Patient Navigation for Lung Cancer Screening at a Health Care for the Homeless Program: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

People experiencing homelessness die of lung cancer at rates more than double those in the general population. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality, but the circumstances of homelessness create barriers to LCS participation.

Objective

To determine whether patient navigation, added to usual care, improved LCS LDCT receipt at a large Health Care for the Homeless (HCH) program.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This parallel group, pragmatic, mixed-methods randomized clinical trial was conducted at Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program (BHCHP), a federally qualified HCH program that provides tailored, multidisciplinary care to nearly 10 000 homeless-experienced patients annually. Eligible individuals had a lifetime history of homelessness, had a BHCHP primary care practitioner (PCP), were proficient in English, and met the pre-2022 Medicare coverage criteria for LCS (aged 55-77 years, ≥30 pack-year history of smoking, and smoking within the past 15 years). The study was conducted between November 20, 2020, and March 29, 2023.

Intervention

Participants were randomized 2:1 to usual BHCHP care either with or without patient navigation. Following a theory-based, patient-centered protocol, the navigator provided lung cancer education, facilitated LCS shared decision-making visits with PCPs, assisted participants in making and attending LCS LDCT appointments, arranged follow-up when needed, and offered tobacco cessation support for current smokers.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was receipt of a 1-time LCS LDCT within 6 months after randomization, with between-group differences assessed by χ2 analysis. Qualitative interviews assessed the perceptions of participants and PCPs about the navigation intervention.

Results

In all, 260 participants (mean [SD] age, 60.5 [4.7] years; 184 males [70.8%]; 96 non-Hispanic Black participants [36.9%] and 96 non-Hispanic White participants [36.9%]) were randomly assigned to usual care with (n = 173) or without (n = 87) patient navigation. At 6 months after randomization, 75 participants in the patient navigation arm (43.4%) and 8 of those in the usual care-only arm (9.2%) had completed LCS LDCT (P < .001), representing a 4.7-fold difference. Interviews with participants in the patient navigation arm and PCPs identified key elements of the intervention: multidimensional social support provision, care coordination activities, and interpersonal skills of the navigator.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, patient navigation support produced a 4.7-fold increase in 1-time LCS LDCT completion among HCH patients in Boston. Future work should focus on longer-term screening participation and outcomes.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04308226.

Hospital-Initiated Smoking Cessation Among Patients Admitted with Behavioral Health Conditions

BACKGROUND

Smoking rates among people living with behavioral health conditions (BHC) range from 30 to 65% and are 2-4 times higher than rates found in the general population. Starting tobacco treatment during a hospital stay is effective for smoking cessation, but little is known regarding treatment response among inpatients with BHC.

OBJECTIVE

This study pooled data across multiple clinical trials to determine the relative success in quitting among participants with BHC compared to other study participants.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults who smoke (≥ 18 years old) from five hospital-based smoking cessation randomized clinical trials.

DESIGN

A retrospective analysis using data from the electronic health record to identify participants with primary diagnoses related to BHC. Recruitment and data analysis were conducted from 2011 to 2016. We used propensity score matching to pair patients with BHC to those with similar characteristics and logistic regression to determine differences between groups.

MEASURES

The main outcome was self-reported 30-day abstinence 6 months post-discharge.

RESULTS

Of 6612 participants, 798 patients had a BHC-related primary diagnosis. The matched sample included 642 pairs. Nearly 1 in 3 reported using tobacco medications after hospitalization, with no significant difference between patients with and without BHC (29.3% vs. 31.5%; OR (95% CI) = 0.90 (0.71, 1.14), p = 0.40). Nearly 1 in 5 patients with BHC reported abstinence at 6 months; however, their odds of abstinence were 30% lower than among people without BHC (OR (95% CI) = 0.70 (0.53,0.92), p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

When offered tobacco treatment, hospitalized patients with BHC were as likely as people without BHC to accept and engage in treatment. However, patients with BHC were less likely to report abstinence compared to those without BHC. Hospitals are a feasible and promising venue for tobacco treatment among inpatients with BHC. More studies are needed to identify treatment approaches that help people with BHC achieve long-term abstinence.

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.

Cytisinicline for Vaping Cessation in Adults Using Nicotine E-Cigarettes: The ORCA-V1 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The prevalence of e-cigarette use among US adults, especially young adults, is rising. Many would like to quit vaping nicotine but are unable to do so. Cytisinicline, a plant-based alkaloid, targets nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, reduces nicotine dependence, and helps adults to stop smoking cigarettes. Cytisinicline may also help e-cigarette users to quit vaping.

