in a pilot trial of the effectiveness of a novel behavioural support intervention focused on increasing physical activity to reduce smoking, to inform the methods to reduce attrition in a definitive trial.

Methods

Disadvantaged smokers who wanted to reduce but not quit were randomised (N = 99), of whom 61 (62 %) completed follow-up assessments at 16 weeks. Univariable logistic regression was conducted to determine the effects of intervention arm, method of recruitment, and participant characteristics (sociodemographic factors, and lifestyle, behavioural and attitudinal characteristics) on attrition, followed by multivariable logistic regression on those factors found to be related to attrition.

Results

Participants with low confidence to quit, and who were undertaking less than 150 mins of moderate and vigorous physical activity per week at baseline were less likely to complete the 16-week follow-up assessment. Exploratory analysis revealed that those who were lost to follow-up early in the trial (i.e., by 4 weeks), compared with those completing the study, were younger, had smoked for fewer years and had lower confidence to quit in the next 6 months. Participants who recorded a higher expired air carbon monoxide reading at baseline were more likely to drop out late in the study, as were those recruited via follow-up telephone calls. Multivariable analyses showed that only completing less than 150 mins of physical activity retained any confidence in predicting attrition in the presence of other variables.

Conclusions

The findings indicate that those who take more effort to be recruited, are younger, are heavier smokers, have less confidence to quit, and are less physically active are more likely to withdraw or be lost to follow-up.

Effectiveness of the Tobacco Tactics Program in the Trinity Health System

INTRODUCTION

This study determined the effectiveness of the Tobacco Tactics intervention.

DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

This was a pragmatic, quasi-experimental study conducted from 2010 to 2013 and analyzed from 2014 to 2015 in five Michigan community hospitals; three received the Tobacco Tactics intervention, and two received usual care. Smokers (N=1,528) were identified during hospitalization, and sent surveys and cotinine tests after 6 months. Changes in pre- to post-intervention quit rates in the intervention sites were compared with usual care control sites.

INTERVENTION

The toolkit for nurses included: (1) 1 continuing education unit contact hour for training; (2) a PowerPoint presentation on behavioral and pharmaceutical interventions; (3) a pocket card entitled "Helping Smokers Quit: A Guide for Clinicians"; (4) behavioral and pharmaceutical protocols; and (5) a computerized template for documentation. The toolkit for patients included: (1) a brochure; (2) a cessation DVD; (3) the Tobacco Tactics manual; (4) a 1-800-QUIT-NOW card; (5) nurse behavioral counseling and pharmaceuticals; (6) physician reminders to offer brief advice to quit coupled with medication sign-off; and (7) follow-up phone calls by trained hospital volunteers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The effectiveness of the intervention was measured by 6-month 30-day point prevalence; self-reported quit rates with NicAlert(®) urinary biochemical verification (48-hour detection period); and the use of electronic medical record data among non-responders.

RESULTS

There were significant improvements in pre- to post-intervention self-reported quit rates (5.7% vs 16.5%, p<0.001) and cotinine-verified quit rates (4.3% vs 8.0%, p<0.05) in the intervention sites compared with no change in the control sites. Propensity-adjusted multivariable analyses showed a significant improvement in self-reported 6-month quit rates from the pre- to post-intervention time periods in the intervention sites compared to the control sites (p=0.044) and a non-statistically significant improvement in the cotinine-verified 6-month quit rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The Tobacco Tactics intervention, which meets the Joint Commission standards for inpatient smoking, has the potential to significantly decrease smoking among inpatient smokers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at www.clinicaltrial.gov NCT01309217.

Utilization and effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for tobacco use following admission for exacerbation of COPD

BACKGROUND

Patients admitted for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) commonly continue to smoke. The utilization and effectiveness of tobacco cessation medications after discharge is largely unknown. We sought to examine whether pharmacologic treatment of tobacco use following admission for COPD was associated with smoking cessation at 6 to 12 months.

METHODS

Multivariable logistic regression analysis of a cohort of 1334 smokers, discharged from hospital with a COPD exacerbation between 2005 and 2012, identified administratively within the Veterans Affairs Veterans Integrated Service Network-20, adjusted for variables chosen a priori. Our primary exposure was treatment with any 1 or combination of smoking cessation medications within 90 days of discharge determined from pharmacy records, with the outcome of smoking cessation at 6 to 12 months after discharge.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Four hundred fifty (33.7%) of the patients were dispensed a smoking cessation medication, with 53.4% receiving a nicotine patch alone. Overall, 19.8% of patients reported quitting smoking at 6 to 12 months. Compared to those not receiving medications, the odds of quitting were not greater among patients dispensed any single or combination of smoking cessation medications within 90 days of discharge (odds ratio [OR]: 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-1.04). Among patients treated with medications compared to nicotine patch alone, varenicline (OR: 2.44, 95% CI: 1.48-4.05) was associated with increased odds of cessation, and short-acting nicotine replacement therapy alone (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.51-0.85) was associated with decreased odds of cessation.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment was provided to a minority of subjects and was not associated with cessation, with potential differences observed in effectiveness between medications. Systems-based changes may improve delivery of this key intervention.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medication to aid smoking cessation, compared to a minimal intervention or usual care, and to identify whether there are different effects depending on characteristics of the treatment setting, intervention, population treated, or take-up of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support for smoking cessation, compared to a control receiving usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by two authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by another.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 Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three studies with a total of more than 25,000 participants met the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of studies recruited people in healthcare settings or with specific health needs. Most studies provided NRT. Behavioural support was typically provided by specialists in cessation counselling, who offered between four and eight contact sessions. The planned maximum duration of contact was typically more than 30 minutes but less than 300 minutes. Overall, studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, and findings were not sensitive to the exclusion of any of the six studies rated at high risk of bias in one domain. One large study (the Lung Health Study) contributed heterogeneity due to a substantially larger treatment effect than seen in other studies (RR 3.88, 95% CI 3.35 to 4.50). Since this study used a particularly intensive intervention which included extended availability of nicotine gum, multiple group sessions and long term maintenance and recycling contacts, the results may not be comparable with the interventions used in other studies, and hence it was not pooled in other analyses. Based on the remaining 52 studies (19,488 participants) there was high quality evidence (using GRADE) for a benefit of combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care, brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.68 to 1.98) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 36%).The pooled estimate for 43 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.18) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Compared to the first version of the review, previous weak evidence of differences in other subgroup analyses has disappeared. We did not detect differences between subgroups defined by motivation to quit, treatment provider, number or duration of support sessions, or take-up of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Updating this review with an additional 12 studies (5,000 participants) did not materially change the effect estimate. Although trials differed in the details of their populations and interventions, we did not detect any factors that modified treatment effects apart from the recruitment setting. We did not find evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Effective pharmacotherapies are available to help people who are trying to stop smoking, but quitting can still be difficult and providing higher levels of behavioural support may increase success rates further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of 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.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in May 2015 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

