Behavioral treatment for smokers with a history of alcoholism: predictors of successful outcome

The effect of alcohol use on smoking cessation: A systematic review

Only a small minority of all attempts to stop smoking are successful, especially among smokers who are heavy drinkers and those with an alcohol use disorder. The current systematic review focuses on the negative effects of alcohol use, either before or during attempts to quit smoking, on the success rate of these attempt(s) in alcohol-drinking tobacco smokers. We conducted a systematic review of naturalistic and experimental studies, which included at least 40 tobacco smokers with a recorded drinking status (non-drinking, heavy drinking, alcohol use disorder) and a clearly documented change in alcohol consumption. We could not conduct a meta-analysis and, thus, used consistency across studies to draw conclusions. The evidence presented here shows that alcohol use is associated with lower rates of success in quitting smoking in 20 out of 27 studies. This includes both lapses and relapses. Similarly, in 19 out of 20 long-term follow-up studies, the duration of smoking abstinence was shorter among persons with higher alcohol consumption. Finally, 12 out of 13 experimental studies showed that exposure of smokers to alcohol cues or to drinking of alcohol induce a strong propensity to smoke. It is, therefore, recommended for smokers who drink alcohol and who intend to quit smoking to use an integrated approach, i.e., to stop or substantially reduce their alcohol consumption before and/or during their attempt to quit smoking.

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Exercise interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Taking regular exercise, whether cardiovascular-type exercise or resistance exercise, may help people to give up smoking, particularly by reducing cigarette withdrawal symptoms and cravings, and by helping to manage weight gain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of exercise-based interventions alone, or combined with a smoking cessation programme, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared with a smoking cessation intervention alone or other non-exercise intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register for studies, using the term 'exercise' or 'physical activity' in the title, abstract or keywords. The date of the most recent search was May 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared an exercise programme alone, or an exercise programme as an adjunct to a cessation programme, with a cessation programme alone or another non-exercise control group. Trials were required to recruit smokers wishing to quit or recent quitters, to assess abstinence as an outcome and have follow-up of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking cessation was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison, as either smoking cessation or relapse prevention. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 24 eligible trials with a total of 7279 adult participants randomised. Two studies focused on relapse prevention among smokers who had recently stopped smoking, and the remaining 22 studies were concerned with smoking cessation for smokers who wished to quit. Eleven studies were with women only and one with men only. Most studies recruited fairly inactive people. Most of the trials employed supervised, group-based cardiovascular-type exercise supplemented by a home-based exercise programme and combined with a multi-session cognitive behavioural smoking cessation programme. The comparator in most cases was a multi-session cognitive behavioural smoking cessation programme alone. Overall, we judged two studies to be at low risk of bias, 11 at high risk of bias, and 11 at unclear risk of bias. Among the 21 studies analysed, we found low-certainty evidence, limited by potential publication bias and by imprecision, comparing the effect of exercise plus smoking cessation support with smoking cessation support alone on smoking cessation outcomes (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.22; I² = 0%; 6607 participants). We excluded one study from this analysis as smoking abstinence rates for the study groups were not reported. There was no evidence of subgroup differences according to the type of exercise promoted; the subgroups considered were: cardiovascular-type exercise alone (17 studies), resistance training alone (one study), combined cardiovascular-type and resistance exercise (one study) and type of exercise not specified (two studies). The results were not significantly altered when we excluded trials with high risk of bias, or those with special populations, or those where smoking cessation intervention support was not matched between the intervention and control arms. Among the two relapse prevention studies, we found very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, that adding exercise to relapse prevention did not improve long-term abstinence compared with relapse prevention alone (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.47; I² = 0%; 453 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence that adding exercise to smoking cessation support improves abstinence compared with support alone, but the evidence is insufficient to assess whether there is a modest benefit. Estimates of treatment effect were of low or very low certainty, because of concerns about bias in the trials, imprecision and publication bias. Consequently, future trials may change these conclusions.