Objective

To determine the efficacy and safety of cytisinicline vs placebo to produce abstinence from e-cigarette use in adults seeking to quit vaping nicotine.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial compared 12 weeks of treatment with cytisinicline vs placebo, with follow-up to 16 weeks. It was conducted from July 2022 to February 2023 across 5 US clinical trial sites. A total of 160 adults who vaped nicotine daily, sought to quit, and did not currently smoke cigarettes were enrolled, and 131 (81.9%) completed the trial.

Intervention

Participants were randomized (2:1) to cytisinicline, 3 mg, taken 3 times daily (n = 107) or placebo (n = 53) for 12 weeks. All participants received weekly behavioral support.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Biochemically verified continuous e-cigarette abstinence during the last 4 weeks of treatment (weeks 9-12; primary outcome) and through 4 weeks posttreatment (weeks 9-16; secondary outcome). Missing outcomes were counted as nonabstinence.

Results

Of 160 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 33.6 [11.1] years; 83 [51.9%] female), 115 (71.9%) formerly smoked (≥100 lifetime cigarettes). Continuous e-cigarette abstinence in cytisinicline and placebo groups occurred in 34 of 107 participants (31.8%) vs 8 of 53 participants (15.1%) (odds ratio, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.06-7.10; P = .04) at end of treatment (weeks 9-12) and in 25 of 107 participants (23.4%) vs 7 of 53 participants (13.2%) during weeks 9 to 16 (odds ratio, 2.00; 95% CI, 0.82-5.32; P = .15). There was no evidence, based on nonsignificant interactions, that cytisinicline efficacy differed in subgroups defined by demographic characteristics, vaping pattern, e-cigarette dependence, or smoking history. Cytisinicline was well tolerated, with 4 participants (3.8%) discontinuing cytisinicline due to an adverse event.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, cytisinicline for 12 weeks, with behavioral support, demonstrated efficacy for cessation of e-cigarette use at end of treatment and was well tolerated by adults, offering a potential pharmacotherapy option for treating nicotine e-cigarette use in adults who seek to quit vaping. These results need confirmation in a larger trial with longer follow-up.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05431387.

Transitions between smoking and vaping: Evidence (or lack thereof) on potential differences by gender and sex

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize existing evidence on possible differential effects by sex and gender from two Cochrane reviews evaluating vaping and smoking transitions.

METHODS

We screened included studies from two Cochrane reviews for studies reporting smoking outcomes based on gender or sex. The first review examines the effects of using e-cigarettes to help people quit smoking and includes randomized controlled trials and uncontrolled intervention studies published to July 2023. The second review aims to assess the evidence on the relationship between the use and availability of e-cigarettes and subsequent smoking in young people (aged 29 and younger) and includes quasi-experimental and cohort studies published to April 2023. Due to the paucity and heterogeneity of data, we report results narratively.

RESULTS

10 of 161 studies included in the two relevant reviews met our criteria. Only five reported analyzing whether observed effects or associations varied based on sex and/or gender. A further three provided relevant descriptive information, and two did not report overall outcomes regarding vaping and smoking transitions but did investigate whether these differed by sex/gender. Synthesized data were largely inconclusive, but there was some suggestion that vaping was more strongly associated with subsequent smoking in young males than females. No studies reported data on nonbinary participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite plausible reasons why sex and gender may be moderators of vaping and smoking transitions, there is little evidence investigating this. Future studies of vaping and smoking transitions should conduct and report analyses investigating potential differences based on sex and gender.

Do medications increase the efficacy of digital interventions for smoking cessation? Secondary results from the iCanQuit randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

iCanQuit is a smartphone application (app) proven efficacious for smoking cessation in a Phase III randomized controlled trial (RCT). This study aimed to measure whether medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for smoking cessation would further enhance the efficacy of iCanQuit, relative to its parent trial comparator-the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) QuitGuide app.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of the entire parent trial sample of a two-group (iCanQuit and QuitGuide), stratified, doubled-blind RCT.

SETTING

United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants who reported using an FDA-approved cessation medication on their own (n = 619) and those who reported no use of cessation medications (n = 1469).

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to receive iCanQuit app or NCI's QuitGuide app.

