Randomized controlled trial of two cigarette quit programmes in coronary care patients after acute myocardial infarction

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.

[Manejo de la cesación tabáquica entre residentes de cardiología de Iberoamérica]

Introducción y objetivos:

Si bien los cardiólogos asisten cotidianamente a pacientes que sufren daño por el tabaquismo, no se conoce el grado de formación que reciben sobre esta problemática durante su residencia. Debido a ello nos propusimos evaluar las preferencias y prácticas de los residentes de cardiología para la cesación tabáquica de los pacientes que asisten.

Materiales y métodos:

Encuesta cerrada, prefijada, voluntaria y anónima entre médicos que realizaban la especialidad de cardiología en cinco países de Latinoamérica y España.

Resultados:

Se encuestaron 716 residentes: un 62.4% de Argentina, un 19% de México, un 6.8% de España, un 6.7% de Chile, un 3.2% de Uruguay y un 1.9% de Paraguay. Con respecto a la importancia que asignaban a esta problemática (empleando una escala de 1-10), el 85.8% le asignó a esta pregunta una puntuación de 8 o mayor. Mientras el 80.5% de los participantes expresó dar consejo breve antitabáquico sistemáticamente, solamente un 27.7% empleaban terapia farmacológica con este fin. Entre quienes no empleaban terapia farmacológica, el 58.3% manifestó que el motivo era no encontrarse familiarizados con los tratamientos. El 62.9% de los encuestados dijo no haber recibido ningún tipo de formación en esta problemática. Aquellos residentes que recibieron algún tipo de formación manifestaron sentirse más preparados (p < 0.0001).

Conclusión:

Encontramos un bajo conocimiento sobre el tratamiento farmacológico y relativamente poca seguridad por parte de los residentes de cardiología para brindar asistencia en cesación tabáquica. Consideramos esencial incluir este tópico en la formación de los futuros cardiólogos a fin de lograr una prevención cardiovascular más integral.

Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Smoking Cessation in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome

Over 30% of the nearly 1 million North Americans hospitalized annually with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are smokers. Despite a substantially increased risk of morbidity and mortality, 2/3 of patients who quit smoking after ACS return to smoking within 1 year. To summarize the evidence of smoking cessation in patients hospitalized after ACS, we systematically reviewed all randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic and behavioral smoking cessation therapies in patients with ACS. In addition, we reviewed the clinical considerations surrounding the use of smoking cessation therapies, including their broad mechanisms of action and possible alternative treatments, including cardiac rehabilitation programs and electronic cigarettes. A total of 7 randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria (4 pharmacotherapies and 3 behavioral therapies). In pharmacologic trials, only varenicline increased point prevalence abstinence at 12 months. Behavioral interventions produced significantly improved abstinence rates at 6 and 12 months. However, these studies had substantial limitations affecting their generalizability. Overall, currently available smoking cessation therapies are limited in their efficacy in patients hospitalized after ACS. Because of the relative scarcity of data and the urgency of establishing clinical guidelines, there is a critical need to continue examining the efficacy and safety of smoking cessation interventions in patients hospitalized after ACS.

Nursing interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals, including nurses, frequently advise people to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions in adults. To establish whether nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions are more effective than no intervention; are more effective if the intervention is more intensive; differ in effectiveness with health state and setting of the participants; are more effective if they include follow-ups; are more effective if they include aids that demonstrate the pathophysiological effect of smoking.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register and CINAHL in January 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of smoking cessation interventions delivered by nurses or health visitors with follow-up of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data independently. 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. Where statistically and clinically appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model and reported the outcome as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria, nine of which are new for this update. Pooling 44 studies (over 20,000 participants) comparing a nursing intervention to a control or to usual care, we found the intervention increased the likelihood of quitting (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38); however, statistical heterogeneity was moderate (I² = 50%) and not explained by subgroup analysis. Because of this, we judged the quality of evidence to be moderate. Despite most studies being at unclear risk of bias in at least one domain, we did not downgrade the quality of evidence further, as restricting the main analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the effect estimate. Subgroup analyses found no evidence that high-intensity interventions, interventions with additional follow-up or interventions including aids that demonstrate the pathophysiological effect of smoking are more effective than lower intensity interventions, or interventions without additional follow-up or aids. There was no evidence that the effect of support differed by patient group or across healthcare settings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate quality evidence that behavioural support to motivate and sustain smoking cessation delivered by nurses can lead to a modest increase in the number of people who achieve prolonged abstinence. There is insufficient evidence to assess whether more intensive interventions, those incorporating additional follow-up, or those incorporating pathophysiological feedback are more effective than one-off support. There was no evidence that the effect of support differed by patient group or across healthcare settings.