Not all smokers appear to seek nicotine for the same reasons: implications for preclinical research in nicotine dependence

Tobacco use leads to 6 million deaths every year due to severe long-lasting diseases. The main component of tobacco, nicotine, is recognized as one of the most addictive drugs, making smoking cessation difficult, even when 70 percent of smokers wish to do so. Clinical and preclinical studies have demonstrated consistently that nicotine seeking is a complex behavior involving various psychopharmacological mechanisms. Evidence supports that the population of smokers is heterogeneous, particularly as regards the breadth of motives that determine the urge to smoke. Here, we review converging psychological, genetic and neurobiological data from clinical and preclinical studies supporting that the mechanisms controlling nicotine seeking may vary from individual to individual. It appears timely that basic neuroscience integrates this heterogeneity to refine our understanding of the neurobiology of nicotine seeking, as tremendous progress has been made in modeling the various psychopharmacological mechanisms driving nicotine seeking in rodents. For a better understanding of the mechanisms that drive nicotine seeking, we emphasize the need for individual-based research strategies in which nicotine seeking, and eventually treatment efficacy, are determined while taking into account individual variations in the mechanisms of nicotine seeking.

Interventions for tobacco use cessation in people in treatment for or recovery from substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

Smoking rates in people with alcohol and other drug dependencies are two to four times those of the general population. Concurrent treatment of tobacco dependence has been limited due to concern that these interventions are not successful in this population or that recovery from other addictions could be compromised if tobacco cessation was combined with other drug dependency treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether interventions for tobacco cessation are associated with tobacco abstinence for people in concurrent treatment for or in recovery from alcohol and other drug dependence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases, with the most recent search completed in August 2016. A grey literature search of conference abstracts from the Society on Nicotine Research and Treatment and the ProQuest database of digital dissertations yielded one additional study, which was excluded.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions among people in concurrent treatment for alcohol or other drug dependence or in outpatient recovery programmes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study risk of bias and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by consensus. The primary outcome was abstinence from tobacco use at the longest period of follow-up, and the secondary outcome was abstinence from alcohol or other drugs, or both. We reported the strictest definition of abstinence. We summarised effects as risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Two clustered studies did not provide intraclass correlation coefficients, and were excluded from the sensitivity analysis. We used the I² statistic to assess heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-five randomised controlled trials, one ongoing, involving 5796 participants met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Included studies assessed the efficacy of tobacco cessation interventions, including counselling, and pharmacotherapy consisting of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or non-NRT, or the two combined, in both inpatient and outpatient settings for participants in treatment and in recovery. Most studies did not report information to assess the risk of allocation, selection, and attrition bias, and were classified as unclear.Analyses considered the nature of the intervention, whether participants were in treatment or recovery and the type of dependency. Of the 34 studies included in the meta-analysis, 11 assessed counselling, 11 assessed pharmacotherapy, and 12 assessed counselling in combination with pharmacotherapy, compared to usual care or no intervention. Tobacco cessation interventions were significantly associated with tobacco abstinence for two types of interventions. Pharmacotherapy appeared to increase tobacco abstinence (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.12, 11 studies, 1808 participants, low quality evidence), as did combined counselling and pharmacotherapy (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.18, 12 studies, 2229 participants, low quality evidence) at the period of longest follow-up, which ranged from six weeks to 18 months. There was moderate evidence of heterogeneity (I² = 56% with pharmacotherapy and 43% with counselling plus pharmacotherapy). Counselling interventions did not significantly increase tobacco abstinence (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.95).Interventions were significantly associated with tobacco abstinence for both people in treatment (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.50) and people in recovery (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.67), and for people with alcohol dependence (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.81) and people with other drug dependencies (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.40).Offering tobacco cessation therapy to people in treatment or recovery for other drug dependence was not associated with a difference in abstinence rates from alcohol and other drugs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.03, 11 studies, 2231 participants, moderate evidence of heterogeneity (I² = 66%)).Data on adverse effect of the interventions were limited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The studies included in this review suggest that providing tobacco cessation interventions targeted to smokers in treatment and recovery for alcohol and other drug dependencies increases tobacco abstinence. There was no evidence that providing interventions for tobacco cessation affected abstinence from alcohol and other drugs. The association between tobacco cessation interventions and tobacco abstinence was consistent for both pharmacotherapy and combined counselling and pharmacotherapy, for participants both in treatment and in recovery, and for people with alcohol dependency or other drug dependency. The evidence for the interventions was low quality due primarily to incomplete reporting of the risks of bias and clinical heterogeneity in the nature of treatment. Certain results were sensitive to the length of follow-up or the type of pharmacotherapy, suggesting that further research is warranted regarding whether tobacco cessation interventions are associated with tobacco abstinence for people in recovery, and the outcomes associated with NRT versus non-NRT or combined pharmacotherapy. Overall, the results suggest that tobacco cessation interventions incorporating pharmacotherapy should be incorporated into clinical practice to reduce tobacco addiction among people in treatment for or recovery from alcohol and other drug dependence.