MEASUREMENTS

Use of FDA-approved medications was measured at 3 months post-randomization. Smoking cessation outcomes were measured at 3, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome was 12-month self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA).

FINDINGS

The data retention rate at the 12-month follow-up was 94.0%. Participants were aged 38.5 years, 71.0% female, 36.6% minority race/ethnicity, 40.6% high school or less education, residing in all 50 US States and smoking 19.2 cigarettes/day. The 29.6% of all participants who used medications were more likely to choose nicotine replacement therapy (NRT; 78.8%) than other cessation medications (i.e. varenicline or bupropion; 18.3 and 10.5%, respectively) and use did not differ by app treatment assignment (all P > 0.05). There was a significant (P = 0.049) interaction between medication use and app treatment assignment on PPA. Specifically, 12-month quit rates were 34% for iCanQuit versus 20% for QuitGuide [odds ratio (OR) = 2.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.59, 3.49] among participants reporting any medication use, whereas among participants reporting no medication use, quit rates were 28% for iCanQuit versus 22% for QuitGuide (OR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.09, 1.82). Results were stronger for those using only NRT: 40% quit rates for iCanQuit versus 18% quit rates for QuitGuide (OR = 3.57, 95% CI = 2.20, 5.79).

CONCLUSIONS

The iCanQuit smartphone app for smoking cessation was more efficacious than the QuitGuide smartphone app, regardless of whether participants used medications to aid cessation. Smoking cessation medications, especially nicotine replacement therapy, might enhance the efficacy of the iCanQuit app.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence, in comparison to non-nicotine EC, other smoking cessation treatments and no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register to 1 February 2023, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2023, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention as these studies have the potential to provide further information on harms and longer-term use. Studies had to report an eligible outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Critical outcomes were abstinence from smoking after at least six months, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 88 completed studies (10 new to this update), representing 27,235 participants, of which 47 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 58 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There is high certainty that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 2544 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs is similar between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2052 participants). SAEs were rare, and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differ between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.60; I2 = 32%; 6 studies, 2761 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96; I2 = 4%; 6 studies, 1613 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 7 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differ between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 1412 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to issues with risk of bias, there is low-certainty evidence that, compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates may be higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.25; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 5024 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 5 more). There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs may be more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low-certainty evidence; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.34; I2 = 23%; 10 studies, 3263 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Results from the NMA were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analyses for all critical outcomes, and there was no indication of inconsistency within the networks. Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence, evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing both clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain due to risk of bias inherent in the study design. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but the longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

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.

Cytisinicline for Smoking Cessation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Cytisinicline (cytisine) is a plant-based alkaloid that, like varenicline, binds selectively to α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, which mediate nicotine dependence. Although not licensed in the US, cytisinicline is used in some European countries to aid smoking cessation, but its traditional dosing regimen and treatment duration may not be optimal.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of cytisinicline for smoking cessation when administered in a novel pharmacokinetically based dosing regimen for 6 or 12 weeks vs placebo.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A 3-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial (ORCA-2) compared 2 durations of cytisinicline treatment (6 or 12 weeks) vs placebo, with follow-up to 24 weeks, among 810 adults who smoked cigarettes daily and wanted to quit. It was conducted at 17 US sites from October 2020 to December 2021.

Interventions

Participants were randomized (1:1:1) to cytisinicline, 3 mg, 3 times daily for 12 weeks (n = 270); cytisinicline, 3 mg, 3 times daily for 6 weeks then placebo 3 times daily for 6 weeks (n = 269); or placebo 3 times daily for 12 weeks (n = 271). All participants received behavioral support.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Biochemically verified continuous smoking abstinence for the last 4 weeks of cytisinicline treatment vs placebo (primary) and from end of treatment to 24 weeks (secondary).

Results

Of 810 randomized participants (mean age, 52.5 years; 54.6% female; mean of 19.4 cigarettes smoked daily), 618 (76.3%) completed the trial. For the 6-week course of cytisinicline vs placebo, continuous abstinence rates were 25.3% vs 4.4% during weeks 3 to 6 (odds ratio [OR], 8.0 [95% CI, 3.9-16.3]; P < .001) and 8.9% vs 2.6% during weeks 3 to 24 (OR, 3.7 [95% CI, 1.5-10.2]; P = .002). For the 12-week course of cytisinicline vs placebo, continuous abstinence rates were 32.6% vs 7.0% for weeks 9 to 12 (OR, 6.3 [95% CI, 3.7-11.6]; P < .001) and 21.1% vs 4.8% during weeks 9 to 24 (OR, 5.3 [95% CI, 2.8-11.1]; P < .001). Nausea, abnormal dreams, and insomnia occurred in less than 10% of each group. Sixteen participants (2.9%) discontinued cytisinicline due to an adverse event. No drug-related serious adverse events occurred.