Efficacy and Safety of Smoking Cessation Interventions in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease

Background—

Although the efficacy and safety of smoking cessation interventions are well established, their efficacy and safety in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) remain unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and behavioral smoking cessation interventions in CVD patients via a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Methods and Results—

EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Specialized Register were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and behavioral therapies in CVD patients. Outcomes of interest were smoking abstinence at 6 and 12 months, defined using the most rigorous criteria reported. Data were pooled across studies for direct comparisons using random-effects models. Network meta-analysis using a graph-theoretical approach was used to generate the indirect comparisons. Seven pharmacotherapy randomized controlled trials (n=2809) and 17 behavioral intervention randomized controlled trials (n=4666) met our inclusion criteria. Our network meta-analysis revealed that varenicline (relative risk [RR]: 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34–5.21) and bupropion (RR: 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01–2.01) were associated with greater abstinence than placebo. The evidence about nicotine replacement therapies was inconclusive (RR: 1.22; 95% CI, 0.72–2.06). Telephone therapy (RR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.15–1.88) and individual counseling (RR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.17–2.28) were both more efficacious than usual care, whereas in-hospital behavioral interventions were not (RR: 1.05; 95% CI, 0.78–1.43).

Conclusions—

Our meta-analysis suggests varenicline and bupropion, as well as individual and telephone counseling, are efficacious for smoking cessation in CVD patients.

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.

Uptake and efficacy of a systematic intensive smoking cessation intervention using motivational interviewing for smokers hospitalised for an acute coronary syndrome: a multicentre before-after study with parallel group comparisons

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of a proactive approach with a reactive approach to offer intensive smoking cessation intervention using motivational interviewing (MI).

DESIGN

Before-after comparison in 2 academic hospitals with parallel comparisons in 2 control hospitals.

SETTING

Academic hospitals in Switzerland.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers hospitalised for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

INTERVENTION

In the intervention hospitals during the intervention phase, a resident physician trained in MI systematically offered counselling to all smokers admitted for ACS, followed by 4 telephone counselling sessions over 2 months by a nurse trained in MI. In the observation phase, the in-hospital intervention was offered only to patients whose clinicians requested a smoking cessation intervention. In the control hospitals, no intensive smoking cessation intervention was offered.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was 1 week smoking abstinence (point prevalence) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the number of smokers who received the in-hospital smoking cessation intervention and the duration of the intervention.

RESULTS

In the intervention centres during the intervention phase, 87% of smokers (N=193/225) received a smoking cessation intervention compared to 22% in the observational phase (p<0.001). Median duration of counselling was 50 min. During the intervention phase, 78% received a phone follow-up for a median total duration of 42 min in 4 sessions. Prescription of nicotine replacement therapy at discharge increased from 18% to 58% in the intervention phase (risk ratio (RR): 3.3 (95% CI 2.4 to 4.3; p≤0.001). Smoking cessation at 12-month increased from 43% to 51% comparing the observation and intervention phases (RR=1.20, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.46; p=0.08; 97% with outcome assessment). In the control hospitals, the RR for quitting was 1.02 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.25; p=0.8, 92% with outcome assessment).

CONCLUSIONS

A proactive strategy offering intensive smoking cessation intervention based on MI to all smokers hospitalised for ACS significantly increases the uptake of smoking cessation counselling and might increase smoking abstinence at 12 months.

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.

Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register in May 2013 for studies mentioning relapse prevention or maintenance in title, abstracts or keywords.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were screened and data extracted by one review author, and checked by a second. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or by referral to a third review author.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-three studies met inclusion criteria but were heterogeneous in terms of populations and interventions. We considered 41 studies that randomly assigned abstainers separately from studies that randomly assigned participants before their quit date.Upon looking at studies of behavioural interventions that randomly assigned abstainers, we detected no benefit of brief and 'skills-based' relapse prevention methods for women who had quit smoking because of pregnancy, or for smokers undergoing a period of enforced abstinence during hospitalisation or military training. We also failed to detect significant effects of behavioural interventions in trials in unselected groups of smokers who had quit on their own or through a formal programme. Amongst trials randomly assigning smokers before their quit date and evaluating the effects of additional relapse prevention components, we found no evidence of benefit of behavioural interventions or combined behavioural and pharmacotherapeutic interventions in any subgroup. Overall, providing training in skills thought to be needed for relapse avoidance did not reduce relapse, but most studies did not use experimental designs best suited to the task and had limited power to detect expected small differences between interventions. For pharmacological interventions, extended treatment with varenicline significantly reduced relapse in one trial (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.36). Pooling of six studies of extended treatment with bupropion failed to detect a significant effect (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.35). Two small trials of oral nicotine replacement treatment (NRT) failed to detect an effect, but treatment compliance was low, and in two other trials of oral NRT in which short-term abstainers were randomly assigned, a significant effect of intervention was noted.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At the moment, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of any specific behavioural intervention to help smokers who have successfully quit for a short time to avoid relapse. The verdict is strongest for interventions focused on identifying and resolving tempting situations, as most studies were concerned with these. Little research is available regarding other behavioural approaches.Extended treatment with varenicline may prevent relapse. Extended treatment with bupropion is unlikely to have a clinically important effect. Studies of extended treatment with nicotine replacement are needed.

