Intensive versus short face-to-face smoking cessation interventions: a meta-analysis

Perioperative Intensive Smoking Cessation Intervention Among Smokers Who Underwent Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor (TURBT) in Two Different Settings: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background/Objective: Smoking is an individual risk factor for bladder cancer. Many patients are still smoking at the time of their diagnosis, yet few trials have examined smoking cessation interventions (SCIs) in relation to transurethral resection of the bladder tumor (TURBT). This study therefore aimed to compare the efficacy of a hospital-based 6-week intensive SCI with standard treatment among this patient group. Methods: A parallel-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted from December 2021 to March 2024 at two university hospital urology departments in Denmark. A total of 38 daily smokers undergoing TURBT were allocated to the hospital-based intensive SCI, including weekly meetings, patient education, motivational support, and complimentary nicotine replacement therapy or the standard treatment with very brief advice and referral to the same intensive SCI at a municipality clinic. The primary outcome was smoking cessation at the end of the intervention, assessed through participant interviews. The secondary outcomes included continuous abstinence at three and six months, quality of life, and frailty. Analyses were performed as intention-to-treat. Results: After six weeks, 37% in the hospital-based group and 6% in the standard group achieved smoking cessation (p = 0.042). At three and six months the quit rates were, 37% and 26% in the hospital-based group, compared to 0% and 0% in the standard group, respectively. No significant differences in quality of life or frailty were found. Conclusions: This trial found that hospital-based intensive SCI increased cessation rates compared to standard treatment. It would be valuable to evaluate the impact on postoperative complications, cancer prognosis, and long-term cessation in a sizeable new study.

Impact of the intensified follow-up procedure of patients lost to 6-month follow-up after an intensive smoking and nicotine cessation intervention in practice: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Post-intervention follow-up is challenging in research and practice. In tobacco reports, patients with missing follow-up were considered smokers. Based on patient and staff preferences, an add-on intensified follow-up procedure after intensive tobacco and nicotine cessation interventions was developed. This study examined the impact of the new procedure on patients lost to follow-up and compared their cessation status with that of those who completed routine follow-up.

METHODS

Between January and February 2023, 2114 patients participated in the Danish STOPbase for Tobacco and Nicotine after providing informed consent. Overall, 1529 (72%) patients completed routine 6-month follow-up interviews, 136 (6%) patients rejected follow-up participation and 449 (21%) patients were lost to follow-up. Of the 449 patients, 225 patients were randomly selected to undergo the new follow-up procedure with repeated information, up to four extra calls, texts and voice messages from known telephone numbers.

RESULTS

Using the new procedure, 143/225 (64%; 95% CI: 61% to 67%) patients completed the follow-up, with a continuous quit rate of 54/225 (24%; 21% to 27%). The lost to follow-up group had a significantly lower continuous cessation rate than the group that completed the routine follow-up: 54/143 (38%; 34% to 42%) and 703/1529 (46%; 45% to 47%), respectively, (p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Almost two-thirds of the patients lost to 6-month follow-up completed the intensified follow-up procedure and had substantially lower cessation rates than those completing routine follow-up. However, this finding is clinically relevant, as a high follow-up rate impacts the reliability of outcomes, with loss to follow-up reported on continuous use.

The Concept of a Large Group-Based Approach for Intensive Smoking Cessation: The Gold Standard Program (GSP)

In this study, the effect of the intensive "Quitter" intervention for smoking cessation was examined and compared to the standardized intensive intervention used in Denmark. The Quitter intervention, based on the Gold Standard Program (Q-GSP), involves large groups of approximately 70 participants, while the standardized GSP typically involves groups of 10-15 participants. In total, 105 and 14,289 smokers participated in the Q-GSP and the standardized GSP, respectively, between 2022 and 2023. Data from the Danish STOPbase database were used, with validated information from one municipality for the Q-GSP. Successful smoking cessation was defined as abstinence from smoking at the end of the intervention and continuous abstinence at the 6-month follow-up. The results showed that 73% of the participants in the Quitter group successfully stopped smoking at the end of the interventions, compared to 50% in the standardized I-SCI group. At the 6-month follow-ups, 49% of the Quitter intervention group members maintained abstinence versus 31% of the standardized I-SCI group, with a statistically significant relative risk (RR) of 2.18 (95% CI 1.48-3.22). Compliance and satisfaction were high in both groups. These findings indicate the potential for large group-based interventions to be broadly integrated into public health strategies.