Conclusions and Relevance

Both 6- and 12-week cytisinicline schedules, with behavioral support, demonstrated smoking cessation efficacy and excellent tolerability, offering new nicotine dependence treatment options.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04576949.

Preliminary feasibility of integrating tobacco treatment into SUD peer recovery coaching: a mixed-methods study of peer recovery coaches

BACKGROUND

Individuals with substance use disorder (SUD) have high prevalence of cigarette smoking and difficulty quitting. Peer recovery coaches (PRCs; individuals with lived SUD experience) facilitate SUD behavior change in recoverees but it is unknown if/how they address tobacco treatment in SUD recovery coaching. We assessed PRC's tobacco-related practices and attitudes about tobacco treatment in SUD recovery.

METHODS

The Tobacco use In Peer-recovery Study (TIPS) was a cross-sectional mixed-methods pilot survey (January-March 2022) of the 26 PRCs employed by a Massachusetts-based healthcare system's 12 SUD treatment clinics/programs. PRCs completed a quantitative survey (n = 23/26; 88%) and a telephone-based qualitative interview (n = 20/26; 77%).

RESULTS

One-third of PRCs reported current smoking, 50% reported former smoking, and 18% never smoked. Among PRCs, 61% reported accompanying recoverees outdoors to smoke, 26% smoked with recoverees, 17% had provided cigarettes to recoverees, 32% used smoking to help build peer-relationships, and 74% rated smoking as socially acceptable in SUD treatment. PRCs reported regularly talking to recoverees about tobacco treatment (65%), believed they should have a role in helping recoverees quit smoking (52%), and were interested in tobacco treatment training (65%). A majority of both nonsmoking and current smoking PRCs (73% vs. 57%) regularly talked to recoverees about quitting smoking.

CONCLUSION

PRCs' attitudes about integrating tobacco treatment into SUD recovery coaching were generally positive and PRCs reported they could have a role in helping recoverees with tobacco treatment. Barriers to integrating tobacco treatment into SUD recovery include use of cigarettes as a peer-recovery tool and high prevalence and social acceptability of smoking in SUD recovery.

Tobacco smoking and prevalence of communicable and non-communicable diseases in rural South Africa: A cross-sectional study

Background

South Africa is facing a convergence of communicable diseases (CDs) and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The contribution of tobacco use to the burden of these conditions is unknown.

Methods

We analyzed the associations between current tobacco smoking and four important CDs and NCDs in Vukuzazi, a cross-sectional study of individuals aged 15 years and older conducted between 2018-2020 in a demographic surveillance area in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Data on HIV, active tuberculosis (TB), hypertension and diabetes mellitus were collected via direct measurement from participants.

Results

Of 18,024 participants (68% female, median age 37 years [interquartile rage 23-56 years]), 1,301 (7.2%) reported current smoking. Prevalence of HIV infection was similarly high among people who currently smoked (34.6%) and people who had never smoked (33.9%). However, among people living with HIV (PLWH), there was a higher prevalence of detectable viremia in people reporting current smoking compared to people who reported never smoking (28.8% vs. 16.6%; p-value < 0.001). Active TB was more prevalent in people who currently smoked than in people who never smoked (3.1% vs 1.3%, p < 0.001). In contrast, the prevalence of hypertension and diabetes mellitus were lower in people reporting current smoking than in people reporting never smoking (17.1% vs 26.0% (p < 0.001), and 2.5% vs 10.2% (p < 0.001), respectively). In sex-stratified multivariable analyses that were adjusted for potential confounding factors (including body mass index for the NCDs), the magnitude of differences in CD prevalence between people who currently smoked and people who never smoked decreased, whereas the lower prevalence of NCDs among people reporting current smoking persisted.

Conclusions

In rural South Africa, smoking is associated with higher rates of active TB, and people with HIV who smoke have worse disease control. In contrast, hypertension and diabetes mellitus are less common in those who smoke. Interventions to screen for TB among those who smoke and to address smoking among people with HIV may be particularly impactful.