Nursing interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals, including nurses, frequently advise people to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized Register and CINAHL in June 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of smoking cessation interventions delivered by nurses or health visitors with follow-up of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data independently. 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. Where statistically and clinically appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model and reported the outcome as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooling 35 studies (over 17,000 participants) comparing a nursing intervention to a control or to usual care, we found the intervention to increase the likelihood of quitting (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.20 to 1.39). In a subgroup analysis the estimated effect size was similar for the group of seven studies using a particularly low intensity intervention but the confidence interval was wider. There was limited indirect evidence that interventions were more effective for hospital inpatients with cardiovascular disease than for inpatients with other conditions. Interventions in non-hospitalized adults also showed evidence of benefit. Eleven studies comparing different nurse-delivered interventions failed to detect significant benefit from using additional components. Six studies of nurse counselling on smoking cessation during a screening health check or as part of multifactorial secondary prevention in general practice (not included in the main meta-analysis) found nursing intervention to have less effect under these conditions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate the potential benefits of smoking cessation advice and/or counselling given by nurses, with reasonable evidence that intervention is effective. The evidence for an effect is weaker when interventions are brief and are provided by nurses whose main role is not health promotion or smoking cessation. The challenge will be to incorporate smoking behaviour monitoring and smoking cessation interventions as part of standard practice so that all patients are given an opportunity to be asked about their tobacco use and to be given advice and/or counselling to quit along with reinforcement and follow-up.

Effectiveness of brief structured interventions on risk factor modification for patients with coronary heart disease: a systematic review

Background  The physical and psychosocial benefits of participation in cardiac rehabilitation following a coronary event have well been established. Despite these benefits there is strong evidence that participation in traditional cardiac rehabilitation programs remains low. Various models of cardiac rehabilitation have been implemented including the use of brief structured interventions to enable modification of coronary risk factors. Objectives  The objective of this review was to determine the effect of brief structured interventions on risk factor modification in patients with coronary heart disease. Search strategy  A literature search was performed using the following databases MEDLINE (1966-2006), CINAHL (1982-2006), EMBASE (1980-current) and up to the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2, 2006 of Cochrane Library). In addition, the reference lists of relevant trials and conference proceedings were also scrutinised. Company representatives, experts and investigators were contacted to elicit further information. Selection criteria  All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the effects of brief structured interventions on risk factor modification in patients with coronary heart disease were considered for inclusion in the review. Data collection and analysis  Eligibility of the trials for inclusion in the review, details of eligible trials and the methodological quality of the trials were assessed independently by two reviewers. Relative risks for dichotomous data and a weighted mean difference for continuous data were calculated with 95% confidence intervals. Where synthesis was inappropriate, trials were considered separately. Main results  Seventeen trials involving a total of 4725 participants were included in the final review: three trials compared the effects of brief structured interventions on diet modification; seven on smoking cessation; and seven on multiple risk factors. Two trials involving 76 patients compared brief structured intervention versus usual care for dietary modification. Although there was a tendency for more participants in the intervention arm to lose weight at the 12-week follow up and achieve target cholesterol levels at the 6-month follow up, these results were not statistically significant. Only one small trial involving 36 patients compared brief structured intervention and extensive intervention for dietary modification and demonstrated a significant reduction in the percentage of energy obtained from fat and saturated fat intake among participants receiving extensive intervention. However, no difference in fish, fruit and vegetable intake between the groups was evident. Six trials involving 2020 patients compared brief structured intervention versus usual care for smoking cessation. There was no difference in the smoking cessation rates at the 3- and 6-week follow up, however, there was evidence of a benefit of brief structured interventions for smoking cessation at the 3-, 6- and 12-month follow up. In the only trial that and compared brief structured intervention and extensive intervention for smoking cessation in 254 participants there was no clear difference of a likelihood of smoking cessation between the two groups. In the seven trials that compared brief structured intervention and usual care for multiple risk factor modification there was evidence of a benefit of the intervention on behavioural changes such as fat intake, weight loss and consequently on reduction in the body mass index, smoking cessation and physical activity among the participants. The findings concerning the effect on blood pressure, blood glucose levels and the lipid profile, however, remain inconclusive. Conclusions  There is suggestive but inconclusive evidence from the trials of a benefit in the use of brief interventions for risk factor modification in patients with coronary heart disease. This review, however, supports the concept that brief interventions for patients with coronary heart disease can have beneficial effects on risk factor modification and consequently on progression of coronary heart disease. Further trials using larger sample sizes need to be undertaken to demonstrate the benefits of brief structured intervention targeted at the modification of single or multiple risk factors.

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.

Secondary prevention in the intensive care unit: does intensive care unit admission represent a "teachable moment?"

OBJECTIVES

Cigarette smoking and unhealthy alcohol use are common causes of preventable morbidity and mortality that frequently result in admission to an intensive care unit. Understanding how to identify and intervene in these conditions is important because critical illness may provide a "teachable moment." Furthermore, the Joint Commission recently proposed screening and receipt of an intervention for tobacco use and unhealthy alcohol use as candidate performance measures for all hospitalized patients. Understanding the efficacy of these interventions may help drive evidence-based institution of programs, if deemed appropriate.

DATA SOURCES

A summary of the published medical literature on interventions for unhealthy alcohol use and smoking obtained through a PubMed search.

