Comparative effectiveness of post-discharge strategies for hospitalized smokers: Study protocol for the Helping HAND 4 randomized controlled trial

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

In 2020, 32.6% of the world's population used tobacco. Smoking contributes to many illnesses that require hospitalisation. A hospital admission may prompt a quit attempt. Initiating smoking cessation treatment, such as pharmacotherapy and/or counselling, in hospitals may be an effective preventive health strategy. Pharmacotherapies work to reduce withdrawal/craving and counselling provides behavioural skills for quitting smoking. This review updates the evidence on interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, to understand the most effective smoking cessation treatment methods for hospitalised smokers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of any type of smoking cessation programme for patients admitted to an acute care hospital.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 7 September 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised studies of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients admitted to hospital quit. Interventions had to start in the hospital (including at discharge), and people had to have smoked within the last month. We excluded studies in psychiatric, substance and rehabilitation centres, as well as studies that did not measure abstinence at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from smoking assessed at least six months after discharge or the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically-validated rates where reported. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 82 studies (74 RCTs) that included 42,273 participants in the review (71 studies, 37,237 participants included in the meta-analyses); 36 studies are new to this update. We rated 10 studies as being at low risk of bias overall (low risk in all domains assessed), 48 at high risk of bias overall (high risk in at least one domain), and the remaining 24 at unclear risk. Cessation counselling versus no counselling, grouped by intensity of intervention Hospitalised patients who received smoking cessation counselling that began in the hospital and continued for more than a month after discharge had higher quit rates than patients who received no counselling in the hospital or following hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.49; 28 studies, 8234 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might account for an additional 76 quitters in every 1000 participants (95% CI 51 to 103). The evidence was uncertain (very low-certainty) about the effects of counselling interventions of less intensity or shorter duration (in-hospital only counselling ≤ 15 minutes: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1417 participants; and in-hospital contact plus follow-up counselling support for ≤ 1 month: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 7 studies, 4627 participants) versus no counselling. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that smoking cessation counselling for at least 15 minutes in the hospital without post-discharge support led to higher quit rates than no counselling in the hospital (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.58; 12 studies, 4432 participants). Pharmacotherapy versus placebo or no pharmacotherapy Nicotine replacement therapy helped more patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.67; 8 studies, 3838 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 62 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 9 to 126). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision (as CI encompassed the possibility of no difference), that varenicline helped more hospitalised patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 4 studies, 829 participants). Evidence for bupropion was low-certainty; the point estimate indicated a modest benefit at best, but CIs were wide and incorporated clinically significant harm and clinically significant benefit (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43, 4 studies, 872 participants). Hospital-only intervention versus intervention that continues after hospital discharge Patients offered both smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge had higher quit rates than patients offered counselling in hospital but not offered post-discharge support (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.38; 7 studies, 5610 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 34 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 to 55). Post-discharge interventions offering real-time counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.60, 8 studies, 2299 participants; low certainty-evidence) and those offering unscheduled counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 2 studies, 1598 participants; very low-certainty evidence) may have little to no effect on quit rates compared to control. Telephone quitlines versus control To provide post-discharge support, hospitals may refer patients to community-based telephone quitlines. Both comparisons relating to these interventions had wide CIs encompassing both possible harm and possible benefit, and were judged to be of very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias (post-discharge telephone counselling versus quitline referral: RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.51; 3 studies, 3260 participants; quitline referral versus control: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.96; 2 studies, 1870 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Offering hospitalised patients smoking cessation counselling beginning in hospital and continuing for over one month after discharge increases quit rates, compared to no hospital intervention. Counselling provided only in hospital, without post-discharge support, may have a modest impact on quit rates, but evidence is less certain. When all patients receive counselling in the hospital, high-certainty evidence indicates that providing both counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge increases quit rates compared to no post-discharge intervention. Starting nicotine replacement or varenicline in hospitalised patients helps more patients to quit smoking than a placebo or no medication, though evidence for varenicline is only moderate-certainty due to imprecision. There is less evidence of benefit for bupropion in this setting. Some of our evidence was limited by imprecision (bupropion versus placebo and varenicline versus placebo), risk of bias, and inconsistency related to heterogeneity. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies to implement, disseminate, and sustain interventions, and to ensure cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy initiated in the hospital is sustained after discharge.

Effectiveness of Medical Student Counseling for Hospitalized Patients Addicted to Tobacco (MS-CHAT): a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Low-middle-income countries face an enormous burden of tobacco-related illnesses. Counseling for tobacco cessation increases the chance of achieving quit outcomes, yet it remains underutilized in healthcare settings.