A Systematic Review of Smoking Cessation Interventions for Adults in Substance Abuse Treatment or Recovery

INTRODUCTION

The aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for patients with substance use disorders. The secondary aim was to evaluate impact on substance use treatment outcomes.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials involving adult smokers, recently or currently receiving inpatient or outpatient treatment for substance use disorders were reviewed. Databases, grey literature, reference lists, and journals were searched for relevant studies between 1990 and August 2014. Two authors extracted data and assessed quality. The primary outcome was biochemically verified continuous abstinence from smoking at 6 or 12 months, secondary outcomes were biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence (PPA) at 6 or 12 months and substance use outcomes. Heterogeneity between studies precluded pooled analyses of the data.

RESULTS

Seventeen of 847 publications were included. Five studies reported significant effects on smoking cessation: (1) nicotine patches improved continuous abstinence at 6 months; (2) nicotine gum improved continuous abstinence at 12 months; (3) counseling, contingency management and relapse prevention improved continuous abstinence at 6 and 12 months; (4) cognitive behavioral therapy, plus nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), improved PPA at 6 months; and (5) a combination of bupropion, NRT, counseling and contingency management improved PPA at 6 months. Two studies showed some evidence of improved substance use outcomes with the remaining eight studies measuring substance use outcomes showing no difference.

CONCLUSIONS

NRT, behavioral support, and combination approaches appear to increase smoking abstinence in those treated for substance use disorders. Higher quality studies are required to strengthen the evidence base.

Exercise interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Taking regular exercise may help people give up smoking by moderating nicotine withdrawal and cravings, and by helping to manage weight gain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether exercise-based interventions alone, or combined with a smoking cessation programme, are more effective than a smoking cessation intervention alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in April 2014, and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL Plus in May 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials which compared an exercise programme alone, or an exercise programme as an adjunct to a cessation programme, with a cessation programme (which we considered the control in this review). Studies were required to recruit smokers or recent quitters and have a follow-up of six months or more. Studies that did not meet the full inclusion criteria because they only assessed the acute effects of exercise on smoking behaviour, or because the outcome was smoking reduction, are summarised but not formally included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on study characteristics and smoking outcomes. Because of differences between studies in the characteristics of the interventions used we summarized the results narratively, making no attempt at meta-analysis. We assessed risk of selection and attrition bias using standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 20 trials with a total of 5,870 participants. The largest study was an internet trial with 2,318 participants, and eight trials had fewer than 30 people in each treatment arm. Studies varied in the timing and intensity of the smoking cessation and exercise programmes offered. Only one included study was judged to be at low risk of bias across all domains assessed. Four studies showed significantly higher abstinence rates in a physically active group versus a control group at end of treatment. One of these studies also showed a significant benefit for exercise versus control on abstinence at the three-month follow-up and a benefit for exercise of borderline significance (p = 0.05) at the 12-month follow-up. Another study reported significantly higher abstinence rates at six month follow-up for a combined exercise and smoking cessation programme compared with brief smoking cessation advice. One study showed significantly higher abstinence rates for the exercise group versus a control group at the three-month follow-up but not at the end of treatment or 12-month follow-up. The other studies showed no significant effect for exercise on abstinence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only two of the 20 trials offered evidence for exercise aiding smoking cessation in the long term. All the other trials were too small to reliably exclude an effect of intervention, or included an exercise intervention which may not have been sufficiently intense to achieve the desired level of exercise. Trials are needed with larger sample sizes, sufficiently intense interventions in terms of both exercise intensity and intensity of support being provided, equal contact control conditions, and measures of exercise adherence and change in physical activity in both exercise and comparison groups.