SUMMARY

Interventions focusing on behavioral counseling for cigarette smoking in hospitalized patients have been extensively studied. Several studies include or focus on critically ill patients. The evidence demonstrates that behavioral counseling leads to increased rates of smoking cessation but the effect depends on the intensity of the intervention. The identification of unhealthy alcohol use can lead to brief interventions. These interventions are particularly effective in trauma patients with unhealthy alcohol use. However, the current literature would not support routine delivery of brief interventions for unhealthy alcohol use in the medical intensive care unit population.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive care unit admission represents a "teachable moment" for smokers and some patients with unhealthy alcohol use. Future studies should assess the efficacy of brief interventions for unhealthy alcohol use in medical intensive care unit patients. In addition, identification of the timing and optimal individual to conduct the intervention will be necessary.

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.

Are psychoeducational smoking cessation interventions for coronary heart disease patients effective? Meta-analysis of interventions

PURPOSE

This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of psychoeducational smoking cessation interventions for coronary heart disease (CHD) patients; and to examine behaviour change techniques used in interventions and their suitability to change behavioural determinants.

METHODS

Multiple bibliographic databases and references of retrieved articles were searched for relevant randomized controlled studies. One reviewer extracted and a second reviewer checked data from included trials. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to estimate pooled relative risks for smoking cessation and mortality outcomes. Behaviour change techniques used and their suitability to change behavioural determinants were evaluated using a framework by Michie, Johnston, Francis, Hardeman, and Eccles.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies were included. Psychoeducational interventions statistically significantly increased point prevalent (RR 1.44, 95% CI, 1.20-1.73) and continuous (RR 1.51, 95% CI, 1.18-1.93) smoking cessation, and statistically non-significantly decreased total mortality (RR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.46-1.15). Included studies used a mixture of theories in intervention planning. Despite superficial differences, interventions appear to deploy similar behaviour change techniques, targeted mainly at motivation and goals, beliefs about capacity, knowledge, and skills.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychoeducational smoking cessation interventions appear effective for patients with CHD. Although questions remain about what characteristics distinguish an effective intervention, analysis indicates similarities between the behaviour change techniques used in such interventions.

Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register in August 2008 for studies mentioning relapse prevention or maintenance in title, abstracts or keywords.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were screened and data extracted by one author and checked by a second. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or referral to a third author.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-four studies met inclusion criteria, but were heterogeneous in terms of populations and interventions. We considered 36 studies that randomized abstainers separately from studies that randomized participants prior to their quit date.Looking at studies of behavioural interventions which randomised abstainers, we detected no benefit of brief and 'skills-based' relapse prevention methods for women who had quit smoking due to pregnancy, or for smokers undergoing a period of enforced abstinence during hospitalisation or military training. We also failed to detect significant effects of behavioural interventions in trials in unselected groups of smokers who had quit on their own or with a formal programme. Amongst trials randomising smokers prior to their quit date and evaluating the effect of additional relapse prevention components we also found no evidence of benefit of behavioural interventions in any subgroup. Overall, providing training in skills thought to be needed for relapse avoidance did not reduce relapse, but most studies did not use experimental designs best suited to the task, and had limited power to detect expected small differences between interventions. For pharmacological interventions, extended treatment with varenicline significantly reduced relapse in one trial (risk ratio 1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.36). Pooling of five studies of extended treatment with bupropion failed to detect a significant effect (risk ratio 1.17; 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.39). Two small trials of oral nicotine replacement treatment (NRT) failed to detect an effect but treatment compliance was low and in two other trials of oral NRT randomizing short-term abstainers there was a significant effect of intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At the moment there is insufficient evidence to support the use of any specific behavioural intervention for helping smokers who have successfully quit for a short time to avoid relapse. The verdict is strongest for interventions focusing on identifying and resolving tempting situations, as most studies were concerned with these. There is little research available regarding other behavioural approaches. Extended treatment with varenicline may prevent relapse. Extended treatment with bupropion is unlikely to have a clinically important effect. Studies of extended treatment with nicotine replacement are needed.

Smoking cessation interventions for hospitalized smokers: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

A hospital admission provides an opportunity to help people stop smoking. Providing smoking cessation advice, counseling, or medication is now a quality-of-care measure for US hospitals. We assessed the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions initiated during a hospital stay.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group's register for randomized and quasirandomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions (behavioral counseling and/or pharmacotherapy) that began during hospitalization and had a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. Two authors independently extracted data from each article, with disagreements resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

Thirty-three trials met inclusion criteria. Smoking counseling that began during hospitalization and included supportive contacts for more than 1 month after discharge increased smoking cessation rates at 6 to 12 months (pooled odds ratio [OR], 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.44-1.90). No benefit was found for interventions with less postdischarge contact. Counseling was effective when offered to all hospitalized smokers and to the subset admitted for cardiovascular disease. Adding nicotine replacement therapy to counseling produced a trend toward efficacy over counseling alone (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.92-2.35). One study added bupropion hydrochloride to counseling, which had a nonsignificant result (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.79-3.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Offering smoking cessation counseling to all hospitalized smokers is effective as long as supportive contacts continue for more than 1 month after discharge. Adding nicotine replacement therapy to counseling may further increase smoking cessation rates and should be offered when clinically indicated, especially to hospitalized smokers with nicotine withdrawal symptoms.