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact. The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, or just written information. We did not include studies that used a contact-matched control to evaluate differences between types or components of support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author prescreened search results and two authors agreed inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials. One author extracted data and another checked them.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 Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria with over 18,000 participants in the relevant arms. There was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 18%) so we pooled all studies in the main analysis. There was evidence of a small but statistically significant benefit from more intensive support (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.24) for abstinence at longest follow-up. All but four of the included studies provided four or more sessions of support to the intervention group. Most trials used NRT. We did not detect significant effects for studies where the pharmacotherapy was nortriptyline (two trials) or varenicline (one trial), but this reflects the absence of evidence.In subgroup analyses, studies that provided at least four sessions of personal contact for the intervention and no personal contact for the control had slightly larger estimated effects (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45; 6 trials, 3762 participants), although a formal test for subgroup differences was not significant. Studies where all intervention counselling was via telephone (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41; 6 trials, 5311 participants) also had slightly larger effects, and the test for subgroup differences was significant, but this subgroup analysis was not prespecified. In this update, the benefit of providing additional behavioural support was similar for the subgroup of trials in which all participants, including controls, had at least 30 minutes of personal contact (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.32; 21 trials, 5166 participants); previously the evidence of benefit in this subgroup had been weaker. This subgroup was not prespecified and a test for subgroup differences was not significant. We judged the quality of the evidence to be high, using the GRADE approach. We judged a small number of trials to be at high risk of bias on one or more domains, but findings were not sensitive to their exclusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking has a small but important effect. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 25%, based on a pooled estimate from 47 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support.

Psychosocial interventions for smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane review previously published in 2008. Smoking increases the risk of developing atherosclerosis but also acute thrombotic events. Quitting smoking is potentially the most effective secondary prevention measure and improves prognosis after a cardiac event, but more than half of the patients continue to smoke, and improved cessation aids are urgently required.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to examine the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease in short-term (6 to 12 month follow-up) and long-term (more than 12 months). Moderators of treatment effects (i.e. intervention types, treatment dose, methodological criteria) were used for stratification.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 12, 2012), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and PSYNDEX were searched from the start of the database to January 2013. This is an update of the initial search in 2003. Results were supplemented by cross-checking references, and handsearches in selected journals and systematic reviews. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with CHD with a minimum follow-up of 6 months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. Abstinence rates were computed according to an intention to treat analysis if possible, or if not according to completer analysis results only. Subgroups of specific intervention strategies were analysed separately. The impact of study quality on efficacy was studied in a moderator analysis. Risk ratios (RR) were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel and random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We found 40 RCTs meeting inclusion criteria in total (21 trials were new in this update, 5 new trials contributed to long-term results (more than 12 months)). Interventions consist of behavioural therapeutic approaches, telephone support and self-help material and were either focused on smoking cessation alone or addressed several risk factors (eg. obesity, inactivity and smoking). The trials mostly included older male patients with CHD, predominantly myocardial infarction (MI). After an initial selection of studies three trials with implausible large effects of RR > 5 which contributed to substantial heterogeneity were excluded. Overall there was a positive effect of interventions on abstinence after 6 to 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 1.32, I² 54%; abstinence rate treatment group = 46%, abstinence rate control group 37.4%), but heterogeneity between trials was substantial. Studies with validated assessment of smoking status at follow-up had similar efficacy (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.39) to non-validated trials (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.35). Studies were stratified by intervention strategy and intensity of the intervention. Clustering reduced heterogeneity, although many trials used more than one type of intervention. The RRs for different strategies were similar (behavioural therapies RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.34, I² 40%; telephone support RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.30, I² 44%; self-help RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.33, I² 40%). More intense interventions (any initial contact plus follow-up over one month) showed increased quit rates (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.40, I² 58%) whereas brief interventions (either one single initial contact lasting less than an hour with no follow-up, one or more contacts in total over an hour with no follow-up or any initial contact plus follow-up of less than one months) did not appear effective (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.12, I² 0%). Seven trials had long-term follow-up (over 12 months), and did not show any benefits. Adverse side effects were not reported in any trial. These findings are based on studies with rather low risk of selection bias but high risk of detection bias (namely unblinded or non validated assessment of smoking status).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychosocial smoking cessation interventions are effective in promoting abstinence up to 1 year, provided they are of sufficient duration. After one year, the studies showed favourable effects of smoking cessation intervention, but more studies including cost-effectiveness analyses are needed. Further studies should also analyse the additional benefit of a psychosocial intervention strategy to pharmacological therapy (e.g. nicotine replacement therapy) compared with pharmacological treatment alone and investigate economic outcomes.