OBJECTIVE

We tested the hypothesis that utilizing trained medical students to counsel hospitalized patients who use tobacco will lead to an increase in patient quit rates, while also improving medical student knowledge regarding smoking cessation counseling.

DESIGN

Investigator-initiated, two-armed, multicenter randomized controlled trial conducted in three medical schools in India.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligibility criteria included age 18-70 years, active admission to the hospital, and current smoking.

INTERVENTION

A medical student-guided smoking cessation program, initiated in hospitalized patients and continued for 2 months after discharge.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day point prevalence of smoking cessation at 6 months. Changes in medical student knowledge were assessed using a pre- and post-questionnaire delivered prior to and 12 months after training.

KEY RESULTS

Among 688 patients randomized across three medical schools, 343 were assigned to the intervention group and 345 to the control group. After 6 months of follow up, the primary outcome occurred in 188 patients (54.8%) in the intervention group, and 145 patients (42.0%) in the control group (absolute difference, 12.8%; relative risk, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.26; p < 0.001). Among 70 medical students for whom data was available, knowledge increased from a mean score of 14.8 (± 0.8) (out of a maximum score of 25) at baseline to a score of 18.1 (± 0.8) at 12 months, an absolute mean difference of 3.3 (95% CI, 2.3-4.3; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Medical students can be trained to effectively provide smoking cessation counseling to hospitalized patients. Incorporating this program into the medical curriculum can provide experiential training to medical students while improving patient quit rates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov . Unique identifier: NCT03521466.

Tobacco-Related Disease, Health Beliefs, and Post-hospital Tobacco Abstinence

INTRODUCTION

Most hospitalized patients who smoke resume after discharge. Associations of tobacco-related disease and health beliefs with post-hospitalization abstinence were examined.

METHODS

This was a cohort study using data from a 2018-2020 multicenter trial of hospitalized adults who smoked and wanted to quit. Tobacco-related disease was defined using primary discharge diagnosis codes. Baseline health beliefs included (1) smoking caused hospitalization, (2) quitting speeds recovery, and (3) quitting prevents future illness. Outcomes included self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge. Separate logistic regression models for each of the three health beliefs were constructed. Models stratified by tobacco-related disease explored effect modification. Analysis was performed in 2022-2023.

RESULTS

Of 1,406 participants (mean age 52 years, 56% females, 77% non-Hispanic White), 31% had tobacco-related disease, 42% believed that smoking caused hospitalization, 68% believed that quitting speeds recovery, and 82% believed that quitting prevents future illness. Tobacco-related disease was associated with higher 1-month point prevalence abstinence in each health belief model (AOR=1.55, 95% CI=1.15, 2.10; 1.53, 95% CI=1.14, 2.05; and 1.64, 95% CI=1.24, 2.19, respectively) and higher 6-month point prevalence abstinence in models including health beliefs 2 and 3. Quitting speeds recovery was the only belief associated with higher 1-month point prevalence abstinence (AOR=1.39, 95% CI=1.05, 1.85). Among patients with tobacco-related disease, the belief that quitting prevents future illness was associated with higher 1-month point prevalence abstinence (AOR=2.00, 95% CI=1.06, 3.78).

CONCLUSIONS

Tobacco-related disease predicts abstinence 1 and 6 months after hospitalization independent of health beliefs. Beliefs that quitting speeds recovery and prevents future illness may serve as targets for smoking-cessation interventions.

Can Treatment Support Mitigate Nicotine Metabolism-Based Disparities in Smoking Abstinence? Secondary Analysis of the Helping HAND 4 Trial

INTRODUCTION

The nicotine metabolite ratio (NMR), a biomarker of CYP2A6-mediated nicotine metabolism, predicts the efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), with fast metabolizers benefiting less than slow metabolizers. Whether treatment support to optimize NRT use (henceforth "treatment support") modifies this pharmacogenetic relationship is unknown.

METHODS

Hospitalized adult daily smokers were assigned to one of two post-discharge smoking cessation interventions offering NRT and counseling: (1) Transitional Tobacco Care Management, which delivered enhanced treatment support via free combination NRT at discharge and automated counseling, and (2) a quitline-based approach representing usual care (UC). The primary outcome was biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence 6 months after discharge. Secondary outcomes were the use of NRT and counseling during the 3-month intervention period. Logistic regression models tested for interactions between NMR and intervention, controlling for sex, race, alcohol use, and BMI.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 321) were classified as slow (n = 80) or fast (n = 241) metabolizers relative to the first quartile of NMR (0.012-0.219 vs. 0.221-3.455, respectively). Under UC, fast (vs. slow) metabolizers had lower odds of abstinence at 6 months (aOR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13-0.95) and similar odds of NRT and counseling use. Compared to UC, enhanced treatment support increased abstinence (aOR 2.13, 95% CI 0.98-4.64) and use of combination NRT (aOR 4.62, 95% CI 2.57-8.31) in fast metabolizers, while reducing abstinence in slow metabolizers (aOR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.87; NMR-by-intervention interaction p = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment support increased abstinence and optimal use of NRT among fast nicotine metabolizers, thereby mitigating the gap in abstinence between fast and slow metabolizers.