Psychosocial interventions for smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND

Quitting smoking improves prognosis after a cardiac event, but many patients continue to smoke, and improved cessation aids are urgently required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions such as behavioural therapeutic intervention, telephone support and self-help interventions in helping people with coronary heart disease (CHD) to quit smoking.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (issue 2 2003), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and PSYNDEX were searched from the start of the database to August 2003. Results were supplemented by cross-checking references, and handsearches in selected journals and systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled studies (RCTs) in patients with CHD with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. After initial selection of the studies three trials with methodological flaws (e.g. high drop out) were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Abstinence rates were computed according to an intention to treat analysis if possible, or if not on follow-up results only.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 16 RCTs meeting inclusion criteria. 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. The trials mostly included older male patients with CHD, predominantly myocardial infarction. Overall there was a positive effect of interventions on abstinence after 6 to 12 months (odds ratio (OR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.22), but substantial heterogeneity between trials. Studies with validated assessment of smoking status at follow-up had lower efficacy (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.11) than non-validated trials (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.93). Studies were clustered by intervention strategy and intensity of the intervention. Clustering reduced heterogeneity, although many trials used more than one type of intervention. The ORs for different strategies were similar (behavioural therapies OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.14; telephone support OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.97; self-help OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.96). More intense interventions showed increased quit rates (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.65) whereas brief interventions did not appear effective (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.22). Two trials had longer term follow-up, and did not show any benefits after 5 years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychosocial smoking cessation interventions are effective in promoting abstinence at 1 year, provided they are of sufficient duration. Further studies, with longer follow-up, should compare different psychosocial intervention strategies, or the addition of a psychosocial intervention strategy to pharmacological therapy (e.g. nicotine replacement therapy) compared with pharmacological treatment alone.

Nursing interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals, including nurses, frequently advise patients to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register and CINAHL in July 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of smoking cessation interventions delivered by nurses or health visitors with follow up of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data independently. 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. Where statistically and clinically appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect model and reported the outcome as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-one studies comparing a nursing intervention to a control or to usual care found the intervention to significantly increase the likelihood of quitting (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.38). There was heterogeneity among the study results, but pooling using a random effects model did not alter the estimate of a statistically significant effect. In a subgroup analysis there was weaker evidence that lower intensity interventions were effective (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.62). There was limited indirect evidence that interventions were more effective for hospital inpatients with cardiovascular disease than for inpatients with other conditions. Interventions in non-hospitalized patients also showed evidence of benefit. Nine studies comparing different nurse-delivered interventions failed to detect significant benefit from using additional components. Five studies of nurse counselling on smoking cessation during a screening health check, or as part of multifactorial secondary prevention in general practice (not included in the main meta-analysis) found nursing intervention to have less effect under these conditions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate the potential benefits of smoking cessation advice and/or counselling given by nurses to patients, with reasonable evidence that intervention is effective. The evidence of an effect is weaker when interventions are brief and are provided by nurses whose main role is not health promotion or smoking cessation. The challenge will be to incorporate smoking behaviour monitoring and smoking cessation interventions as part of standard practice, so that all patients are given an opportunity to be asked about their tobacco use and to be given advice and/or counselling to quit along with reinforcement and follow up.

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

An admission to hospital provides an opportunity to help people stop smoking. Individuals may be more open to help at a time of perceived vulnerability, and may find it easier to quit in an environment where smoking is restricted or prohibited. Initiating smoking cessation services during hospitalisation may help more people to make and sustain a quit attempt.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register which includes papers identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PSYCINFO in January 2007, and CINAHL in August 2006 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 for psychiatric disorders or substance abuse, studies that did not report abstinence rates and studies with follow up of less than six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-three 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 (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.44 to 1.90; 17 trials). No statistically significant benefit was found for less intensive counselling interventions. The one study that tested a single brief (<=15 minutes) in-hospital intervention did not find it to be effective (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.67). Counselling of longer duration during the hospital stay was not associated with a higher quit rate (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.29, eight trials). Even counselling that began in the hospital but had less than one month of supportive contact after discharge did not show significant benefit (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.31, six trials). Adding nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) did not produce a statistically significant increase in cessation over what was achieved by intensive counselling alone (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.35, five studies). The one study that tested the effect of adding bupropion to intensive counselling had a similar nonsignificant effect (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.06). A similar pattern of results was observed in smokers admitted to hospital because of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this subgroup, intensive intervention with follow-up support increased the odds of smoking cessation (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.15, 11 trials), 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.

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. These interventions are effective regardless of the patient's admitting diagnosis. lnterventions of lower intensity or shorter duration have not been shown to be effective in this setting. There is insufficient direct evidence to conclude that adding NRT or bupropion to intensive counselling increases cessation rates over what is achieved by counselling alone, but the evidence of benefit for NRT has strengthened in this update and the point estimates are compatible with research in other settings showing that NRT and bupropion are effective.