Smoking Status Confirmation by Proxy: Validation in a Smoking Cessation Trial

INTRODUCTION

Biochemical confirmation (BC) of self-report is the gold standard of evidence for abstinence in smoking cessation research, but difficulty in obtaining samples may bias estimates of quit rates. Proxy confirmation (PC) has not been validated in cessation trials. We assessed the feasibility and validity of PC in a cessation trial for hospitalized smokers.

METHODS

We enrolled 402 daily cigarette smokers during a hospital admission. At enrollment, participants provided demographics, smoking history, and named proxies to confirm their smoking status at follow-up. Participants provided self-reported (SR) 7-day tobacco abstinence by telephone at 6 months post-discharge. SR quitters were asked to mail a saliva sample for BC. Incentives were offered for survey completion ($20) and returned samples ($50). We called proxies for all those with SR to obtain PC. Quit rates were calculated with missing data indicating smoking. We assessed associations of nonresponse with baseline characteristics using chi-squared tests and logistic regression. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of PC in detecting smokers as determined by BC.

RESULTS

All patients named at least one proxy. Response rates were 82% for SR, 84% for PC, and 69% for BC. Observed participant characteristics were unrelated to provision of sample for BC. Estimated quit rates were 35% for SR, 27% for SR + PC, 21% for SR + BC and 27% for SR + BC or PC. Sensitivity of PC was not higher than SR (73% vs. 77%); specificity was lower (84% vs. 100%).

CONCLUSION

PC was feasible but not superior to self-report in a cessation trial.

Gold standard program for heavy smokers in a real-life setting

Background: High-intensity smoking cessation programs generally lead to more continuous abstinence, however, lower rates of success have been reported among heavy smokers. The aim was to evaluate continuous abstinence among heavy smokers during the intensive 6-week Gold Standard Program (GSP) and to identify modifiable factors associated with continuous abstinence. Methods: In this nationwide clinical study based on 36,550 smokers attending an intensive cessation program in Denmark. Heavy smoking was defined as ≥7 points in the Fagerström Nicotine Dependency Test, smoking ≥20 cigarettes daily or ≥20 pack-years. Results: Overall, 28% had a Fagerström score ≥7 points, 58% smoked ≥20 cigarettes daily and 68% smoked ≥20 pack-years. Continuous abstinence was 33% in responders (6-months response rate: 78%); however, abstinence was approximately 1–6% lower in the heavy smokers than the overall population. Attending GSP with an individual format (vs. group/other, OR 1.23–1.44); in a hospital setting (vs. pharmacy/municipality services, OR 1.05–1.11); and being compliant (attending the planned meetings OR 4.36–4.89) were associated with abstinence. Abstinence decreased in a dose-dependent manner with increasing smoking severity. Conclusions: Abstinence after GSP was 1–6% lower in the heavy smokers than in the overall study population. Modifiable factors may be used for small improvements in continued abstinence. However attempts to improve compliance seemed especially promising.

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 proactive and reactive telephone support via helplines and in other settings to help smokers quit.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register for studies of telephone counselling, using search terms including 'hotlines' or 'quitline' or 'helpline'. Date of the most recent search: May 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

randomized or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which proactive or reactive telephone counselling to assist smoking cessation was offered to smokers or recent quitters.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author identified and data extracted trials, and a second author checked them. The main outcome measure was the risk ratio for abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up. We selected the strictest measure of abstinence, using biochemically validated rates where available. We considered participants lost to follow-up to be continuing smokers. Where trials had more than one arm with a less intensive intervention we used only the most similar intervention without the telephone component as the control group in the primary analysis. We assessed statistical heterogeneity amongst subgroups of clinically comparable studies using the I² statistic. We considered trials recruiting callers to quitlines separately from studies recruiting in other settings. Where appropriate, we pooled studies using a fixed-effect model. We used a meta-regression to investigate the effect of differences in planned number of calls, selection for motivation, and the nature of the control condition (self help only, minimal intervention, pharmacotherapy) in the group of studies recruiting in non-quitline settings.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-seven trials met the inclusion criteria. Some trials were judged to be at risk of bias in some domains but overall we did not judge the results to be at high risk of bias. Among smokers who contacted helplines, quit rates were higher for groups randomized to receive multiple sessions of proactive counselling (nine studies, > 24,000 participants, risk ratio (RR) for cessation at longest follow-up 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26 to 1.50). There was mixed evidence about whether increasing the number of calls altered quit rates but most trials used more than two calls. Three studies comparing different counselling approaches during a single quitline contact did not detect significant differences. Of three studies that tested the provision of access to a hotline two detected a significant benefit and one did not.Telephone counselling not initiated by calls to helplines also increased quitting (51 studies, > 30,000 participants, RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.20 to 1.36). In a meta-regression controlling for other factors the effect was estimated to be slightly larger if more calls were offered, and in trials that specifically recruited smokers motivated to try to quit. The relative extra benefit of counselling was smaller when it was provided in addition to pharmacotherapy (usually nicotine replacement therapy) than when the control group only received self-help material or a brief intervention.A further eight studies were too diverse to contribute to meta-analyses and are discussed separately. Two compared different intensities of counselling, both of which detected a dose response; one of these detected a benefit of multiple counselling sessions over a single call for people prescribed bupropion. The others tested a variety of interventions largely involving offering telephone counselling as part of a referral or systems change and none detected evidence of effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Proactive telephone counselling aids smokers who seek help from quitlines. Telephone quitlines provide an important route of access to support for smokers, and call-back counselling enhances their usefulness. There is limited evidence about the optimal number of calls. Proactive telephone counselling also helps people who receive it in other settings. There is some evidence of a dose response; one or two brief calls are less likely to provide a measurable benefit. Three or more calls increase the chances of quitting compared to a minimal intervention such as providing standard self-help materials, or brief advice, or compared to pharmacotherapy alone.