Nicotine dependence among clients receiving publicly funded substance abuse treatment

BACKGROUND

Smoking and nicotine dependence (ND) are prevalent among substance abusers but little is known about characteristics of ND in this population. This information would help identify those most in need of smoking cessation programs. This study evaluated the associations of socio-demographic, tobacco- and substance use-related, and health/mental health factors to ND in adults receiving publicly funded substance abuse treatment in Tennessee.

METHODS

All Tennessee residents who received federal block grant-funded substance abuse treatment during July-December, 2004 were invited to participate in a 6 month post-intake telephone follow-up interview. Socio-demographic characteristics, perceived health and mental health, tobacco use history and patterns, and ND, assessed by the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (FTND), were obtained at follow-up. Alcohol and illicit drug use and smoking status prior to treatment were assessed at intake. This paper analyzes data for 855 clients who were current cigarette smokers at both intake and follow-up.

RESULTS

Sixty three percent of smokers were ND (FTND score ≥ 4). Correlates of ND included older age, poorer self-rated overall health, earlier age of onset of cigarette smoking and substance abuse, fewer smoking quit attempts in past year, single substance use (alcohol or illicit drug, vs. multiple substances) at intake, use of opiates/narcotics and sedatives, and past month self-reported depression.

CONCLUSION

ND was highly prevalent and correlated with specific types and patterns of substance abuse and depression. These results suggest that intensive smoking cessation interventions, involving behavioral support, pharmacotherapy, and mood management, are needed to effectively assist this population.

Peering through the smoke: the effect of parental smoking behavior and addiction on daily smokers' attentional bias to smoking cues

Although previous research has demonstrated that individuals with parents who smoke are more likely to become smokers and are less successful in smoking cessation efforts compared with those without a smoking parent, the reasons for this link have not been established. In the current study, implicit attentional bias to smoking-related cues was investigated in college-age smokers, based on models of addiction that suggest that attention to drug-related cues plays an important role in drug addiction. Sixty-one participants completed a dot-probe task to measure attentional bias to smoking-related and matched non-smoking-related control pictures. Results indicated that while those who reported smoking occasionally did not demonstrate an attentional bias, daily smokers who had a smoking parent showed more of an attentional bias to the smoking cues than those without a smoking parent, but only to cues that did not contain human content. In addition to parental influence, nicotine dependence explained a significant portion of the variance in the attentional bias for daily smokers. Implications for models of nicotine addiction and the development of smoking cessation programs are discussed.

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Most people who stop smoking gain weight. There are some interventions that have been designed to reduce weight gain when stopping smoking. Some smoking cessation interventions may also limit weight gain although their effect on weight has not been reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effect of: (1) Interventions targeting post-cessation weight gain on weight change and smoking cessation.(2) Interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that may also plausibly affect weight on post-cessation weight change.

