The effect of a minimal intervention strategy in addition to nicotine replacement therapy to support smoking cessation in cardiovascular outpatients: a randomized clinical trial

Linking a peer coach physical activity intervention for older adults to a primary care referral scheme

BACKGROUND

Physical inactivity has contributed to the current prevalence of many age-related diseases, including type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Peer coach physical activity intervention are effective in increasing long term physical activity in community dwelling older adults. Linking peer coach physical activity interventions to formal care could therefore be a promising novel method to improve health in inactive older adults to a successful long-term physical activity intervention.

METHODS

We evaluated the effects of linking a peer coach physical activity intervention in Leiden, The Netherlands to primary care through an exercise referral scheme from July 2018 to April 2020. Primary care practices in the neighborhoods of three existing peer coach physical activity groups were invited to refer patients to the exercise groups. Referrals were registered at the primary care practice and participation in the peer coach groups was registered by the peer coaches of the exercise groups.

RESULTS

During the study, a total of 106 patients were referred to the peer coach groups. 5.7% of patients participated at the peer coach groups and 66.7% remained participating during the 1 year follow up. The number needed to refer for 1 long term participant was 26.5. The mean frequency of participation of the referred participants was 1.2 times a week.

CONCLUSION

Linking a peer coach physical activity intervention for older adults to a primary care referral scheme reached only a small fraction of the estimated target population. However, of the people that came to the peer coach intervention a large portion continued to participate during the entire study period. The number needed to refer to engage one older person in long term physical activity was similar to other referral schemes for lifestyle interventions. The potential benefits could be regarded proportional to the small effort needed to refer.

Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes.

DESIGN

Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results.

SETTING

Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events.

DATA SOURCES

Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model.

RESULTS

Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard.

LIMITATIONS

Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK.

FUTURE WORK

Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Active Ingredients and Mechanisms of Change in Motivational Interviewing for Smoking Cessation in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Mixed Methods Study

Background: For patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), smoking is an important risk factor for the recurrence of a cardiovascular event. Motivational interviewing (MI) may increase the motivation of the smokers to stop smoking. Data on MI for smoking cessation in patients with CAD are limited, and the active ingredients and working mechanisms of MI in smoking cessation are largely unknown. Therefore, this study was designed to explore active ingredients and working mechanisms of MI for smoking cessation in smokers with CAD, shortly after a cardiovascular event.

Methods: We conducted a qualitative multiple case study of 24 patients with CAD who participated in a randomized trial on lifestyle change. One hundred and nine audio-recorded MI sessions were coded with a combination of the sequential code for observing process exchanges (SCOPE) and the motivational interviewing skill code (MISC). The analysis of the cases consisted of three phases: single case analysis, cross-case analysis, and cross-case synthesis. In a quantitative sequential analysis, we calculated the transition probabilities between the use of MI techniques by the coaches and the subsequent patient statements concerning smoking cessation.

Results: In 12 cases, we observed ingredients that appeared to activate the mechanisms of change. Active ingredients were compositions of behaviors of the coaches (e.g., supporting self-efficacy and supporting autonomy) and patient reactions (e.g., in-depth self-exploration and change talk), interacting over large parts of an MI session. The composition of active ingredients differed among cases, as the patient process and the MI-coaching strategy differed. Particularly, change talk and self-efficacy appeared to stimulate the mechanisms of change “arguing oneself into change” and “increasing self-efficacy/confidence.”

Conclusion: Harnessing active ingredients that target the mechanisms of change “increasing self-efficacy” and “arguing oneself into change” is a good MI strategy for smoking cessation, because it addresses the ambivalence of a patient toward his/her ability to quit, while, after the actual cessation, maintaining the feeling of urgency to persist in not smoking in the patient.

A Meta-Analysis of Brief Tobacco Interventions for Use in Integrated Primary Care

Introduction

The integration of behavioral health services in primary care settings presents an opportunity to enhance the delivery of tobacco cessation interventions in the primary care setting, but guidance on evidence-based treatments for tobacco use disorder that fits the brief format of integrated primary care (IPC) is limited. This meta-analysis summarizes the outcomes of brief behavioral interventions targeting tobacco use that can be delivered in IPC settings.

Methods

A literature search was conducted to locate empirical studies examining tobacco cessation interventions that could be implemented in an IPC setting. A random effects meta-analytic approach was utilized with odds ratios as the effect size. Subgroup analyses were conducted to determine the extent to which a number of study, participant, and intervention characteristics affected treatment outcome.

Results

A total of 36 studies were included (n = 12975 patients). Patients in the intervention groups exhibited significantly greater odds of smoking cessation compared with those in the comparison groups (OR = 1.78, p < .001). Subgroup analyses did not reveal significant sources of heterogeneity attributable to moderators such as methodological quality, gender, bioverification, follow-up time period, or intervention characteristics (such as setting, type, or length of intervention).

Conclusions

Brief tobacco cessation interventions that can be delivered in IPC settings were found to be effective. Future research in this area might evaluate ways to improve the dissemination and implementation of these types of interventions in IPC settings.