How well is intervention content described in published reports of smoking cessation interventions?

INTRODUCTION

Behavioral support interventions for smoking cessation are typically complex, involving multiple interacting component behavior change techniques (BCTs). Precise reporting of intervention content is important for progress in the field. This study assessed the adequacy of published descriptions of the content of smoking cessation behavioral support interventions.

METHODS

About 152 trials of behavioral support were identified from Cochrane reviews. Authors were contacted up to 3 times requesting a copy of the intervention manual. Descriptions of intervention content in manuals and the corresponding publications were coded into component BCTs using an established taxonomy. The proportion of manual-specified content reported in subsequent trial reports was examined.

RESULTS

Manuals were received for 28 interventions published between 1992 and 2008. An average of 27 BCTs were identified per manual (range: 5-56), whereas published descriptions averaged only 12 (range: 3-26) (t[27] = 4.15, p < .001 for the difference).

CONCLUSIONS

Published reports of evaluations of smoking cessation behavioral support interventions typically mention fewer than half the behavior change techniques specified in the corresponding intervention manuals; this deficit in reporting could be remedied by journals insisting on full manuals being provided as supplementary electronic files.

Behavioural interventions as adjuncts to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Effective pharmacotherapies are available to help people who are trying to stop smoking, but quitting can still be difficult and providing higher levels of behavioural support may increase success rates further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of 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.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2012 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount of behavioural support. Controls could receive less intensive personal contact, or just written information. We did not include studies that used a contact matched control to evaluate differences between types or components of support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by both authors. Data were extracted by one author and checked by the other.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 Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria with over 15,000 participants in the relevant arms. There was very little evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 3%) so all studies were pooled in the main analysis. There was evidence of a small but statistically significant benefit from more intensive support (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.24) for abstinence at longest follow-up. All but two of the included studies provided four or more sessions of support. Most trials used nicotine replacement therapy. Significant effects were not detected for studies where the pharmacotherapy was nortriptyline (two trials) or varenicline (one trial), but this reflects the absence of evidence. In subgroup analyses, studies that provided at least four sessions of personal contact for the intervention and no personal contact for the control had slightly larger effects (six trials, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45), as did studies where all intervention counselling was via telephone (six trials, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41). Weaker evidence for a benefit of providing additional behavioural support was seen in the trials where all participants, including those in the control condition, had at least 30 minutes of personal contact (18 trials, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.25). None of the differences between subgroups were significant, and the last two subgroup analyses were not prespecified. No trials were judged at high risk of bias on any domain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking has a small but important effect. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10 to 25%, based on a pooled estimate from 38 trials. A subgroup analysis of a small number of trials suggests the benefit could be a little greater when the contrast is between a no contact control and a behavioural intervention that provides at least four sessions of contact. Subgroup analysis also suggests that there may be a smaller incremental benefit from providing even more intensive support via more or longer sessions over and above some personal contact.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medication to aid smoking cessation, compared to a minimal intervention or usual care, and to identify whether there are different effects depending on characteristics of the treatment setting, intervention, population treated, or take-up of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2012 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support for smoking cessation, compared to a control receiving usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by both authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by the other.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 Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one studies with a total of more than 20,000 participants met the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of studies recruited people in healthcare settings or with specific health needs. Most studies provided NRT. Behavioural support was typically provided by specialists in cessation counselling, who offered between four and eight contact sessions. The planned maximum duration of contact was typically more than 30 minutes but less than 300 minutes. Overall, studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, and findings were not sensitive to the exclusion of any of the three studies rated at high risk of bias in one domain. One large study (the Lung Health Study) contributed heterogeneity due to a substantially larger treatment effect than seen in other studies (RR 3.88, 95% CI 3.35 to 4.50). Since this study used a particularly intensive intervention which included extended availability of nicotine gum, multiple group sessions and long term maintenance and recycling contacts, the results may not be comparable with the interventions used in other studies, and hence it was not pooled in other analyses. Based on the remaining 40 studies (15,021 participants) there was good evidence for a benefit of combination pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.00) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 40%). The pooled estimate for 31 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.81 to 2.34) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Pooled estimates were lower in a subgroup of trials where the behavioural intervention was provided by specialist counsellors versus trials where counselling was linked to usual care (specialist: RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.55 to 1.93, 28 trials; usual provider: RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.91 to 3.02, 8 trials) but this was largely attributable to the small effect size in two trials using specialist counsellors where the take-up of the planned intervention was low, and one usual provider trial with alarge effect. There was little indirect evidence that the relative effect of an intervention differed according to whether participants in a trial were required to be motivated to make a quit attempt or not. There was only weak evidence that studies offering more sessions had larger effects and there was not clear evidence that increasing the duration of contact increased the effect, but there was more evidence of a dose-response relationship when analyses were limited to trials where the take-up of treatment was high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Further trials would be unlikely to change this conclusion. We did not find strong evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects but this could be because intensive interventions are less likely to be delivered in full.

Pharmacologic approaches to smoking cessation

Cigarette smokers experience greater rates of morbidity and mortality. Despite the known health risks, use of tobacco products remains high throughout the United States (approximately 19.3% of adults). Tobacco use is associated with higher rates of cardiovascular illness, cardiovascular risk factors (ie, hypertension and atherosclerosis), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, and various types of cancer. Pharmacologic smoking cessation therapies have been used to facilitate abstinence from smoking. This article provides clinicians with instructions for the use of pharmacologic agents for smoking cessation, including considerations for special populations.

