Smoking cessation may not improve quality of life in atherosclerotic patients

Smoking cessation for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Smoking is a leading cause of cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly coronary heart disease (CHD). However, quitting smoking may prevent secondary CVD events in people already diagnosed with CHD.  OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of smoking cessation on death from CVD and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), in people with incident CHD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the trials registries clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We ran all searches from database inception to 15 April 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cohort studies, and both cluster- and individually randomised controlled trials of at least six months' duration. We treated all included studies as cohort studies and analysed them by smoking status at follow-up. Eligible studies had to recruit adults (> 18 years) with diagnosed CHD and who smoked tobacco at diagnosis, and assess whether they quit or continued smoking during the study. Studies had to measure at least one of our included outcomes with at least six months' follow-up. Our primary outcomes were death from CVD and MACE. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, new-onset angina and change in quality of life.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction.  We assessed the risk of bias for the primary outcomes using the ROBINS-I tool. We compared the incidence of death from CVD and of MACE (primary outcomes) between participants who quit smoking versus those who continued to smoke for each included study that reported these outcomes. We also assessed differences in all-cause mortality, incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction, incidence of non-fatal stroke and new onset angina. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). For our outcome, change in quality of life, we calculated the pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for the difference in change in quality of life from baseline to follow-up between those who had quit smoking and those who had continued to smoke. For all meta-analyses we used a generic inverse variance random-effects model and quantified statistical heterogeneity using the I²statistic. We assessed the certainty of evidence for our primary outcomes using the eight GRADE considerations relevant to non-randomised studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 68 studies, consisting of 80,702 participants. For both primary outcomes, smoking cessation was associated with a decreased risk compared with continuous smoking: CVD death (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.75; I² = 62%; 18 studies, 17,982 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and MACE (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.71; I² = 84%; 15 studies, 20,290 participants; low-certainty evidence). These findings were robust to our planned sensitivity analyses. Through subgroup analysis, for example comparing adjusted versus non-adjusted estimates, we found no evidence of differences in the effect size. While there was substantial heterogeneity, this was primarily in magnitude rather than the direction of the effect estimates. Overall, we judged 11 (16%) studies to be at moderate risk of bias and 18 (26%) at serious risk, primarily due to possible confounding. There was also some evidence of funnel plot asymmetry for MACE outcomes. For these reasons, we rated our certainty in the estimates for CVD death as moderate and MACE as low.  For our secondary outcomes, smoking cessation was associated with a decreased risk in all-cause mortality (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.66; I² = 58%; 48 studies, 59,354 participants), non-fatal myocardial infarction (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.72; I² = 2%; 24 studies, 23,264 participants) and non-fatal stroke (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.90; I² = 0%; 9 studies, 11,352 participants). As only one study reported new onset of angina, we did not conduct meta-analysis, but this study reported a lower risk in people who stopped smoking. Quitting smoking was not associated with a worsening of quality of life and suggested improvement in quality of life, with the lower bound of the CI also consistent with no difference (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.24; I² = 48%; 8 studies, 3182 participants).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that smoking cessation is associated with a reduction of approximately one-third in the risk of recurrent cardiovascular disease in people who stop smoking at diagnosis. This association may be causal, based on the link between smoking cessation and restoration of endothelial and platelet function, where dysfunction of both can result in increased likelihood of CVD events.  Our results provide evidence that there is a decreased risk of secondary CVD events in those who quit smoking compared with those who continue, and that there is a suggested improvement in quality of life as a result of quitting smoking. Additional studies that account for confounding, such as use of secondary CVD prevention medication, would strengthen the evidence in this area.

Associations Between Smoking Status and Physical and Mental Health-Related Quality of Life Among Individuals With Mobility Impairments

BACKGROUND

In the general population, quitting smoking is associated with improved health-related quality of life (QoL), but this association has not been examined in smokers with chronic mobility impairments (MIs).