Implications

The integration of behavioral health services into primary care presents a unique opportunity to increase the delivery of tobacco cessation interventions, as behavioral health providers in these settings are experts in behavior change interventions and may have more time to deliver these interventions than primary care providers. Results from the current meta-analysis demonstrate that brief tobacco cessation interventions that can be implemented in the IPC setting are effective. Future research in this area might examine ways to improve the dissemination and implementation of brief interventions for tobacco use in IPC settings.

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.

Proactive text messaging (GetReady2Quit) and nicotine replacement therapy to promote smoking cessation among smokers in primary care: A pilot randomized trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Most smokers see a physician each year, but few use any assistance when they try to quit. Text messaging programs improve smoking cessation in community and school settings; however, their efficacy in a primary care setting is unclear. The current trial assesses the feasibility and preliminary clinical outcomes of text messaging and mailed nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) among smokers in primary care.

METHODS

In this single-center pilot randomized trial, eligible smokers in primary care are offered brief advice by phone and randomly assigned to one of four interventions: (1) Brief advice only, (2) text messages targeted to primary care patients and tailored to quit readiness, (3) a 2-week supply of nicotine patches and/or lozenges (NRT), and (4) both text messaging and NRT. Randomization is stratified by practice and intention to quit. The text messages (up to 5/day) encourage those not ready to quit to practice a quit attempt, assist those with a quit date through a quit attempt, and promote NRT use. The 2-week supply of NRT is mailed to patients' homes.

RESULTS

Feasibility outcomes include recruitment rates, study retention, and treatment adherence. Clinical outcomes are assessed at 1, 2, 6, and 12-weeks post-enrollment. The primary outcome is ≥1self-reported quit attempt(s). Secondary clinical outcomes include self-reported past 7- and 30-day abstinence, days not smoked, NRT adherence, and exhaled carbon monoxide.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot assesses text messaging plus NRT, as a proactively offered intervention for smoking cessation support in smokers receiving primary care and will inform full-scale randomized trial planning.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.govNCT03174158.

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.

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.

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.

Informing relatives about their hereditary or familial cancer risk: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Genetic counseling for hereditary breast or colon cancer has implications for both counselees and their relatives. Although counselees are encouraged by genetic counselors to disclose genetic cancer risk information, they do not always share this information with their at-risk relatives. Reasons for not informing relatives may be generally categorized as a lack of knowledge, motivation and/or self-efficacy. Presented here is the protocol of a randomized controlled trial that aims to establish the effectiveness of an intervention focused on supporting counselees in their disclosure of genetic cancer information to their relatives.

METHODS/DESIGN

A multicenter randomized controlled trial with parallel group design will be used to compare the effects of an additional telephone counseling session performed by psychosocial workers to enhance the disclosure of genetic cancer information to at-risk relatives (intervention group) with a control group of standard care. Consecutive index patients with relatives at risk for hereditary or familial breast and/or ovarian cancer or colon cancer, are randomly assigned (block size: 8; 1:1 allocation ratio) to the intervention (n = 132) or control group (n = 132, standard care). Primary outcomes are counselees' knowledge, motivation and self-efficacy regarding informing their relatives.

DISCUSSION

This intervention may prove important in supporting counselees to disclose hereditary and/or familial cancer risk information to at-risk relatives and may enable more at-risk relatives to make a well-informed decision regarding genetic services and/or screening.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered in the Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR) with trial ID number NTR3745.

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.

A randomized controlled trial of stage-matched intervention for smoking cessation in cardiac out-patients

AIM

To examine the effectiveness of a stage-matched smoking cessation counselling intervention for smokers who had cardiac diseases.

METHODS

A total of 1860 Chinese cardiac patients who smoked at least one cigarette in the past 7 days and aged 18 years or above recruited from cardiac out-patient clinics in Hong Kong hospitals were allocated randomly to an intervention group or control group. The intervention group (n = 938) received counselling matched with their stage of readiness to quit by trained counsellors at baseline, 1 week and 1 month. The control group (n = 922) received brief counselling on healthy diet at baseline. The primary outcomes were self-reported 7-day and 30-day point prevalence (PP) of tobacco abstinence at 12 months after baseline. The secondary outcome measures included biochemically validated abstinence at 12-month follow-up, self-reported 7-day and 30-day PP abstinence and reduction of cigarette consumption by 50% at 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

By intention-to-treat analysis, the intervention and control groups showed no significant difference in self-reported 7-day PP abstinence (intervention: 26.5% versus control: 25.5%; P = 0.60) and 30-day PP (intervention: 25.4% versus control: 24.2%; P = 0.55), biochemically validated abstinence (intervention: 6.6% versus control: 4.9%; P = 0.14) and overall quit attempts of least 24 hours (intervention: 40.3% versus control: 34.3%; P = 0.007) at the 12-month follow-up, adjusted for the baseline stage of readiness to quit smoking.

CONCLUSIONS

An intervention, based on the Stages of Change model, to promote smoking cessation in cardiac patients in China failed to find any long-term benefit.

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.