IMPLICATIONS

In this secondary analysis of two smoking cessation interventions for recently hospitalized smokers, fast nicotine metabolizers quit at lower rates than slow metabolizers, but providing fast metabolizers with enhanced treatment support doubled the odds of quitting in this group and mitigated the disparity in abstinence between fast and slow metabolizers. If validated, these findings could lead to personalized approaches to smoking cessation treatment that improve outcomes by targeting treatment support to those who need it most.

Testing the Efficacy of a Scalable Telephone-Delivered Guided Imagery Tobacco Cessation Treatment: Protocol for a Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use continues to be a leading preventable cause of death and disease in the United States, accounting for >480,000 deaths each year. Although treatments for tobacco use are effective for many, there is substantial variability in outcomes, and these approaches are not effective for all individuals seeking to quit smoking cigarettes. New, effective therapeutic approaches are needed to meet the preferences of people who want to stop smoking. Guided imagery (GI) is a mind-body technique that involves the guided visualization of specific mental images, which is enhanced with other sensory modalities and emotions. Preliminary evidence provides initial support for the use of GI as a treatment for cigarette smoking. Meta-analyses have shown that standard treatment for cigarette smoking delivered over the telephone via quitlines is effective. A telephone-based intervention that uses GI might provide another effective treatment option and increase the reach and effectiveness of quitlines.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to test the efficacy of Be Smoke Free, a telephone-delivered GI treatment for smoking cessation.

METHODS

This multisite randomized clinical trial (RCT) will compare a novel telephone-delivered GI tobacco cessation treatment with a standard evidence-based behavioral treatment. The study will be conducted over 5 years. In phase 1, we refined protocols and procedures for the New York State and West Virginia sites for use in the RCT. During phase 2, we will conduct an RCT with 1200 participants: 600 (50%) recruited via quitlines and 600 (50%) recruited via population-based methods. Participants will be randomly assigned to either the GI condition or the behavioral condition; both treatments will be delivered by trained study coaches located at the University of Arizona. Assessments will be conducted at baseline and 3 and 6 months after enrollment by University of Arizona research staff. The primary outcome will be self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence 6 months after enrollment. Secondary outcomes include biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence 6 months after enrollment.

RESULTS

Recruitment in West Virginia and New York began in October 2022. As of March 31, 2023, a total of 242 participants had been enrolled. Follow-up assessments began in November 2022. As of March 31, 2023, of the 118 eligible participants, 97 (82.2%) had completed the 3-month assessment, and 93% (26/28) of eligible participants had completed the 6-month assessment. Biochemical verification and qualitative interviews began in April 2023. Recruitment will continue through 2025 and follow-up assessments through 2026. Primary results are expected to be published in 2027.

CONCLUSIONS

The Be Smoke Free study is a first-of-its-kind RCT that incorporates GI into telephone-based tobacco cessation treatment. If successful, Be Smoke Free will have substantial benefits for the long-term health of people who use tobacco across the United States.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05277831; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05277831.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/48898.

Comparative Effectiveness of Postdischarge Smoking Cessation Interventions for Hospital Patients: The Helping HAND 4 Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Smoking cessation interventions for hospitalized patients must continue after discharge to improve long-term tobacco abstinence. How health systems can best deliver postdischarge tobacco treatment is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if health system-based tobacco cessation treatment after hospital discharge produces more long-term tobacco abstinence than referral to a community-based quitline.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial was conducted September 2018 to November 2020 in 3 hospitals in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. Cigarette smokers admitted to a study hospital who received brief in-hospital tobacco treatment and wanted to quit smoking were recruited for participation and randomized for postdischarge treatment to health system-based Transitional Tobacco Care Management (TTCM) or electronic referral to a community-based quitline (QL). Both multicomponent interventions offered smoking cessation counseling and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for up to 3 months. Data were analyzed from February 1, 2021, to April 25, 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

