Reality Versus Grant Application Research "Plans"

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This helps to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and ease the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. Although there is high-certainty evidence that NRT is effective for achieving long-term smoking abstinence, it is unclear whether different forms, doses, durations of treatment or timing of use impacts its effects.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords, most recently in April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded studies that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of fewer than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Separate reviews cover studies comparing NRT to control, or to other pharmacotherapies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking abstinence after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and study withdrawals due to treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 68 completed studies with 43,327 participants, five of which are new to this update. Most completed studies recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. We judged 28 of the 68 studies to be at high risk of bias. Restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results for any comparisons apart from the preloading comparison, which tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day whilst still smoking.  There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form plus patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.37; I2 = 12%; 16 studies, 12,169 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg patches are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; I2 = 38%; 5 studies, 1655 participants), and that 21 mg patches are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08; 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3446 participants). Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4395 participants). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 3319 participants). We found no clear evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); or fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence). Cardiac AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no clear evidence of an effect on these outcomes, and rates were low overall. More withdrawals due to treatment were reported in people using nasal spray compared to patches in one study (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46; 1 study, 922 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in people using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two studies (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 544 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum can result in an increase in the chances of successfully stopping smoking. Due to imprecision, evidence was of moderate certainty for patch dose comparisons. There is some indication that the lower-dose nicotine patches and gum may be less effective than higher-dose products. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT before quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is limited. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are reported.

Scoping review of telehealth use by Indigenous populations from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States

INTRODUCTION

Telehealth has the potential to address health disparities experienced by Indigenous people, especially in remote areas. This scoping review aims to map and characterize the existing evidence on telehealth use by Indigenous people and explore the key concepts for effective use, cultural safety, and building therapeutic relationships.

METHODS

A search for published and gray literature, written in English, and published between 2000 and 2022 was completed in 17 electronic databases. Two reviewers independently screened retrieved records for eligibility. For included articles, data were extracted, categorized, and analyzed. Synthesis of findings was performed narratively.

RESULTS

A total of 321 studies were included. The most popular type of telehealth used was mHealth (44%), and the most common health focuses of the telehealth interventions were mental health (26%) and diabetes/diabetic retinopathy (13%). Frequently described barriers to effective telehealth use included concerns about privacy/confidentiality and limited internet availability; meanwhile, telehealth-usage facilitators included cultural relevance and community engagement. Although working in collaboration with Indigenous communities was the most frequently reported way to achieve cultural safety, 40% of the studies did not report Indigenous involvement. Finally, difficulty to establish trusting therapeutic relationships was a major concern raised about telehealth, and evidence suggests that having the first visit-in-person is a potential way to address this issue.

CONCLUSION

This comprehensive review identified critical factors to guide the development of culturally-informed telehealth services to meet the needs of Indigenous people and to achieve equitable access and positive health outcomes.

A randomized trial to reduce smoking among American Indians in South Dakota: The walking forward study

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is an important public health issue, particularly among American Indians (AIs). The reported decline in tobacco use for most racial/ethnic groups is not observed among AIs. This project was designed to address the research question, "Why don't more Northern Plains American Indians alter tobacco use behaviors known to increase the risk of cancer?"

METHODS

Guided by the Theory of Planned Behavior, a multi-component intervention study was implemented. Adult AIs, age 18 years or older and currently smoking, were enrolled. Eligible subjects were randomized to one of 15 groups and exposed to either a MINIMAL or an INTENSE level of 4 intervention components. The intervention was delivered face-to-face or via telephone by Patient Navigators (PN). The primary outcome was self-reported abstinence from smoking verified by carbon monoxide measurement.

RESULTS

At 18 months post-quit date, 88% of those who were still in the study were abstinent. This included 6% of all participants who enrolled in the study (14/254) and 13% of those who made it to the quit date (14/108). No intervention groups were found to have significant proportions of participants who were abstinent from smoking at the quit date (visit 5) or primary outcome visit (18 months post-quit date, visit 11), but use of pharmacologic support for abstinence was found to be an effective strategy for individuals who continued participation throughout the study. Those who remained in the study received more visits and were more likely to be abstinent.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of NRT increased the odds of not smoking, as assessed at the 18-month follow-up visit, but no other interventions were found to significantly contribute to abstinence from smoking. Although the intervention protocol included numerous points of contact between CRRs and participants (11 visits) loss to follow-up was extensive with only 16/254 remaining enrolled. Additional research is needed to improve understanding of factors that influence enrollment and retention in smoking cessation interventions for AI and other populations.