SEARCH METHODS

Part 1 - We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register and CENTRAL in September 2011.Part 2 - In addition we searched the included studies in the following "parent" Cochrane reviews: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, cannabinoid type 1 receptor antagonists and exercise interventions for smoking cessation published in Issue 9, 2011 of the Cochrane Library.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Part 1 - We included trials of interventions that were targeted at post-cessation weight gain and had measured weight at any follow up point and/or smoking cessation six or more months after quit day.Part 2 - We included trials that had been included in the selected parent Cochrane reviews if they had reported weight gain at any time point.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on baseline characteristics of the study population, intervention, outcome and study quality. Change in weight was expressed as difference in weight change from baseline to follow up between trial arms and was reported in abstinent smokers only. Abstinence from smoking was expressed as a risk ratio (RR). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the inverse variance method for weight and Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Part 1: Some pharmacological interventions tested for limiting post cessation weight gain (PCWG) resulted in a significant reduction in WG at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine (Mean difference (MD) -2.50 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.98 to -2.02, 1 study), phenylpropanolamine (MD -0.50 kg, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.20, N=3), naltrexone (MD -0.78 kg, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.05, N=2). There was no evidence that treatment reduced weight at 6 or 12 months (m). No pharmacological intervention significantly affected smoking cessation rates.Weight management education only was associated with no reduction in PCWG at end of treatment (6 or 12m). However these interventions significantly reduced abstinence at 12m (Risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90, N=2). Personalised weight management support reduced PCWG at 12m (MD -2.58 kg, 95% CI -5.11 to -0.05, N=2) and was not associated with a significant reduction of abstinence at 12m (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.43, N=2). A very low calorie diet (VLCD) significantly reduced PCWG at end of treatment (MD -3.70 kg, 95% CI -4.82 to -2.58, N=1), but not significantly so at 12m (MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI -3.49 to 0.89, N=1). The VLCD increased chances of abstinence at 12m (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73, N=1). There was no evidence that cognitive behavioural therapy to allay concern about weight gain (CBT) reduced PCWG, but there was some evidence of increased PCWG at 6m (MD 0.74, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.24). It was associated with improved abstinence at 6m (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.13, N=2) but not at 12m (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.86, N=2). However, there was significant statistical heterogeneity.Part 2: We found no evidence that exercise interventions significantly reduced PCWG at end of treatment (MD -0.25 kg, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.29, N=4) however a significant reduction was found at 12m (MD -2.07 kg, 95% CI -3.78 to -0.36, N=3).Both bupropion and fluoxetine limited PCWG at the end of treatment (bupropion MD -1.12 kg, 95% CI -1.47 to -0.77, N=7) (fluoxetine MD -0.99 kg, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.61, N=2). There was no evidence that the effect persisted at 6m (bupropion MD -0.58 kg, 95% CI -2.16 to 1.00, N=4), (fluoxetine MD -0.01 kg, 95% CI -1.11 to 1.10, N=2) or 12m (bupropion MD -0.38 kg, 95% CI -2.00 to 1.24, N=4). There were no data on WG at 12m for fluoxetine.Overall, treatment with NRT attenuated PCWG at the end of treatment (MD -0.69 kg, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.51, N=19), with no strong evidence that the effect differed for the different forms of NRT. There was evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity caused by one study which reported a 4.3 kg reduction in PCWG due to NRT. With this study removed, the difference in weight change at end of treatment was -0.45 kg (95% CI -0.66 to -0.27, N=18). There was no evidence of an effect on PCWG at 12m (MD -0.42 kg, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.08, N=15).We found evidence that varenicline significantly reduced PCWG at end of treatment (MD -0.41 kg, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.19, N=11), but this effect was not maintained at 6 or 12m. Three studies compared the effect of bupropion to varenicline. Participants taking bupropion gained significantly less weight at the end of treatment (-0.51 kg (95% CI -0.93 to -0.09 kg), N=3). Direct comparison showed no significant difference in PCWG between varenicline and NRT.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although some pharmacotherapies tested to limit PCWG show evidence of short-term success, other problems with them and the lack of data on long-term efficacy limits their use. Weight management education only, is not effective and may reduce abstinence. Personalised weight management support may be effective and not reduce abstinence, but there are too few data to be sure. One study showed a VLCD increased abstinence but did not prevent WG in the longer term. CBT to accept WG did not limit PCWG and may not promote abstinence in the long term. Exercise interventions significantly reduced weight in the long term, but not the short term. More studies are needed to clarify whether this is an effect of treatment or a chance finding. Bupropion, fluoxetine, NRT and varenicline reduce PCWG while using the medication. Although this effect was not maintained one year after stopping smoking, the evidence is insufficient to exclude a modest long-term effect. The data are not sufficient to make strong clinical recommendations for effective programmes to prevent weight gain after cessation.