Intensive Smoking Cessation Intervention Reduces Mortality in High-Risk Smokers With Cardiovascular Disease

PURPOSES

To compare an intensive smoking cessation intervention against usual care in hospitalized high-risk smokers with acute cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

A total of 209 hospitalized smokers were randomized to the intensive intervention (n = 109) or to usual care (n = 100). Usual care consisted only of counseling and printed educational material provided prior to hospital discharge. Intensive treatment consisted of a minimum of 12 weeks of behavior modification counseling and individualized pharmacotherapy provided at no cost to the participant. Smoking status in all subjects was confirmed biochemically (ie, by measuring expired carbon monoxide) at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after randomization. Outcomes included point prevalence and continuous abstinence smoking cessation rates, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

At each follow-up interval, point prevalence and continuous abstinence smoking cessation rates were significantly greater in the intensive-treatment group compared to the usual-care group. At 24 months, continuous abstinence smoking cessation rates were 33% in the intensive-treatment group and 9% in the usual-care group (p < 0.0001). Over the 2-year follow-up period, 41 patients in the usual-care group were hospitalized compared to 25 patients in the intensive-treatment group (relative risk reduction [RRR], 44%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 16 to 63%; p = 0.007). The all-cause mortality rate was 2.8% in the intensive-treatment group and 12.0% in the usual-care group (RRR, 77%; 95% CI, 27 to 93%; p = 0.014). The absolute risk reduction in mortality was 9.2% with a number needed to treat of 11.

CONCLUSION

Hospitalized smokers, especially those with cardiovascular disease, should undergo treatment with a structured intensive cessation intervention. The duration of the initial treatment should be 3 months.

Smoking Cessation for Women: Evidence of the Effectiveness of Nursing Interventions

The association between cigarette smoke and disease is direct; cigarette smoking is a major cause of disease in the United States. More than 400,000 people die each year as a result of cigarette smoke. Smoking is responsible for almost 90% of all cases of lung cancer. Smoking cessation reduces the risk of lung cancer within five years. Cessation also may reduce the risk of other cancers, such as cancer of the head and neck, pancreas, and esophagus. Smoking causes skin wrinkling and sexual dysfunction, which can be mediated by smoking cessation. Even after a diagnosis of cancer, smoking cessation improves the odds of survival and reduces the risk of developing a second cancer.

Effectiveness of brief structured interventions on risk factor modification for patients with coronary heart disease: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The physical and psychosocial benefits of participation in cardiac rehabilitation following a coronary event have well been established. Despite these benefits there is strong evidence that participation in traditional cardiac rehabilitation programs remains low. Various models of cardiac rehabilitation have been implemented including the use of brief structured interventions to enable modification of coronary risk factors.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to determine the effect of brief structured interventions on risk factor modification in patients with coronary heart disease.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A literature search was performed using the following databases MEDLINE (1966-2006), CINAHL (1982-2006), EMBASE (1980-current) and up to the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2, 2006 of Cochrane Library). In addition, the reference lists of relevant trials and conference proceedings were also scrutinised. Company representatives, experts and investigators were contacted to elicit further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the effects of brief structured interventions on risk factor modification in patients with coronary heart disease were considered for inclusion in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Eligibility of the trials for inclusion in the review, details of eligible trials and the methodological quality of the trials were assessed independently by two reviewers. Relative risks for dichotomous data and a weighted mean difference for continuous data were calculated with 95% confidence intervals. Where synthesis was inappropriate, trials were considered separately.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen trials involving a total of 4725 participants were included in the final review: three trials compared the effects of brief structured interventions on diet modification; seven on smoking cessation; and seven on multiple risk factors.Two trials involving 76 patients compared brief structured intervention versus usual care for dietary modification. Although there was a tendency for more participants in the intervention arm to lose weight at the 12-week follow up and achieve target cholesterol levels at the 6-month follow up, these results were not statistically significant. Only one small trial involving 36 patients compared brief structured intervention and extensive intervention for dietary modification and demonstrated a significant reduction in the percentage of energy obtained from fat and saturated fat intake among participants receiving extensive intervention. However, no difference in fish, fruit and vegetable intake between the groups was evident.Six trials involving 2020 patients compared brief structured intervention versus usual care for smoking cessation. There was no difference in the smoking cessation rates at the 3- and 6-week follow up, however, there was evidence of a benefit of brief structured interventions for smoking cessation at the 3-, 6- and 12-month follow up. In the only trial that and compared brief structured intervention and extensive intervention for smoking cessation in 254 participants there was no clear difference of a likelihood of smoking cessation between the two groups.In the seven trials that compared brief structured intervention and usual care for multiple risk factor modification there was evidence of a benefit of the intervention on behavioural changes such as fat intake, weight loss and consequently on reduction in the body mass index, smoking cessation and physical activity among the participants. The findings concerning the effect on blood pressure, blood glucose levels and the lipid profile, however, remain inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

There is suggestive but inconclusive evidence from the trials of a benefit in the use of brief interventions for risk factor modification in patients with coronary heart disease. This review, however, supports the concept that brief interventions for patients with coronary heart disease can have beneficial effects on risk factor modification and consequently on progression of coronary heart disease. Further trials using larger sample sizes need to be undertaken to demonstrate the benefits of brief structured intervention targeted at the modification of single or multiple risk factors.

Efficacy of psychosocial interventions for smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Quitting smoking improves prognosis after a cardiac event. Therefore smoking cessation is highly recommended for patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), but many patients continue to smoke, and improved cessation aids are urgently required.