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

Smoking contributes to reasons for hospitalisation, and the period of hospitalisation may be a good time to provide help with quitting.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for smoking cessation that are initiated for hospitalised patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register which includes papers identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO in December 2011 for studies of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, using terms including (hospital and patient*) or hospitali* or inpatient* or admission* or admitted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized trials of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients stop smoking, conducted with hospitalised patients who were current smokers or recent quitters (defined as having quit more than one month before hospital admission). The intervention had to start in the hospital but could continue after hospital discharge. We excluded studies of patients admitted to facilities that primarily treat psychiatric disorders or substance abuse, studies that did not report abstinence rates and studies with follow-up of less than six months. Both acute care hospitals and rehabilitation hospitals were included in this update, with separate analyses done for each type of hospital.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data independently for each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty trials met the inclusion criteria. Intensive counselling interventions that began during the hospital stay and continued with supportive contacts for at least one month after discharge increased smoking cessation rates after discharge (risk ratio (RR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.48; 25 trials). A specific benefit for post-discharge contact compared with usual care was found in a subset of trials in which all participants received a counselling intervention in the hospital and were randomly assigned to post-discharge contact or usual care. No statistically significant benefit was found for less intensive counselling interventions. Adding nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to an intensive counselling intervention increased smoking cessation rates compared with intensive counselling alone (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.79, six trials). Adding varenicline to intensive counselling had a non-significant effect in two trials (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.74). Adding bupropion did not produce a statistically significant increase in cessation over intensive counselling alone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.45, three trials). A similar pattern of results was observed in a subgroup of smokers admitted to hospital because of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this subgroup, intensive intervention with follow-up support increased the rate of smoking cessation (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.56), but less intensive interventions did not. One trial of intensive intervention including counselling and pharmacotherapy for smokers admitted with CVD assessed clinical and health care utilization endpoints, and found significant reductions in all-cause mortality and hospital readmission rates over a two-year follow-up period. These trials were all conducted in acute care hospitals. A comparable increase in smoking cessation rates was observed in a separate pooled analysis of intensive counselling interventions in rehabilitation hospitals (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.14, three trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High intensity behavioural interventions that begin during a hospital stay and include at least one month of supportive contact after discharge promote smoking cessation among hospitalised patients. The effect of these interventions was independent of the patient's admitting diagnosis and was found in rehabilitation settings as well as acute care hospitals. There was no evidence of effect for interventions of lower intensity or shorter duration. This update found that adding NRT to intensive counselling significantly increases cessation rates over counselling alone. There is insufficient direct evidence to conclude that adding bupropion or varenicline to intensive counselling increases cessation rates over what is achieved by counselling alone.

Risk of smoking and receipt of cessation services among veterans with mental disorders

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine rates of smoking and receipt of provider recommendations to quit smoking among patients with mental disorders treated in U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) treatment settings.

METHODS

The authors conducted a secondary analysis of the yearly, cross-sectional 2007 Veterans Health Administration Outpatient Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients (N=224,193). Logistic regression was used to determine the independent association of mental health diagnosis and the dependent variables of smoking and receipt of provider recommendations to quit smoking.

RESULTS

Patients with mental disorders had greater odds of smoking, compared with those without mental disorders (p<.05). Those with various mental disorders reported similar rates of receiving services (more than 60% to 80% reported receiving selected services), compared with those without these disorders, except that those with schizophrenia had more than 30% lower odds of receiving advice to quit smoking from their physicians (p<.05). Moreover, those who had co-occurring posttraumatic stress disorder or substance use disorders had significantly greater odds of reporting that they received advice to quit, recommendations for medications, and physician discussions of quitting methods, compared with those without these disorders (p<.05). Older patients, male patients, members of ethnic minority groups, those who were unmarried, those who were disabled or unemployed, and those living in rural areas had lower odds of receiving selected services (p<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients with mental disorders served by the VA reported receiving cessation services, yet their smoking rates remained high, and selected groups were at risk for receiving fewer cessation services, suggesting the continued need to disseminate cessation services.

Lung cancer in HIV Infection

Lung cancer is the most prevalent non-AIDS-defining malignancy in the highly active antiretroviral therapy era. Smoking plays a significant role in the development of HIV-associated lung cancer, but the cancer risk is two to four times greater in HIV-infected persons than in the general population, even after adjusting for smoking intensity and duration. Lung cancer is typically diagnosed a decade or more earlier among HIV-infected persons (mean age, 46 years) compared to those without HIV infection. Adenocarcinoma is the most common histological subtype, and the majority of patients are diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma. Because pulmonary infections are common among HIV-infected individuals, clinicians may not suspect lung cancer in this younger patient population. Surgery with curative intent remains the treatment of choice for early-stage disease. Although there is increasing experience in using radiation and chemotherapy for HIV-infected patients who do not have surgical options, there is a need for prospective studies because this population is frequently excluded from participating in cancer trials. Evidence-based treatments for smoking-cessation with demonstrated efficacy in the general population must be routinely incorporated into the care of HIV-positive smokers.

Smoking among inpatients at a university hospital

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence and characteristics of smoking among inpatients at a university hospital, as well as to evaluate their motivation, interest, and need for help in quitting smoking.

METHODS

A prospective study involving inpatients treated between May of 2008 and April of 2009 on the cardiovascular disease wards at the Antonio Pedro University Hospital, located in the city of Niterói, Brazil. All inpatients were asked to complete a questionnaire designed to collect data regarding demographics, reasons for admission, and smoking status. The smokers also responded to additional questions regarding their smoking habits. The level of nicotine dependence was determined with the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence.