Exercise interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Taking regular exercise may help people give up smoking by moderating nicotine withdrawal and cravings, and by helping to manage weight gain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether exercise-based interventions alone, or combined with a smoking cessation programme, are more effective than a smoking cessation intervention alone.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2011, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for studies including the terms 'exercise' or 'physical activity'. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Dissertation Abstracts and CINAHL using the terms 'exercise' or 'physical activity' and 'smoking cessation'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials which compared an exercise programme alone, or an exercise programme as an adjunct to a cessation programme, with a cessation programme, recruiting smokers or recent quitters, and with a follow up of six months or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on study characteristics and smoking outcomes. Because of differences in studies we summarized the results narratively, making no attempt at meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 15 trials, seven of which had fewer than 25 people in each treatment arm. They varied in the timing and intensity of the smoking cessation and exercise programmes. Three studies showed significantly higher abstinence rates in a physically active group versus a control group at end of treatment. One of these studies also showed a significant benefit for exercise versus control on abstinence at the three-month follow up and a benefit for exercise of borderline significance (p = 0.05) at the 12-month follow up. One study showed significantly higher abstinence rates for the exercise group versus a control group at the three-month follow up but not at the end of treatment or 12-month follow up. The other studies showed no significant effect for exercise on abstinence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only one of the 15 trials offered evidence for exercise aiding smoking cessation at a 12-month follow up. All the other trials were too small to reliably exclude an effect of intervention, or included an exercise intervention which was insufficiently intense to achieve the desired level of exercise. Trials are needed with larger sample sizes, sufficiently intense interventions, equal contact control conditions, and measures of exercise adherence and change in physical activity in both exercise and comparison groups.

Using decision tree analysis to identify risk factors for relapse to smoking

This research used classification tree analysis and logistic regression models to identify risk factors related to short- and long-term abstinence. Baseline and cessation outcome data from two smoking cessation trials, conducted from 2001 to 2002 in two Midwestern urban areas, were analyzed. There were 928 participants (53.1% women, 81.8% White) with complete data. Both analyses suggest that relapse risk is produced by interactions of risk factors and that early and late cessation outcomes reflect different vulnerability factors. The results illustrate the dynamic nature of relapse risk and suggest the importance of efficient modeling of interactions in relapse prediction.

The Wisconsin Predicting Patients' Relapse questionnaire

INTRODUCTION

Relapse is the most common smoking cessation outcome. Accurate prediction of relapse likelihood could be an important clinical tool used to influence treatment selection or duration. The aim of this research was to develop a brief clinical relapse proneness questionnaire to be used with smokers interested in quitting in a clinical setting where time is at a premium.

METHODS

Diverse items assessing constructs shown in previous research to be related to relapse risk, such as nicotine dependence and self-efficacy, were evaluated to determine their independent contributions to relapse prediction. In an exploratory dataset, candidate items were assessed among smokers motivated to quit smoking who enrolled in one of three randomized controlled smoking cessation trials. A cross-validation dataset was used to compare the relative predictive power of the new instrument against the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) at 1-week, 8-week, and 6-month postquit assessments.