PURPOSE

The objective was to conduct a systematic review of the efficacy of psychosocial interventions to quit smoking in patients with CHD.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases were searched from the start of the database to August 2003. Search terms were coronary or cardio or heart or cvd or chd and smok* and cessation or absti*. Results were supplemented by cross-checking references. More than 2,000 papers were screened in a first step. Eligibility of studies was assessed (by reviewer Jürgen Barth) and reasons for exclusion were coded. Abstinence rates were computed both according to an intention to treat analysis, and based on follow-up results only.

RESULTS

We found 19 randomized controlled trials, comparing a specific psychosocial intervention with "usual care," with a minimum of 6-month follow-up. Interventions consist of behavioral therapeutic approaches, telephone support, and self-help material. The trials mostly included older male patients with CHD, predominantly myocardial infarction. Overall results found a positive effect of interventions on abstinence after 6 to 12 months (OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.24-2.21), but substantial heterogeneity between trials. Clustering the trials by type of intervention reduced heterogeneity, although many trials used more than one type of intervention. Trials involving behavioral therapies or telephone contact were little different from self-help techniques (OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.28-2.13 for behavioral therapies; OR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.26-1.98 for telephone support; OR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.10-1.97 for self-help). Treatment intensity was associated with study outcome. More intense interventions showed increased quit rates (OR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.61-2.35) whereas interventions of low intensity did not appear effective (OR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.70-1.22). Studies with validated assessment of smoking status at follow-up had lower efficacy than nonvalidated trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking cessation interventions are effective in promoting abstinence up to 1 year, provided they are of sufficient intensity with a minimum length of 1 month. Further studies should compare different psychosocial intervention strategies, or the combination of a psychosocial intervention strategy with nicotine replacement therapy or bupropion compared with nicotine replacement or bupropion alone.

Nursing intervention and smoking cessation: meta-analysis update

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to determine through meta-analysis the effects of nursing-delivered smoking-cessation interventions.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies met inclusion criteria in this updated meta-analysis. Twenty-six studies compared a nursing intervention with a control or usual care group of adults and found interventions of high and low intensity to modestly increase the odds of quitting (1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.22-1.51). The study results demonstrated heterogeneity; using a random effects model did not make a difference. There was evidence that interventions were most effective for hospital inpatients with cardiovascular disease than for patients with other conditions (odds ratio 2.14, confidence interval 1.39-3.31). Interventions in nonhospitalized adults were beneficial as well; no effect was found for additive intervention components. Counseling during health-screening programs or as part of multifactorial secondary preventions programs was found to be the least effective. The challenge will be to incorporate smoking-cessation interventions into evidence-based nursing practice.

Congestive Heart Failure in Chronic Kidney Disease: Disease-specific Mechanisms of Systolic and Diastolic Heart Failure and Management

There is a high burden of cardiac disease in the CKD population. Severe LVH, dilated cardiomyopathy, and coronary artery disease occur frequently and result in the manifestations of CHF,which is probably more important with respect to prognosis than symptomatic. Multiple risk factors for CVD include traditional risk factors and those unique to the CKD population. Furthermore, the distinctive aspects of CKD patients sometimes warrant special consideration in making management decisions. Nonetheless, interventions such as controlling hypertension, specific pharmacologic options, lifestyle modification, anemia management, and early nephrology referral are recommended when appropriate.

Multiple risk factor intervention in chronic kidney disease: management of cardiac disease in chronic kidney disease patients

This article describes the relationship between CVD and CKD, the current state of knowledge regarding medical interventions, and underscores the importance of attending to both CVD and kidney disease aspects in each individual. The burden of cardiac disease in CKD patients is high with severe LVH, dilated cardiomyopathy and coronary artery disease occurring frequently. This predisposes to congestive heart failure, angina, myocardial infarction, and death. Multiple risk factors for cardiac disease exist and include hypertension, diabetes, smoking, anemia, abnormal calcium and phosphate metabolism, inflammation, and LVH. The efficacy of risk factor intervention has not been established in these populations, although there is good evidence for good blood pressure control, partial correction of anemia, treatment of dyslipidemia, cessation of tobacco use, correction of divalent abnormalities, and aspirin us. Appropriate use of ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and statins should be encouraged.

Smoking cessation in patients with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation is an important factor in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiac events. Although multiple clinical trials have examined the efficacy of various smoking cessation aids, a systematic review of the efficacy and safety of smoking cessation aids has not been done.

METHODS

This paper reviews the effects of smoking on coronary artery disease. In addition, we identify randomized controlled trials examining the efficacy and safety of smoking cessation aids from the years 1970 to 2004. We then pooled the trial results for 6- and 12-month rates of continuous smoking abstinence.

RESULTS

The 4 principal mechanisms of cardiovascular damage caused by cigarette smoking are induction of a hypercoagulable state, reduction of oxygen delivery because of carbon monoxide, coronary vasoconstriction, and nicotine-induced hemodynamic effects. Our review of clinical trials suggests that each smoking cessation aid improved continuous smoking abstinence rates at both 6 and 12 months compared with placebo. The 12-month abstinence rates for the active versus placebo treatments were the following: nicotine patch 11.1% versus 5.5%, nicotine gum 27.3% versus 16.5%, nicotine inhaler 16.9% versus 9.1%, bupropion 18.5% versus 6.6%, and behavioral therapy 20.0% versus 13.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

Several smoking-related mechanisms are responsible for the development of atherosclerosis and the induction of cardiac events. Smoking cessation aids effect a modest increase in smoking abstinence at 12 months compared with placebo. In spite the apparent success of cessation aids, smoking relapse rates are quite high.

Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Several treatments can help smokers make a successful quit attempt, but many initially successful quitters relapse over time. There are interventions designed to help prevent relapse.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction group trials register in September 2004 for studies mentioning relapse prevention or maintenance in title, abstracts or keywords.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were screened and data extracted by one author and checked by a second. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or referral to a third author.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty studies met inclusion criteria, but were heterogeneous in terms of populations and interventions. We considered studies that randomized abstainers separately from studies that randomized participants prior to their quit date. We detected no benefit of brief and 'skills-based' relapse prevention interventions for women who had quit smoking due to pregnancy, or for smokers undergoing a period of enforced abstinence. We also failed to detect significant effects in trials in other smokers who had quit on their own or with a formal programme. Amongst trials recruiting smokers and evaluating the effect of additional relapse prevention components we also found no evidence of benefit in any subgroup. We did not find that providing training in skills thought to be needed for relapse avoidance reduced relapse, but most studies did not use experimental designs best suited to the task, and had limited power to detect expected small differences between interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At the moment there is insufficient evidence to support the use of any specific intervention for helping smokers who have successfully quit for a short time to avoid relapse. The verdict is strongest for interventions focusing on identifying and resolving tempting situations, as most studies were concerned with these. There is very little research available regarding other approaches. Until more evidence becomes available it may be more efficient to focus resources on supporting the initial cessation attempt rather than on additional relapse prevention efforts.

Nursing interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Health care professionals, including nurses, frequently advise patients to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register and CINAHL in June 2003.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of smoking cessation interventions delivered by nurses or health visitors with follow-up of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty studies comparing a nursing intervention to a control or to usual care found the intervention to significantly increase the odds of quitting (Peto Odds Ratio 1.47, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.68). There was heterogeneity among the study results, but pooling using a random effects model did not alter the estimate of a statistically significant effect. There was limited evidence that interventions were more effective for hospital inpatients with cardiovascular disease than for inpatients with other conditions. Interventions in non-hospitalized patients also showed evidence of benefit. Five studies comparing different nurse-delivered interventions failed to detect significant benefit from using additional components. Five studies of nurse counselling on smoking cessation during a screening health check, or as part of multifactorial secondary prevention in general practice (not included in the main meta-analysis) found the nursing intervention to have less effect under these conditions.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate the potential benefits of smoking cessation advice and/or counselling given by nurses to patients, with reasonable evidence that interventions can be effective. The challenge will be to incorporate smoking behaviour monitoring and smoking cessation interventions as part of standard practice, so that all patients are given an opportunity to be asked about their tobacco use and to be given advice and/or counselling to quit along with reinforcement and follow-up.

Applying multiple interventions in chronic kidney disease

The medical, social, and financial burdens posed by end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are many and growing rapidly. People generally reach ESRD as a result of chronic progressive kidney disease. Advancing kidney disease is associated with several treatable complications, which if poorly managed reduce the length and quality of life. In addition, there are strong links between chronic kidney disease (CKD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Many people with less advanced CKD will die or suffer complications of CVD before reaching ESRD. Efficacious interventions, such as lowering blood pressure and treating dyslipidemia, can substantially reduce the progression of both kidney and cardiovascular disease. Careful management of these complex and interrelated diseases and risk factors requires detailed longitudinal and focused care which does not seem to be optimally delivered by health service practitioners organized in traditional ways. A disease management approach offers promise in this setting, but requires further study of clinical and economic impact.

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

An admission to hospital provides an opportunity to help people stop smoking. Individuals may be more open to help at a time of perceived vulnerability, and may find it easier to quit in an environment where smoking is restricted or prohibited. Providing smoking cessation services during hospitalisation may help more people to attempt and sustain a quit attempt.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register, CINAHL and the Smoking and Health database in March 2002 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

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients stop smoking conducted with hospitalised patients who were current smokers or recent quitters. We excluded studies of patients admitted for psychiatric disorders or substance abuse, those that did not report abstinence rates and those with follow-up of less than six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen trials met the inclusion criteria. Intensive intervention (inpatient contact plus follow-up for at least one month) was associated with a significantly higher quit rate compared to control (Peto Odds Ratio 1.82, 95% CI 1.49-2.22, six trials). Interventions with less than a month of follow-up did not show evidence of significant benefit (Peto Odds Ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.91-1.31, seven trials). There was no evidence to judge the effect of very brief (<20 minutes) interventions delivered only during the hospital stay. Longer interventions delivered only during the hospital stay were not significantly associated with a higher quit rate (Peto Odds Ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.79-1.44, three trials). Although the interventions increased quit rates irrespective of whether nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) was used, the results for NRT were compatible with other data indicating that it increases quit rates. There was no strong evidence that clinical diagnosis affected the likelihood of quitting.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

High intensity behavioural interventions that include at least one month of follow-up contact are effective in promoting smoking cessation in hospitalised patients. The findings of the review were compatible with research in other settings showing that NRT increases quit rates.