RESULTS

Of the 136 inpatients who participated in the study, 68 (50.0%) were male. The mean age was 60.7 years. The prevalence of smoking was 13.2%. Among the 49 patients with coronary disease, 36 (73.5%) were smokers or former smokers. The majority of the patients presented with a high level of nicotine dependence and reported withdrawal symptoms during hospitalization. Although most smokers were motivated to quit smoking, they admitted that they needed help to do so.

CONCLUSIONS

Because smoking is forbidden in the hospital environment and most inpatients who smoke are highly motivated to quit, health professionals should view the hospitalization period as an opportunity to promote smoking cessation.

Integration of a smoking cessation program in the treatment protocol for patients with head and neck and lung cancer

Smoking is the main causative factor for development of head and neck and lung cancer. In addition, other malignancies such as bladder, stomach, colorectal, kidney and pancreatic cancer have a causative relation with smoking. Continued smoking after having been diagnosed with cancer has many negative consequences: effectiveness of radiotherapy is diminished, survival time is shortened and risks of recurrence, second primary malignancies and treatment complications are increased. In view of the significant health consequences of continued smoking, therefore, additional support for patients to stop smoking seems a logical extension of the present treatment protocols for smoking-related cancers. For prospectively examining the effect of nursing-delivered smoking cessation programme for patients with head and neck or lung cancer, 145 patients with head and neck or lung cancer enrolled into this programme over a 2-year period. Information on smoking behaviour, using a structured, programme specific questionnaire, was collected at baseline, and after 6 and 12 months. At 6 months, 58 patients (40%) had stopped smoking and at 12 months, 48 patients (33%) still had refrained from smoking. There were no differences in smoking cessation results between patients with head and neck and lung cancer. The only significant factor predicting success was whether the patient had made earlier attempts to quit smoking. A nurse-managed smoking cessation programme for patients with head and neck or lung cancer shows favourable long-term success rates. It seems logical, therefore, to integrate such a programme in treatment protocols for smoking-related cancers.

Medical comorbidities increase motivation to quit smoking among veterans being treated by a psychiatric facility

PURPOSE

This study determined if comorbidities predicted motivation to quit smoking among smokers treated in a primarily psychiatric Veterans Affairs facility.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted with a convenience sample of smokers (N = 117).

FINDINGS

Multivariate analyses showed a history of arthritis, diabetes, lung disease, or stroke predicted motivation to quit smoking (p < .05). Having a history of high blood pressure, heart disease, or cancer was not associated with motivation to quit smoking.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Relating smoking behavior to the patient's medical comorbidities may increase motivation to quit smoking among veterans.

Stage-based interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The transtheoretical model is the most widely known of several stage-based theories of behaviour. It proposes that smokers move through a discrete series of motivational stages before they quit successfully. These are precontemplation (no thoughts of quitting), contemplation (thinking about quitting), preparation (planning to quit in the next 30 days), action (quitting successfully for up to six months), and maintenance (no smoking for more than six months). According to this influential model, interventions which help people to stop smoking should be tailored to their stage of readiness to quit, and are designed to move them forward through subsequent stages to eventual success. People in the preparation and action stages of quitting would require different types of support from those in precontemplation or contemplation.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to test the effectiveness of stage-based interventions in helping smokers to quit.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register for trials, using the terms ('stage* of change', 'transtheoretical model*', 'trans-theoretical model*, 'precaution adoption model*', 'health action model', 'processes of change questionnaire*', 'readiness to change', 'tailor*') and 'smoking' in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The latest search was in August 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials, which compared stage-based interventions with non-stage-based controls, with 'usual care' or with assessment only. We excluded trials which did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from start of treatment, and those which measured stage of change but did not modify their intervention in the light of it.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the participants, the dose and duration of intervention, the outcome measures, the randomization procedure, concealment of allocation, and completeness of follow up.The main outcome was abstinence from smoking for at least six months. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, and preferred biochemically validated rates where reported. Where appropriate we performed meta-analysis to estimate a pooled risk ratio, using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 41 trials (>33,000 participants) which met our inclusion criteria. Four trials, which directly compared the same intervention in stage-based and standard versions, found no clear advantage for the staging component. Stage-based versus standard self-help materials (two trials) gave a relative risk (RR) of 0.93 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.39). Stage-based versus standard counselling (two trials) gave a relative risk of 1.00 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.22). Six trials of stage-based self-help systems versus any standard self-help support demonstrated a benefit for the staged groups, with an RR of 1.27 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.59). Twelve trials comparing stage-based self help with 'usual care' or assessment-only gave an RR of 1.32 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.48). Thirteen trials of stage-based individual counselling versus any control condition gave an RR of 1.24 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.42). These findings are consistent with the proven effectiveness of these interventions in their non-stage-based versions. The evidence was unclear for telephone counselling, interactive computer programmes or training of doctors or lay supporters. This uncertainty may be due in part to smaller numbers of trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on four trials using direct comparisons, stage-based self-help interventions (expert systems and/or tailored materials) and individual counselling were neither more nor less effective than their non-stage-based equivalents. Thirty-one trials of stage-based self help or counselling interventions versus any control condition demonstrated levels of effectiveness which were comparable with their non-stage-based counterparts. Providing these forms of practical support to those trying to quit appears to be more productive than not intervening. However, the additional value of adapting the intervention to the smoker's stage of change is uncertain. The evidence is not clear for other types of staged intervention, including telephone counselling, interactive computer programmes and training of physicians or lay supporters. The evidence does not support the restriction of quitting advice and encouragement only to those smokers perceived to be in the preparation and action stages.