RESULTS

We selected seven items with relatively nonoverlapping content for the Wisconsin Predicting Patient's Relapse (WI-PREPARE) measure, a brief, seven-item questionnaire that taps physical dependence, environmental factors, and individual difference characteristics. Cross-validation analyses suggested that the WI-PREPARE demonstrated a stronger prediction of relapse at 1-week and 8-week postquit assessments than the FTND and comparable prediction to the FTND at a 6-month postquit assessment.

DISCUSSION

The WI-PREPARE is easy to score, suggests the nature of a patient's relapse risk, and predicts short- and medium-term relapse better than the FTND.

Exercise interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Taking regular exercise may help people give up smoking by moderating nicotine withdrawal and cravings, and by helping to manage weight gain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether exercise-based interventions alone or combined with a smoking cessation programme are more effective than a smoking cessation intervention alone.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In July 2008, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for studies including the terms 'exercise' or 'physical activity'. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Dissertation Abstracts and CINAHL.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials which compared an exercise programme alone, or an exercise programme as an adjunct to a cessation programme, with a cessation programme, recruiting smokers or recent quitters, and with a follow up of six months or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on study characteristics and smoking outcomes. Because of differences in studies we summarized the results narratively, making no attempt at meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 13 trials, six of which had fewer than 25 people in each treatment arm. They varied in the timing and intensity of the smoking cessation and exercise programmes. Three studies showed significantly higher abstinence rates in a physically active group versus a control group at end of treatment. One of these studies also showed a significant benefit for exercise versus control on abstinence at the three-month follow up and a benefit for exercise of borderline significance (P = 0.05) at the 12-month follow up. One study showed significantly higher abstinence rates for the exercise group versus a control group at the three-month follow up but not at the end of treatment or 12-month follow up. The other studies showed no significant effect for exercise on abstinence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only one of the 13 trials offered evidence for exercise aiding smoking cessation at a 12-month follow up. All the other trials were too small to exclude reliably an effect of intervention, or included an exercise intervention which was insufficiently intense to achieve the desired level of exercise. Trials are needed with larger sample sizes, sufficiently intense interventions, equal contact control conditions, measures of exercise adherence and change in physical activity in both exercise and comparison groups.

Evaluating the validities of different DSM-IV-based conceptual constructs of tobacco dependence

AIM

To compare the concurrent and predictive validities of two subsets of DSM-IV criteria for nicotine dependence (tolerance and withdrawal; withdrawal; difficulty controlling use; and use despite harm) to the concurrent and predictive validity of the full DSM-IV criteria.

DESIGN

Analysis of baseline and outcome data from three randomized clinical trials of cigarette smoking treatment.

SETTING

San Francisco, California.

PARTICIPANTS

Two samples of cigarette smokers (n = 810 and 322), differing with regard to baseline characteristics and treatment received, derived from three randomized clinical trials.

MEASUREMENTS

DSM-IV nicotine dependence criteria were measured at baseline with a computerized version of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for DSM-IV (DIS-IV). Additional baseline measures included the Fagerström Test of Nicotine Dependence (FTND), number of cigarettes smoked per day, breath carbon monoxide (CO) level, the Minnesota Nicotine Withdrawal Scale (MNWS), the Michigan Nicotine Reinforcement Questionnaire (M-NRQ) and the Profile of Mood States (POMS). Seven-day point-prevalence abstinence was assessed at week 12.

FINDINGS

Full DSM-IV criteria displayed greater concurrent validity than either of the two subsets of criteria. However, DSM-IV symptoms accounted for only a nominal amount of the variance in baseline smoking-related characteristics and were unrelated to smoking abstinence at week 12. Cigarettes smoked per day was the only significant predictor of abstinence at week 12.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the findings do not provide a compelling alternative to the full set of DSM-IV nicotine dependence criteria, its poor psychometric properties and low predictive power limit its clinical and research utility.