Does smoking cessation affect postoperative healing following oral surgery among smokers? - a systematic review

BACKGROUND

It is well documented that smokers suffer increased risk of postoperative complications after medical surgery, for example delayed healing and increased risk of infection. It is also known that preoperative smoking cessation can reduce the risk of these complications. Because of this there are guidelines regarding preoperative smoking cessation in non-oral medical surgery. There are however no specific guidelines regarding oral surgical procedures, such as surgical extractions, dentoalveolar surgery, periodontal surgery, or dental implantation. Nevertheless, it is common that dentists and oral surgeons recommend smoking cessation pre to oral surgical procedures. The aim with this systematic review was to see if there are any evidence in the literature, supporting preoperative smoking cessation in oral surgical procedures.

METHODS

A systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane was conducted to identify studies addressing the effect of preoperative smoking cessation in oral surgical procedures. Included publications were subjected to preidentified inclusion criterion. Six examiners performed the eligibility and quality assessment of relevant studies. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I and RoB 2. Certainty assessment was carried out using GRADE.

RESULTS

The initial search resulted in 2255 records, and after removal of 148 duplicates, 16 articles met an acceptable level of relevance. These were read in full text, whereof 12 articles were excluded, due to different intervention, outcome, or study design than stated in the review protocol. One study remained with moderate risk of bias and three were excluded due to high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review could not determine the effect of smoking cessation pre to oral surgical procedures, in smokers. This indicates lack of knowledge in the effects of smoking cessation. We also conclude a lack of knowledge in how to design smoking cessation in the most effective way.

Peri-operative tobacco cessation interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Tobacco smoking is associated with a substantially increased risk of postoperative complications. The peri-operative period offers a unique opportunity to support patients to stop tobacco smoking, avoid complications and improve long-term health. This systematic review provides an up-to-date summary of the evidence for tobacco cessation interventions in surgical patients. We conducted a systematic search of randomised controlled trials of tobacco cessation interventions in the peri-operative period. Quantitative synthesis of the abstinence outcomes data was by random-effects meta-analysis. The primary outcome of the meta-analysis was abstinence at the time of surgery, and the secondary outcome was abstinence at 12 months. Thirty-eight studies are included in the review (7310 randomised participants) and 26 studies are included in the meta-analysis (5969 randomised participants). Studies were pooled for subgroup analysis in two ways: by the timing of intervention delivery within the peri-operative period and by the intensity of the intervention protocol. We judged the quality of evidence as moderate, reflecting the degree of heterogeneity and the high risk of bias. Overall, peri-operative tobacco cessation interventions increased successful abstinence both at the time of surgery, risk ratio (95%CI) 1.48 (1.20-1.83), number needed to treat 7; and 12 months after surgery, risk ratio (95%CI) 1.62 (1.29-2.03), number needed to treat 9. More work is needed to inform the design and optimal delivery of interventions that are acceptable to patients and that can be incorporated into contemporary elective and urgent surgical pathways. Future trials should use standardised outcome measures.

Integrating Smoking Cessation Into Low-Dose Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening: Results of the Ontario, Canada Pilot

INTRODUCTION

Low-dose computed tomography screening in high-risk individuals reduces lung cancer mortality. To inform the implementation of a provincial lung cancer screening program, Ontario Health undertook a Pilot study, which integrated smoking cessation (SC).

METHODS

The impact of integrating SC into the Pilot was assessed by the following: rate of acceptance of a SC referral; proportion of individuals who were currently smoking cigarettes and attended a SC session; the quit rate at 1 year; change in the number of quit attempts; change in Heaviness of Smoking Index; and relapse rate in those who previously smoked.

RESULTS

A total of 7768 individuals were recruited predominantly through primary care physician referral. Of these, 4463 were currently smoking and were risk assessed and referred to SC services, irrespective of screening eligibility: 3114 (69.8%) accepted referral to an in-hospital SC program, 431 (9.7%) to telephone quit lines, and 50 (1.1%) to other programs. In addition, 4.4% reported no intention to quit and 8.5% were not interested in participating in a SC program. Of the 3063 screen-eligible individuals who were smoking at baseline low-dose computed tomography scan, 2736 (89.3%) attended in-hospital SC counseling. The quit rate at 1 year was 15.5% (95% confidence interval: 13.4%-17.7%; range: 10.5%-20.0%). Improvements were also observed in Heaviness of Smoking Index (p < 0.0001), number of cigarettes smoked per day (p < 0.0001), time to first cigarette (p < 0.0001), and number of quit attempts (p < 0.001). Of those who reported having quit within the previous 6 months, 6.3% had resumed smoking at 1 year. Furthermore, 92.7% of the respondents reported satisfaction with the hospital-based SC program.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of these observations, the Ontario Lung Screening Program continues to recruit through primary care providers, to assess risk for eligibility using trained navigators, and to use an opt-out approach to referral for cessation services. In addition, initial in-hospital SC support and intensive follow-on cessation interventions will be provided to the extent possible.

Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of tobacco-cessation interventions delivered perioperatively

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco smoking is associated with a substantially increased risk of perioperative complications. The perioperative period is an opportunity to introduce tobacco-cessation strategies. A previous systematic review provided evidence that perioperative interventions increase short-term abstinence and may reduce postoperative complications. The evidence base has since expanded, with the subsequent publication of numerous randomised studies. This protocol outlines a systematic review examining the impact of perioperative tobacco-cessation interventions on successful abstinence from tobacco smoking, and on the incidence of perioperative complications.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic search of the literature will be run across EMBASE (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco) and PsycInfo (ProQuest), from inception to present, using text words and subject headings. Randomised controlled trials published in English, examining adults in the perioperative period and reporting the outcomes from tobacco-cessation interventions will be included.Abstract screening and data extraction will be performed by five reviewers. Each abstract will be screened by two blinded reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by group consensus. The primary outcome will be point prevalence abstinence from tobacco-use at the time of surgery. Secondary outcomes are prolonged abstinence from tobacco use at 6 months and 12 months, and postoperative complications. Any other reported outcomes will be documented in the descriptive analysis. The review will also describe details of the investigated perioperative tobacco-cessation interventions. If sufficient studies report relevant data, meta-analysis of the primary and secondary outcomes will be undertaken. Results will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval is required. Results will be disseminated by open-access, peer-reviewed journal publication and conference presentations. Results will underpin future work to modify perioperative tobacco-cessation interventions to enhance engagement and accessibility, and to develop trials aiming to facilitate abstinence from tobacco-use in patients presenting for surgery.

The gold standard program (GSP) for smoking cessation: a cohort study of its effectiveness among smokers with and without cancer

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation treatment is an important prognostic factor for survival after a cancer diagnosis, especially for tobacco-related cancers. After being diagnosed with lung cancer, approximately 50% of patients continue smoking or frequently relapse after a quit attempt. Given the importance of smoking cessation treatment for cancer survivors, the objective was to compare the effectiveness of a 6-week intensive smoking cessation intervention, the Gold Standard Program (GSP), among cancer survivors compared with smokers without cancer. Second, we compared successful quitting among socioeconomically disadvantaged cancer survivors with that among nondisadvantaged cancer survivors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a cohort study based on 38,345 smokers from the Danish Smoking Cessation Database (2006-2016). Linkage to the National Patient Register was used to identify cancer survivors undergoing the GSP after being diagnosed with cancer (except nonmelanoma skin cancer). Linkage to the Danish Civil Registration System was used to identify participants who died, went missing, or emigrated before the follow-up. Logistic regression models were applied to evaluate effectiveness.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Six percent (2438) of the included smokers were cancer survivors at the time they undertook the GSP. Their 6-month successful quitting showed no difference compared to that of smokers without cancer, neither before nor after adjustment; 35% versus 37% in crude rates and an aOR of 1.13 (95% CI: 0.97-1.32). Likewise, the results for disadvantaged compared to nondisadvantaged cancer survivors were not significantly different (32% versus 33% and an adjusted aOR of 0.87 (95% CI 0.69-1.11)). Overall, an intensive smoking cessation program seems effective in helping both people without cancer and cancer survivors become successful quitters.

A survey exploring the practices of smoking cessation support among hospital-based healthcare providers

BACKGROUND

Hospital visits constitute a 'window of opportunity' for initiating smoking cessation attempts, and healthcare providers (HCPs) play an important role in supporting patients to stop smoking. Yet, the current practices of supporting smoking cessation in the hospital setting are largely unexplored. The aim of this study was to explore practices of smoking cessation support among hospital-based HCPs.

METHODS

HCPs working in a large hospital in the secondary care sector completed an online, cross-sectional survey, including sociodemographic and work-related factors as well as 21 questions assessing practices of smoking cessation support based on the "five As" framework. Descriptive statistics were computed, and predictors of HCPs giving patients advice to stop smoking were explored using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

All employees (N = 3998) in the hospital received a survey link; 1645 (41.1%) HCPs with daily patient contact completed the survey. Smoking cessation support in the hospital setting was limited with regard to assessment of smoking; providing information and advice; planning and referral for further support; and follow-up on smoking cessation attempts. Almost half (44.8%) of participating HCPs with daily patient contact never or rarely advise their patients to stop smoking. Physicians were more likely than nurses to advice patients to stop smoking, and HCPs in outpatient clinics were more likely to give advice than inpatient clinic HCPs.

CONCLUSION

Smoking cessation support is very limited in the hospital-based healthcare setting. This is problematic, as hospital visits can be windows of opportunity to help patients change their health behaviour. An intensified focus on the implementation of hospital-based smoking cessation support is needed.