PURPOSE

We examined associations between smoking status and health-related QoL over 6 months, and whether relationships are moderated by depression and MI severity.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of a smoking cessation induction trial among smokers with MIs (n = 241, 56% female, 36% Black) assessed at baseline, and 4 and 6 months after. Participants were grouped into "Smokers" (smoking at 4 and 6 months), "Abstainers" (quit at 4 and 6 months), "Relapsers" (relapsed at 6 months), and "Late-quitters" (quit at 6 months). Physical and mental health-related QoL was assessed with the Short-Form Health Survey. Depression was defined as scores ≥10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire, and MI severity by the use of skilled care for personal needs. Data were analyzed with linear mixed models.

RESULTS

Aggregating across time, among nondepressed participants, compared with "Smokers," the "Abstainer," and "Late-quitter" groups improved their physical health scores. "Late-quitters" also improved compared with "Relapsers." Among the total sample, compared with "Smokers," "Abstainers" showed improvements in mental health scores overtime, whereas "Relapsers" improved their score at 4 months, and "Late-quitters" improved at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Quitting smoking is associated with improvements in physical health-related QoL regardless of the severity of MI but only among those without depression at baseline. For mental health-related QoL, associations with quitting smoking were independent of baseline depression and severity of MI.

Smoking cessation for improving mental health

BACKGROUND

There is a common perception that smoking generally helps people to manage stress, and may be a form of 'self-medication' in people with mental health conditions. However, there are biologically plausible reasons why smoking may worsen mental health through neuroadaptations arising from chronic smoking, leading to frequent nicotine withdrawal symptoms (e.g. anxiety, depression, irritability), in which case smoking cessation may help to improve rather than worsen mental health.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the association between tobacco smoking cessation and change in mental health.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the trial registries clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, from 14 April 2012 to 07 January 2020. These were updated searches of a previously-conducted non-Cochrane review where searches were conducted from database inception to 13 April 2012.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included controlled before-after studies, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysed by smoking status at follow-up, and longitudinal cohort studies. In order to be eligible for inclusion studies had to recruit adults who smoked tobacco, and assess whether they quit or continued smoking during the study. They also had to measure a mental health outcome at baseline and at least six weeks later.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcomes were change in depression symptoms, anxiety symptoms or mixed anxiety and depression symptoms between baseline and follow-up. Secondary outcomes  included change in symptoms of stress, psychological quality of life, positive affect, and social impact or social quality of life, as well as new incidence of depression, anxiety, or mixed anxiety and depression disorders. We assessed the risk of bias for the primary outcomes using a modified ROBINS-I tool.  For change in mental health outcomes, we calculated the pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the difference in change in mental health from baseline to follow-up between those who had quit smoking and those who had continued to smoke. For the incidence of psychological disorders, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. For all meta-analyses we used a generic inverse variance random-effects model and quantified statistical heterogeneity using I2. We conducted subgroup analyses to investigate any differences in associations between sub-populations, i.e. unselected people with mental illness, people with physical chronic diseases. We assessed the certainty of evidence for our primary outcomes (depression, anxiety, and mixed depression and anxiety) and our secondary social impact outcome using the eight GRADE considerations relevant to non-randomised studies (risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, publication bias, magnitude of the effect, the influence of all plausible residual confounding, the presence of a dose-response gradient).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 102 studies representing over 169,500 participants. Sixty-two of these were identified in the updated search for this review and 40 were included in the original version of the review.  Sixty-three studies provided data on change in mental health, 10 were included in meta-analyses of incidence of mental health disorders, and 31 were synthesised narratively.  For all primary outcomes, smoking cessation was associated with an improvement in mental health symptoms compared with continuing to smoke: anxiety symptoms (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.13; 15 studies, 3141 participants; I2 = 69%; low-certainty evidence); depression symptoms: (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.21; 34 studies, 7156 participants; I2 = 69%' very low-certainty evidence);  mixed anxiety and depression symptoms (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.22; 8 studies, 2829 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence).  These findings were robust to preplanned sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analysis generally did not produce evidence of differences in the effect size among subpopulations or based on methodological characteristics. All studies were deemed to be at serious risk of bias due to possible time-varying confounding, and three studies measuring depression symptoms were judged to be at critical risk of bias overall. There was also some evidence of funnel plot asymmetry. For these reasons, we rated our certainty in the estimates for anxiety as low, for depression as very low, and for mixed anxiety and depression as moderate. For the secondary outcomes, smoking cessation was associated with an improvement in symptoms of stress (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.04; 4 studies, 1792 participants; I2 = 50%), positive affect (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.33; 13 studies, 4880 participants; I2 = 75%), and psychological quality of life (SMD 0.11, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16; 19 studies, 18,034 participants; I2 = 42%). There was also evidence that smoking cessation was not associated with a reduction in social quality of life, with the confidence interval incorporating the possibility of a small improvement (SMD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; 9 studies, 14,673 participants; I2 = 0%). The incidence of new mixed anxiety and depression was lower in people who stopped smoking compared with those who continued (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86; 3 studies, 8685 participants; I2 = 57%), as was the incidence of anxiety disorder (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.12; 2 studies, 2293 participants; I2 = 46%). We deemed it inappropriate to present a pooled estimate for the incidence of new cases of clinical depression, as there was high statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 87%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, these data provide evidence that mental health does not worsen as a result of quitting smoking, and very low- to moderate-certainty evidence that smoking cessation is associated with small to moderate improvements in mental health.  These improvements are seen in both unselected samples and in subpopulations, including people diagnosed with mental health conditions. Additional studies that use more advanced methods to overcome time-varying confounding would strengthen the evidence in this area.