Effectiveness of a cognitive orientation program with and without nicotine replacement therapy in stopping smoking in hospitalised patients

INTRODUCTION

We analysed the effectiveness of a high intensity behavioural-cognitive intervention compared to minimal intervention started during a hospital stay, to see if the combination of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) can increase the quitting rate at 12 months of follow up.

METHOD

A total of 2560 active smokers were studied during their hospital stay. Of these, 717 smokers refused to enter the study and after a minimal intervention they were asked if we could telephone them after one year to ask if they still smoked. The remaining 1843 smokers who received high intensity cognitive therapy were randomised to receive or not receive NRT. The follow up after discharge was carried out by outpatient visits or with telephone sessions.

RESULTS

At one year of follow up, 7% of those who declined to enter the study had stopped smoking compared to 27% of those who entered the study (p<0.001). There were significant differences between the group that only had behavioural therapy (21% stopped) compared to the group that also had NRT (33% stopped; p=0.002). In this latter group there were significant differences (p=0.03) between those who had follow up in clinics (39% stopped) compared to those who were followed up telephone sessions (30%). In the multivariate analysis, the predictors of quitting at 12 months were: to have used NRT (OR 12.2; 95% CI, 5.2-32; p=0.002) and a higher score in the Richmond Test (OR 10.1; 95% CI, 3.9-24.2; p=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

A cognitive type intervention started on smokers when admitted to hospital increases quitting rates at 12 months, compared to a minimal intervention, and these rates increase even more significantly if NRT is added.

Improving the quality of care for the hospitalized tobacco user--one institution's transformational journey

Hospitalization represents an ideal time to address tobacco cessation. For a variety of reasons, current users do not always receive appropriate support or treatment during the hospitalization. An improvement team was created to improve the care for the hospitalized tobacco user. The team's aim was to develop a standardized process to increase the assessment, documentation, and delivery of cessation counseling, and increase community referrals upon discharge. After implementation of the project, percentages of hospitalized patients who had their tobacco use status documented in the electronic medical record increased to 80-90%. The percentage of patients admitted with heart failure or pneumonia had their rates of tobacco cessation counseling improved to 82-96%. The care of the hospitalized tobacco user can be improved and sustained by utilizing community resources and creating a team of motivated care providers. This improvement work stimulated the creation of a smoke-free institution and other preventive health measures throughout the institution.

Therapeutic advances in the treatment of nicotine addiction: present and future

While the proportion of the adult population that smokes has declined steadily in several westernized societies, the rate of successful quit attempts is still low. This is because smokers develop nicotine dependence, a powerful addiction that may require multiple attempts and long-term treatment to achieve enduring abstinence. Currently available first-line agents for smoking cessation therapy include nicotine replacement therapy (available in several formulations, including transdermal patch, gum, nasal spray, inhaler, and lozenge), bupropion (an atypical antidepressant), and varenicline (a partial agonist of the α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor that was recently developed and approved specifically for smoking cessation therapy). Second-line agents are nortriptyline (a tricyclic antidepressant agent) and the antihypertensive agent clonidine. With the exception of varenicline, which has been shown to offer significant improvement in abstinence rates over bupropion, all of the available treatments appear similarly effective. The adverse event profiles of nortriptyline and clonidine make them more appropriate for second-line therapy, when first-line treatments have failed or are not tolerated. However, the currently marketed smoking cessation drugs reportedly lack high levels of efficacy, particularly in real-life settings. New medications and vaccines with significant clinical advantage are now in the advanced stage of development and offer promise. These include nicotine vaccines and monoamine type B inhibitors. In this review article we discuss current and emerging pharmacotherapies for tobacco dependence focusing on their mechanisms of action, efficacy and adverse event profiles.

Smoking cessation intervention: an evidence-based approach

Cigarette smoking represents the most important source of preventable morbidity and premature mortality worldwide. Approximately 100 million deaths were caused by tobacco use in the 20th century. There are >1 billion smokers worldwide, and globally the use of tobacco products is increasing, with the epidemic shifting to the developing world. Tobacco dependence is a chronic condition that often requires repeated intervention for success. Just informing a patient about health risks, although necessary, is usually not sufficient for a decision to change. Smokers should be provided with counseling when attempting to quit. Pharmacologic smoking cessation aids are recommended for all smokers who are trying to quit, unless contraindicated. Evidence-based guidelines recommend nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion SR, and varenicline as effective alternatives for smoking cessation therapy, especially when combined with behavioral interventions. Combination pharmacotherapy is indicated for highly nicotine-dependent smokers, patients who have failed with monotherapy, and patients with breakthrough cravings. An additional form of nicotine replacement therapy or an addition of a non-nicotine replacement therapy oral medication (bupropion or varenicline) may be helpful. The rate of successful smoking cessation at 1 year is 3% to 5% when the patient simply tries to stop, 7% to 16% if the smoker undergoes behavioral intervention, and up to 24% when receiving pharmacological treatment and behavioral support.

The efficacy of smoking cessation therapies in cardiac patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Several meta-analyses have examined the efficacy of smoking cessation therapies in the general population. However, little is known about the efficacy of these therapies in cardiac patients. Therefore, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to determine the efficacy of behavioural therapy and pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation in cardiac patients.

METHODS

The medical literature was systematically reviewed to identify smoking cessation RCTs in cardiac patients. Only RCTs that reported smoking abstinence at six or 12 months were included. Smoking abstinence was examined based on the 'most rigorous criterion', defined as the most conservative outcome reported in any given RCT.

