1
|
Schlam TR, Baker TB, Piper ME, Cook JW, Smith SS, Zwaga D, Jorenby DE, Almirall D, Bolt DM, Collins LM, Mermelstein R, Fiore MC. What to do after smoking relapse? A sequential multiple assignment randomized trial of chronic care smoking treatments. Addiction 2024; 119:898-914. [PMID: 38282258 DOI: 10.1111/add.16428] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2023] [Accepted: 11/30/2023] [Indexed: 01/30/2024]
Abstract
AIM To compare effects of three post-relapse interventions on smoking abstinence. DESIGN Sequential three-phase multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART). SETTING Eighteen Wisconsin, USA, primary care clinics. PARTICIPANTS A total of 1154 primary care patients (53.6% women, 81.2% White) interested in quitting smoking enrolled from 2015 to 2019; 582 relapsed and were randomized to relapse recovery treatment. INTERVENTIONS In phase 1, patients received cessation counseling and 8 weeks nicotine patch. Those who relapsed and agreed were randomized to a phase 2 relapse recovery group: (1) reduction counseling + nicotine mini-lozenges + encouragement to quit starting 1 month post-randomization (preparation); (2) repeated encouragement to quit starting immediately post-randomization (recycling); or (3) advice to call the tobacco quitline (control). The first two groups could opt into phase 3 new quit treatment [8 weeks nicotine patch + mini-lozenges plus randomization to two treatment factors (skill training and supportive counseling) in a 2 × 2 design]. Phase 2 and 3 interventions lasted ≤ 15 months. MEASUREMENTS The study was powered to compare each active phase 2 treatment with the control on the primary outcome: biochemically confirmed 7-day point-prevalence abstinence 14 months post initiating phase 2 relapse recovery treatment. Exploratory analyses tested for phase 3 counseling factor effects. FINDINGS Neither skill training nor supportive counseling (each on versus off) increased 14-month abstinence rates; skills on versus off 9.3% (14/151) versus 5.2% (8/153), P = 0.19; support on versus off 6.6% (10/152) versus 7.9% (12/152), P = 0.73. Phase 2 preparation did not produce higher 14-month abstinence rates than quitline referral; 3.6% (8/220) versus 2.1% [3/145; risk difference = 1.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.8-5.0%, odds ratio (OR) = 1.8, 95% CI = 0.5-6.9]. Recycling, however, produced higher abstinence rates than quitline referral; 6.9% (15/217) versus 2.1% (three of 145; risk difference, 4.8%, 95% CI = 0.7-8.9%, OR = 3.5, 95% CI = 1.0-12.4). Recycling produced greater entry into new quit treatment than preparation: 83.4% (181/217) versus 55.9% (123/220), P < 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS Among people interested in quitting smoking, immediate encouragement post-relapse to enter a new round of smoking cessation treatment ('recycling') produced higher probability of abstinence than tobacco quitline referral. Recycling produced higher rates of cessation treatment re-engagement than did preparation/cutting down using more intensive counseling and pharmacotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tanya R Schlam
- Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
- Department of Kinesiology, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Timothy B Baker
- Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Megan E Piper
- Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Jessica W Cook
- Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
- William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Stevens S Smith
- Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Deejay Zwaga
- Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Douglas E Jorenby
- Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Daniel Almirall
- Institute for Social Research and Department of Statistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Daniel M Bolt
- Department of Educational Psychology, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Linda M Collins
- Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Robin Mermelstein
- Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Michael C Fiore
- Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ogbagaber SB, Karp J, Wahed AS. Design of sequentially randomized trials for testing adaptive treatment strategies. Stat Med 2016; 35:840-58. [PMID: 26412033 PMCID: PMC5150988 DOI: 10.1002/sim.6747] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2014] [Accepted: 08/31/2015] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
An adaptive treatment strategy (ATS) is an outcome-guided algorithm that allows personalized treatment of complex diseases based on patients' disease status and treatment history. Conditions such as AIDS, depression, and cancer usually require several stages of treatment because of the chronic, multifactorial nature of illness progression and management. Sequential multiple assignment randomized (SMAR) designs permit simultaneous inference about multiple ATSs, where patients are sequentially randomized to treatments at different stages depending upon response status. The purpose of the article is to develop a sample size formula to ensure adequate power for comparing two or more ATSs. Based on a Wald-type statistic for comparing multiple ATSs with a continuous endpoint, we develop a sample size formula and test it through simulation studies. We show via simulation that the proposed sample size formula maintains the nominal power. The proposed sample size formula is not applicable to designs with time-to-event endpoints but the formula will be useful for practitioners while designing SMAR trials to compare adaptive treatment strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Semhar B. Ogbagaber
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 U.S.A
| | - Jordan Karp
- School of Medicine, Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 U.S.A
| | - Abdus S. Wahed
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 U.S.A
| |
Collapse
|