Biological and Psychological Factors Associated With Smoking Abstinence Six Years Post-Stroke

Introduction

Tobacco use is a public health problem causing high morbidity and mortality, including stroke. This study evaluates predictive factors of smoking cessation in the long term after stroke.

Methods

We followed a cohort of 110 consecutive smokers with stroke for up to 6 years. Sociodemographic variables, stroke severity, insular involvement, stage of change in smoking habit before stroke and disruption of addiction variable (smoking cessation, absence of relapses, having stopped smoking without difficulties and not having had urge) were evaluated.

Results

Twenty patients died during follow-up and two patients were lost leaving a final cohort of 88 patients. The prevalence of smoking cessation in the remaining population was 65.9% post-stroke, 54.9% at 3-6 months, 40.9% at 1 year and 37.5% at 6 years. Prevalence was significantly higher in patients with insular involvement during the first year of follow-up, but not at 6 years. Disruption immediately after stroke (OR = 10.1; 95% CI = 2.5 to 40.1) and intention to change before having the stroke (OR = 4.8; 95% CI = 1.0 to 23.0) were predictors of abstinence at 6 years after adjusting for age, sex and stroke severity at baseline. When tobacco abstinence at the 1 year follow-up was included in the model, this factor was the best predictor of tobacco abstinence at 1 year (OR = 10.5; 95% CI = 2.2 to 49.4).

Conclusions

Intention of change, having the disruption criteria, and abstinence 1 year after stroke were predictors of abstinence at 6 years. An insular lesion in the acute phase of stroke does not determine the tobacco use status at 6 years.

Implications

This study is the first prospective investigation with a cohort of stroke patients to examine the long-term influence of biological and psychological factors on smoking cessation. Tobacco abstinence 1 year after stroke was the strongest predictor of abstinence at 6 years of follow-up. The effect of the insular cortex lesion on tobacco cessation, which had been relevant during the first year, no longer had an influence over the longer period studied here.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Improvements in health-related quality of life among smokers who quit after hospitalization

Few rigorous longitudinal assessments have examined health-related quality of life (HRQoL) changes after smoking cessation, especially among recently-hospitalized smokers. We compared the change in HRQoL between those who did or did not quit smoking 6 months after hospital discharge. Participants were 1357 smokers recruited for a cessation trial between 2012 and 2014 while hospitalized at two hospitals in Massachusetts and one in Pennsylvania. Cessation was defined as biochemically confirmed 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6 months or as self-reported continuous abstinence at 1, 3, or 6 months post discharge. HRQoL measures included a single-item global health measure (SF1); the Patient Health Questionnaire for Depression and Anxiety (PHQ-4) screening tool for psychological distress; and the EQ-5D-5L health utilities measure. Multivariable models controlled for age, sex, race, education, insurance, study site, study arm, discharge diagnoses, and baseline HRQoL. Improvements in HRQoL were evident in the first month after discharge among those achieving abstinence compared to continuing smokers. At 6 months post-discharge, those with biochemically confirmed cessation were 30% more likely to report at least good health by the SF1 (aRR 95% CI 1.14-1.45), 19% less likely to screen positive for psychological distress (aRR, 95% CI 0.68-0.93), and had EQ-5D-5L health utility scores 0.05 points (95% CI 0.02-0.08) higher than continuing smokers. Results were similar when assessed as a function of self-reported cessation. Hospital-initiated smoking cessation is associated with rapid statistically and clinically significant improvements in a range of HRQoL measures, providing an additional tool clinicians and health systems could use to encourage smoking cessation.

Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Association of Smoking Status With Angina and Health-Related Quality of Life After Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) decreases the risk of recurrent AMI and mortality by 30% to 50%, but many patients continue to smoke. The association of smoking with angina and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after AMI is unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients in 2 US multicenter AMI registries (n=4003) were assessed for smoking and HRQOL at admission and 1, 6, and 12 months after AMI. Angina and HRQOL were measured with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire and Short Form-12 Physical and Mental Component Scales. At admission, 29% never had smoked, 34% were former smokers (quit before AMI), and 37% were active smokers, of whom 46% quit by 1 year (recent quitters). In hierarchical, multivariable, regression models that adjusted for sociodemographic, clinical and treatment factors, never and former smokers had similar and the best HRQOL in all domains. Recent quitters had intermediate HRQOL levels, with angina and Short Form-12 Mental Component Scale scores similar to never smokers. Persistent smokers had worse HRQOL in all domains compared with never smokers and worse Short Form-12 Mental Component Scale scores than recent quitters.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking after AMI is associated with more angina and worse HRQOL in all domains, whereas smokers who quit after AMI have similar angina levels and mental health as never smokers. These observations may help encourage patients to stop smoking after AMI.

Economic evaluation of a telephone- and face-to-face-delivered counseling intervention for smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of two smoking cessation counseling interventions differing in their modality for patients diagnosed with coronary heart disease from a societal perspective.

METHODS

In a randomized controlled trial conducted in Dutch hospital wards, cardiac patients who smoked prior to admission were allocated to usual care (n = 245), telephone counseling (n = 223) or face-to-face counseling (n = 157). The counseling interventions lasted for 3 months and were complemented by nicotine patches. Baseline histories were obtained, and interviews took place 6 months after hospitalization to assess self-reported smoking status and quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quitter and cost-utility ratios per QALY were calculated and presented in acceptability curves. Uncertainty was accounted for by sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Using continued abstinence as the outcome measure showed that telephone counseling had the highest probability of being cost-effective. Face-to-to-face counseling was also more cost-effective than usual care. No significant improvements and differences in QALYs between the three conditions were found. Varying costs and effect estimations revealed that the results of the primary analyses were robust.

CONCLUSIONS

Assuming a willingness-to-pay of €20,000 per abstinent patient, telephone counseling would be a highly cost-effective smoking cessation intervention assisting cardiac patients to quit. However, the lack of consensus concerning the willingness-to-pay per quitter impedes drawing firm conclusions. Moreover, studies with extended follow-up periods are needed to capture late relapses and possible differences in QALYs.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by two authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by another.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in May 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author prescreened search results and two authors agreed inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials. One author extracted data and another checked them.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Psychosocial interventions for smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

An economic evaluation of a video- and text-based computer-tailored intervention for smoking cessation: a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Background

Although evidence exists for the effectiveness of web-based smoking cessation interventions, information about the cost-effectiveness of these interventions is limited.

Objective

The study investigated the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of two web-based computer-tailored (CT) smoking cessation interventions (video- vs. text-based CT) compared to a control condition that received general text-based advice.

Methods

In a randomized controlled trial, respondents were allocated to the video-based condition (N = 670), the text-based condition (N = 708) or the control condition (N = 721). Societal costs, smoking status, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; EQ-5D-3L) were assessed at baseline, six-and twelve-month follow-up. The incremental costs per abstinent respondent and per QALYs gained were calculated. To account for uncertainty, bootstrapping techniques and sensitivity analyses were carried out.