RESULTS

Eleven behavioural therapy RCTs that enrolled 2105 patients and four pharmacotherapy RCTs that enrolled 1542 patients were identified. RCTs differed in the type of behavioural therapy administered as well as the total length and duration of the intervention. RCTs differed in the type of pharmacotherapy administered (one nicotine patch RCT, one nicotine gum RCT and two bupropion RCTs). Behavioural therapy was associated with a significantly higher proportion of smoking abstinence than usual care (OR 1.97 [95% CI 1.37 to 2.85]). Pharmacotherapies were more efficacious than placebo (pooled OR 1.72 [95% CI 1.15 to 2.57]).

CONCLUSIONS

Both behavioural therapy and pharmacotherapy are more efficacious than usual care for smoking cessation in cardiac patients. The present meta-analysis highlights the need for head-to-head RCTs to identify which smoking cessation therapy is preferred in cardiac patients as well as RCTs examining the efficacy of combined behavioural and pharmacotherapies.

Implementation of the Tobacco Tactics program in the Department of Veterans Affairs

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation services in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) are currently provided via outpatient groups, while inpatient cessation programs have not been widely implemented.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper is to describe the implementation of the Tobacco Tactics program for inpatients in the VA.

METHODS

This is a pre-/post-non-randomized control study initially designed to teach inpatient staff nurses on general medical units in the Ann Arbor and Detroit VAs to deliver the Tobacco Tactics intervention using Indianapolis as a control group. Coupled with cessation medication sign-off, physicians are reminded to give patients brief advice to quit.

RESULTS

Approximately 96% (210/219) of inpatient nurses in the Ann Arbor, MI site and 57% (159/279) in the Detroit, MI site have been trained, with an additional 282 non-targeted personnel spontaneously attending. Nurses' self-reported administration of cessation services increased from 57% pre-training to 86% post-training (p = 0.0002). Physician advice to quit smoking ranged between 73-85% in both the pre-intervention and post-intervention period in both the experimental and control group. Volunteers made follow-up telephone calls to 85% (n = 230) of participants in the Ann Arbor site. Hospitalized smokers (N = 294) in the intervention group are reporting an increase in receiving and satisfaction with the selected cessation services following implementation of the program, particularly in regards to medications (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of inpatient nursing staff can rapidly be trained to deliver tobacco cessation interventions to inpatients resulting in increased provision of services.

A before-after implementation trial of smoking cessation guidelines in hospitalized veterans

Background

Although most hospitalized smokers receive some form of cessation counseling during hospitalization, few receive outpatient cessation counseling and/or pharmacotherapy following discharge, which are key factors associated with long-term cessation. US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals are challenged to find resources to implement and maintain the kind of high intensity cessation programs that have been shown to be effective in research studies. Few studies have applied the Chronic Care Model (CCM) to improve inpatient smoking cessation.

Specific objectives

The primary objective of this protocol is to determine the effect of a nurse-initiated intervention, which couples low-intensity inpatient counseling with sustained proactive telephone counseling, on smoking abstinence in hospitalized patients. Key secondary aims are to determine the impact of the intervention on staff nurses' attitudes toward providing smoking cessation counseling; to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation of smoking cessation guidelines in VA hospitals; and to determine the short-term cost-effectiveness of implementing the intervention.

Design

Pre-post study design in four VA hospitals

Participants

Hospitalized patients, aged 18 or older, who smoke at least one cigarette per day.

Intervention

The intervention will include: nurse training in delivery of bedside cessation counseling, electronic medical record tools (to streamline nursing assessment and documentation, to facilitate prescription of pharmacotherapy), computerized referral of motivated inpatients for proactive telephone counseling, and use of internal nursing facilitators to provide coaching to staff nurses practicing in non-critical care inpatient units.

Outcomes

The primary endpoint is seven-day point prevalence abstinence at six months following hospital admission and prolonged abstinence after a one-month grace period. To compare abstinence rates during the intervention and baseline periods, we will use random effects logistic regression models, which take the clustered nature of the data within nurses and hospitals into account. We will assess attitudes of staff nurses toward cessation counseling by questionnaire and will identify barriers and facilitators to implementation by using clinician focus groups. To determine the short-term incremental cost per quitter from the perspective of the VA health care system, we will calculate cessation-related costs incurred during the initial hospitalization and six-month follow-up period.

Trial number

NCT00816036

Review: the need for smoking cessation among HIV-positive smokers

Most HIV-positive persons in the U.S. smoke cigarettes. Despite substantial clinical advances in HIV care in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), HIV-positive persons are at high risk of tobacco-related disease and death. HIV-positive persons have complex social, economic, psychiatric, and medical needs that may impact smoking behavior and response to smoking cessation interventions, but there is a dearth of research on smoking cessation interventions tailored to HIV-positive persons. HIV care providers should treat tobacco use with the array of evidence-based smoking cessation treatments available, updating their clinical practice as new data emerge. This article reviews the literature on the health consequences of tobacco use in HIV-positive persons, the treatment of tobacco dependence, and the research to date on smoking cessation interventions in HIV-positive persons, and it presents recommendations for future research and intervention.

Tobacco control and nicotine addiction in Canada: current trends, management and challenges

Despite a significant decrease in tobacco use over the past four decades, cigarette smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death and disease in Canada. Nicotine addiction, unequal access to available support programs and gaps in continuity of health care are recognized as the main barriers to smoking cessation. To overcome these obstacles and to reach the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy goal of reducing smoking prevalence in Canada from 19% to 12% by 2011, several Canadian health care organizations developed extensive sets of recommendations. Improved access to affordable pharmacotherapies and behavioural counselling, better training of health care professionals and the addition of systemic cessation measures appear to be the key components in all of the proposed recommendations. The present article provides an overview of the current approaches to smoking cessation in Canada, describes the remaining challenges, and outlines recent recommendations that are geared toward not only tobacco control but also overall improvement in long-term health outcomes.