Assessing tobacco dependence: a guide to measure evaluation and selection

Tobacco dependence is a key construct in tobacco research. This paper describes a construct validation approach to dependence assessment and describes key conceptual and psychometric criteria on which to evaluate putative measures of dependence. Five current dependence scales-the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence; the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.); the Cigarette Dependence Scale; the Nicotine Dependence Syndrome Scale; and the Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives-are examined with respect to these critical dimensions. Recommendations are made regarding the use of each measure.

Exercise interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Taking regular exercise may help people give up smoking by moderating nicotine withdrawal and cravings.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether exercise-based interventions alone or combined with a smoking cessation programme are more effective than a smoking cessation intervention alone.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register for studies including the terms 'exercise' or 'physical activity' in July 2004. In August 2004 we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Dissertation Abstracts and SPORTDiscus.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials which compared an exercise programme alone, or an exercise programme as an adjunct to a cessation programme, with a cessation programme, recruiting smokers or recent quitters, and with a follow up of six months or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on study characteristics and smoking outcomes. Because of differences in studies we summarized the results narratively, making no attempt at meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 11 trials, six of which had fewer than 25 people in each treatment arm. They varied in the timing and intensity of the smoking cessation and exercise programmes. Three studies showed significantly higher abstinence rates in a physically active group versus a control group at end of treatment. One of these studies also showed a benefit for exercise versus control on abstinence at both the three month and 12 month follow-up points. One study showed significantly higher abstinence rates for the exercise group versus a control group at the three month follow up but not at the end of treatment or at 12 month follow up. The other studies showed no significant effect for exercise on abstinence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only one of the 11 trials offered evidence for exercise aiding smoking cessation. All but one of the other trials were too small to conclude that the intervention was ineffective, or included an exercise intervention which was insufficiently intense to achieve the desired level of exercise. Trials are needed with larger sample sizes, sufficiently intense exercise interventions, equal contact control conditions and measures of exercise adherence.

Treatment of tobacco dependence in alcoholics

Because of the high morbidity and mortality that alcoholic smokers experience from tobacco-caused diseases, treatment for tobacco dependence among alcoholics is warranted. Much progress has been made during the last decade in addressing tobacco dependence in alcoholism treatment units. Treatment of tobacco dependence in alcoholic smokers does not seem to cause excessive relapse to drinking and, in fact, stopping smoking may enhance abstinence from drinking. Therefore, treatment for alcoholic smokers should take place whenever and wherever the patient comes in contact with the health care system. Because alcoholic smokers as a rule are more dependent on nicotine than their nonalcoholic counterparts, they may need more intensive pharmacotherapy and behavioral therapy. Because many of them have experienced 12-step approaches to recovery, that same technology can be used to initiate and maintain abstinence from tobacco use. Moreover, several pharmacologic options exist to treat tobacco dependence in alcoholic smokers. However, the efficacy of several pharmacologic therapies for alcoholic smokers needs to be tested. In addition, further research is needed on effective treatments for recovering alcoholics of various racial/ethnic backgrounds.

Current perspectives on smoking cessation among substance abusers

The prevalence of nicotine dependence among alcohol or other substance abusers is extremely high, and surveys have revealed that many patients in drug or alcohol treatment programs are interested in smoking cessation. However, smoking cessation has not been a traditional focus in clinical interventions for this population. Recent evidence from clinical trials among individuals abusing alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, or opioids have shown the following: 1) smokers with a past but not current history of alcohol dependence have a similar rate of success compared with non-alcoholic smokers; 2) tobacco abstinence does not increase alcohol relapse; 3) continued smoking adversely affects treatment for marijuana dependence; 4) patterns of cocaine and nicotine use are interrelated; 5) smoking cessation rates among opioid-dependent individuals are several times lower than in the general US population. Smoking cessation is indicated for substance dependent persons already in recovery and may protect against relapse to the illicit drug of abuse.