Results

No significant differences were found in the three conditions regarding demographics, baseline values of outcomes and societal costs over the three months prior to baseline. Analyses using prolonged abstinence as outcome measure indicated that from a willingness to pay of €1,500, the video-based intervention was likely to be the most cost-effective treatment, whereas from a willingness to pay of €50,400, the text-based intervention was likely to be the most cost-effective. With regard to cost-utilities, when quality of life was used as outcome measure, the control condition had the highest probability of being the most preferable treatment. Sensitivity analyses yielded comparable results.

Conclusion

The video-based CT smoking cessation intervention was the most cost-effective treatment for smoking abstinence after twelve months, varying the willingness to pay per abstinent respondent from €0 up to €80,000. With regard to cost-utility, the control condition seemed to be the most preferable treatment. Probably, more time will be required to assess changes in quality of life. Future studies with longer follow-up periods are needed to investigate whether cost-utility results regarding quality of life may change in the long run.

Trial Registration

Nederlands Trial Register NTR3102

Impact of smoking cessation therapy on health-related quality of life

BACKGROUND

Smoking is associated with poor health-related quality of life (HRQL); however, there are few data regarding effects of smoking cessation treatment on HRQL. The purpose of this study was to describe changes in HRQL after smoking cessation treatment and to elucidate factors influencing this improvement in HRQL.

SETTING

Smoking cessation clinic at a 358-bed community teaching hospital in Japan.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of cigarette smokers who participated in a 3-month smoking cessation programme. HRQL was assessed at baseline and at the end of the programme using the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). The abstinence was subjected to verification by an exhaled CO level of ≤10 ppm.

RESULTS

Of 570 participants in the programme, 277 (mean age: 60.9±12.2 y, male/female=180/97) were eligible; excluded were 277 participants who dropped out of the programme and 16 for whom SGRQs were not available or were incomplete. Initial prescribed pharmacotherapy was transdermal nicotine patches in 160 participants and varenicline in 117. At 12 weeks, SGRQ scores improved significantly as follows (mean±SD): Δ symptoms score, -5.7±16.0; Δ activity score, -4.4±18.3; Δ impact score, -5.3±13.5 and Δ total score, -5.1±12.2 (p<0.0001 in all cases). There were no significant differences in changes in SGRQ scores between quitters (n=183) and continuous smokers (n=94). In a multivariate analysis, only the average nicotine addiction level according to the Tobacco Dependence Screener test was associated with a clinically significant improvement in the SGRQ (OR 1.35 (95% CI 1.15 to 1.59)). Marked reduction in number of cigarettes smoked with a corresponding low median exhaled CO level of 7 ppm in continuous smokers following therapy was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking cessation treatment improved HRQL regardless of quit status. Baseline nicotine addiction level was predictive of that improvement.

Behavioural interventions as adjuncts to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition.

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by both authors. Data were extracted by one author and checked by the other.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by both authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by the other.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Association of Smoking Status With Quality of Life in a Cross-sectional Population-Based Sample of Iranian Adults

This study aimed to examine the association between smoking status and quality of life (QOL) in a population-based sample of Iranian adults. The study used data from the Isfahan Healthy Heart Program (IHHP). A total of 5830 participants were included. They were categorized as current, former, or never smokers. QOL was evaluated using the World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF), Persian version. Data entry was performed using SPSS (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL) software version 13.0. QOL was associated with marital status ( P = .014), education ( P = .001), occupation ( P = .007), and income ( P < .000) among current smokers. After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, smoking decreased QOL among current (odds ratio [OR] = 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.97-0.99) and past (OR = 0.97; 95%CI = 0.95-0.98) smokers relative to never smokers. QOL is lower among Iranian current and past smokers, and the relation is independent of underlying sociodemographic factors.

Associations between health-related quality of life and smoking status among a large sample of U.S. adults

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between self-perceived health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and smoking status.

METHODS

We used data from 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, USA participants in four states (n=17,800) to compare the HRQoL of current smokers who unsuccessfully attempted to quit (unsuccessful quitters), former smokers, and never smokers with the HRQoL of current smokers who made no attempts to quit (non-quitters).

RESULTS

Overall, unsuccessful quitters were more likely than non-quitters to report frequent mental distress, physical distress, and pain but not frequent depressive symptoms; former and never smokers were less likely than non-quitters to report frequent depressive symptoms. When study subjects were stratified by sex, these associations held true for men, but not for women. Among women, the prevalence of frequent mental and physical distress among former smokers and never smokers was not significantly different from the prevalence among non-quitters, whereas unsuccessful quitters were 2.4 times more likely to report frequent mental distress and 2.1 times more likely to report frequent physical distress than were non-quitters.