TTCM provided 8 weeks of NRT at discharge and 7 automated calls with a hospital-based counselor call-back option. The QL intervention sent referrals from the hospital electronic health record to the state quitline, which offered 5 counseling calls and an NRT sample.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was biochemically verified past 7-day tobacco abstinence at 6 months. Self-reported point-prevalence and continuous tobacco abstinence and tobacco treatment utilization were assessed 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 1409 participants (mean [SD] age, 51.7 [12.6] years; 784 [55.6%] women; mean [SD] 16.4 [10.6] cigarettes/day) were recruited, including 706 randomized to TTCM and 703 randomized to QL. Participants were comparable at baseline, including 216 Black participants (15.3%), 82 Hispanic participants (5.8%), and 1089 White participants (77.3%). At 1 and 3 months after discharge, more TTCM participants than QL participants used cessation counseling (1 month: 245 participants [34.7%] vs 154 participants [21.9%]; 3 months: 248 participants [35.1%] vs 123 participants [17.5%]; P < .001) and pharmacotherapy (1 month: 455 participants [64.4%] vs 324 participants [46.1%]; 3 months: 367 participants [52.0%] vs 264 participants [37.6%]; P < .001). More TTCM than QL participants reported continuous abstinence for 3 months (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.58) and point-prevalence abstinence at 1 month (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.35) and 3 months (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.09-1.37) but not at 6 months (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.99-1.29). The primary outcome, biochemically verified point-prevalence abstinence at 6 months, was not statistically significantly different between groups (19.9% vs 16.9%; RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.92-1.50).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial, biochemically verified tobacco abstinence rates were not significantly different between groups at the 6-month follow-up. However, the health system-based model was superior to the community-based quitline model throughout the 3 months of active treatment. A longer duration of postdischarge treatment may sustain the superiority of the health system-based model.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03603496.

Cigarette Smoking and Risk Perceptions During the COVID-19 Pandemic Reported by Recently Hospitalized Participants in a Smoking Cessation Trial

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is a risk factor for severe COVID-19 disease. Understanding smokers' responses to the pandemic will help assess its public health impact and inform future public health and provider messages to smokers.

OBJECTIVE

To assess risk perceptions and change in tobacco use among current and former smokers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey conducted in May-July 2020 (55% response rate) PARTICIPANTS: 694 current and former daily smokers (mean age 53, 40% male, 78% white) who had been hospitalized pre-COVID-19 and enrolled into a smoking cessation clinical trial at hospitals in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.

MAIN MEASURES

Perceived risk of COVID-19 due to tobacco use; changes in tobacco consumption and interest in quitting tobacco use; self-reported quitting and relapse since January 2020.

KEY RESULTS

68% (95% CI, 65-72%) of respondents believed that smoking increases the risk of contracting COVID-19 or having a more severe case. In adjusted analyses, perceived risk was higher in Massachusetts where COVID-19 had already surged than in Pennsylvania and Tennessee which were pre-surge during survey administration (AOR 1.56, 95% CI, 1.07-2.28). Higher perceived COVID-19 risk was associated with increased interest in quitting smoking (AOR 1.72, 95% CI 1.01-2.92). During the pandemic, 32% (95% CI, 27-37%) of smokers increased, 37% (95% CI, 33-42%) decreased, and 31% (95% CI, 26-35%) did not change their cigarette consumption. Increased smoking was associated with higher perceived stress (AOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.16-1.91). Overall, 11% (95% CI, 8-14%) of respondents who smoked in January 2020 (pre-COVID-19) had quit smoking at survey (mean, 6 months later) while 28% (95% CI, 22-34%) of former smokers relapsed. Higher perceived COVID-19 risk was associated with higher odds of quitting and lower odds of relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

Most smokers believed that smoking increased COVID-19 risk. Smokers' responses to the pandemic varied, with increased smoking related to stress and increased quitting associated with perceived COVID-19 vulnerability.

A Qualitative Study of the Impact of COVID-19 on Smoking Behavior for Participants in a Post-Hospitalization Smoking Cessation Trial

(1) Background: COVID-19 has substantially altered individual environments and behaviors. We aim to explore the impact of COVID-19 on the smoking behavior of individuals trying to quit tobacco. (2) Methods: This study presents a qualitative analysis of individual interviews focused on perceived impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on tobacco use among 39 participants in the Helping HAND 4 (HH4) post-hospitalization smoking cessation trial (NCT03603496). (3) Results: Emergent impacts of COVID-19 included change in routine, isolation, employment changes, and financial challenges; these in turn were associated with boredom, altered cravings and triggers, and increased stress. The availability of effective coping mechanisms instead of smoking to deal with stress heavily influenced subsequent smoking behavior. These results were triangulated with the Transactional Model of Stress, providing a framework to elucidate connections between factors such as perceived control, self-efficacy, and dispositional coping style, and highlighting potential areas for intervention. (4) Conclusions: Results suggest that stress during the COVID-19 pandemic may undermine effective coping skills among individuals enrolled in a post-hospitalization smoking cessation trial. Strengthening effective coping skills (e.g., minimizing the use of tobacco as a default stress response) and increasing perceived control and self-efficacy are promising intervention targets.