CONCLUSIONS

Certain HRQoL characteristics were worse among smokers who unsuccessfully attempted to quit and better among former smokers than among smokers who made no attempts to quit.

Impact of smoking and smoking cessation on health-related quality of life in women in the Nurses' Health Study

PURPOSE

To examine the relationship between smoking and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and the impact of quitting smoking on changes in HRQOL among women in the two Nurses' Health Study (NHS) cohorts (n = 158,736) who were 29 to 71 years of age in 1992/1993 when they reported data on smoking status and completed the Short Form-36 version 1 (SF-36).

METHODS

At baseline, the SF-36 physical component scores (SF-PCS) and mental component scores (SF-MCS) were examined by smoking status (never, 56%, former, 32%, and current, 13%) within 10-year age groups. Smoking characteristics were analyzed as correlates of SF-36. Changes in smoking status and SF-PCS and SF-MCS, adjusted for comorbid disease and other covariates, were reassessed at 4-year intervals among current smokers in 1992/1993 and those who either continued smoking after 4 and 8 years or reported not smoking at both intervals.

RESULTS

Smokers had lower HRQOL (SF-PCS and SF-MCS) as compared to never and former smokers. Current smoking, cigarettes per day and time since quitting were associated with significantly lower SF-PCS and SF-MCS. Continuing smokers and those who quit had significant declines in SF-PCS over time and significant improvements in SF-MCS at 8 years. There was minimal difference between groups, with some greater improvements in SF-MCS among those reporting non-smoking at 8 years. These findings support the lower ratings of HRQOL by smokers, but quitting alone, after an average of 21 years of smoking, did not improve HRQOL. Further study focused on the HRQOL impact of quitting smoking is needed.

The effects of smoking abstinence on symptom burden and quality of life among persons living with HIV/AIDS

Persons living with HIV/AIDS who are current smokers are more likely to develop disease-related adverse health outcomes compared to nonsmokers with HIV/AIDS. However, the impact of smoking cessation on health outcomes such as symptom status and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) has not yet been assessed within this population. This study examined the effects of changes in smoking status on HIV-related symptom burden and health-related quality of life outcomes in a multiethnic, low-income population of persons living with HIV/AIDS. Patients (n = 95) from a large, inner city HIV/AIDS clinic were enrolled in a smoking cessation trial providing nicotine replacement therapy, counseling, and self-help written materials. Biochemically verified smoking status, length of smoking abstinence, HIV-related symptom burden, and HRQOL were assessed approximately 3-months posttrial enrollment. A series of multiple linear regression models was performed to assess the associations between the smoking status variables and the health outcomes at follow-up while controlling for baseline levels. Length of smoking abstinence was significantly associated (p = 0.02) with HIV-related symptom burden. Specifically, increasing number of consecutive days of smoking abstinence during the 3-month follow-up period was associated with lower levels of HIV-related symptom burden at the time of follow-up. However, 24-hour smoking prevalence was not significantly (p > 0.05) associated with changes in either HIV-related symptom burden or HRQOL. These findings suggest that smoking cessation can significantly improve symptom burden for individuals living with HIV/AIDS. Moreover, these benefits are observable as early as 3 months after quitting and are positively correlated with the length of abstinence.

Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the review is to determine the effects of individual counselling.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for studies with counsel* in any field. Date of the most recent search: December 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors extracted data. The intervention and population, method of randomization and completeness of follow up were recorded.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 21 trials with over 7000 participants. Eighteen trials compared individual counselling to a minimal behavioural intervention, four compared different types or intensities of counselling. Individual counselling was more effective than control. The odds ratio for successful smoking cessation was 1.56 (95% confidence interval 1.32 to 1.84). In a subgroup of three trials where all participants received nicotine replacement therapy the point estimate of effect was smaller and did not reach significance (odds ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.83). We failed to detect a greater effect of intensive counselling compared to brief counselling (odds ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 1.56).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Smoking cessation counselling can assist smokers to quit.