An exploration of flavours in studies of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation: secondary analyses of a systematic review with meta-analyses

AIMS

To estimate associations between e-cigarette flavour and smoking cessation and study product use at 6 months or longer.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of data from a living systematic review, with meta-analyses and narrative synthesis, incorporating data up to January 2022. Included studies provided people who smoked combustible cigarettes with nicotine e-cigarettes for the purpose of smoking cessation compared with no treatment or other stop smoking interventions. Measurements included smoking cessation and study product use at 6 months or longer reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI); and flavour use at any time-points.

RESULTS

We included 16 studies (n = 10 336); 14 contributed to subgroup analyses and 10 provided participants with a choice of e-cigarette flavour. We judged nine, five and two studies at high, low and unclear risk of bias, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed no clear associations between flavour and cessation or product use. In all but one analysis, tests for subgroup differences resulted in I2 values between 0 and 35%. In the comparison between nicotine e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (I2  = 65.2% for subgroup differences), studies offering tobacco flavour e-cigarettes showed evidence of a greater proportion of participants still using at 6 months or longer (RR = 3.81; 95% CI = 1.45-10.05; n = 1181; I2  = 84%), whereas there was little evidence for greater 6-month use when studies offered a choice of flavours (RR = 1.44; 95% CI = 0.80-2.56; n = 454; I2  = 82%). However, substantial statistical heterogeneity within subgroups makes interpretation of this result unclear. In the 10 studies where participants had a choice of flavours, and this was tracked over time, some switching between flavours occurred, but there were no clear patterns in flavour preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

There does not appear to be a clear association between e-cigarette flavours and smoking cessation or longer-term e-cigarette use, possibly due to a paucity of data. There is evidence that people using e-cigarettes to quit smoking switch between e-cigarette flavours.

Smoke-Free Policies and Resident Turnover: An Evaluation in Massachusetts Public Housing From 2009‒2018

INTRODUCTION

Smoke-free policies (SFP) in multi-unit housing are a promising tool for reducing exposure to tobacco smoke among residents. Concerns about increased housing instability due to voluntary or involuntary transitions induced by SFPs have been a primary barrier to greater widespread adoption. The impact of SFP implementation on transitions out of public housing in federally funded public housing authorities in Massachusetts was evaluated.

METHODS

Tenancy data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development were used to determine the time from admission to transitioning out of public housing based on a cohort study design. Periods of exposure to SFPs were defined based on dates of SFP implementation at each PHA. Multi-level Cox regression models were fit to estimate the effects of SFPs on the hazard of transitioning, adjusting for household- and PHA-level characteristics. Analyses were conducted in 2021‒2022.

RESULTS

There were 44,705 households with a record of residence in Massachusetts PHAs over 2009‒2018. Over this period, despite increasing adoption of SFPs among the PHAs, rates of transition remained steady at around 5‒8 transitions per 1,000 household-months. There was no overall association between exposure to SFPs and transitions among the full sample (adjusted HR=0.99, 95% CI=0.95, 1.04, p=0.794). However, the association varied significantly by age group, race/ethnicity, timing of SFP adoption, and era of admission.

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption of SFPs in public housing had a minimal overall impact on turnover for households in Massachusetts, though disparities in the impact were observed between different demographic and PHA-level subgroups.

A Phase I, Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Single Dose-escalation Study to Evaluate the Tolerability, and Safety of Cytisinicline in Adult Smokers

INTRODUCTION

Cytisinicline is a nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist marketed historically as oral tablets in Central and Eastern Europe as an aid to smoking cessation. Dosing and scheduled regimen for cytisinicline treatment is currently being redeveloped for market approval in the United States and elsewhere.

AIMS AND METHODS

A phase 1, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, single-ascending dose clinical trial was conducted under fasting conditions in healthy adults who were current daily (>10 cigarettes) smokers. Safety parameters for the identification of a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and limited supportive pharmacokinetic assessments were evaluated. Ascending single oral doses of cytisinicline or placebo were administered to 9 cohorts, each comprised of eight unique participants (randomization: 6 cytisinicline; 2 placebo). Dose escalation to the next cohort was dependent upon the safety review of preceding cohorts. Dose levels tested were 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, and 30 mg. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and clinically relevant changes in laboratory blood tests, vital signs, and 12-lead electrocardiograms were evaluated.

RESULTS

Seventy-two participants completed the study (54 cytisinicline; 18 placebo). Nausea was the most common TEAE (10 participants [19%]). The MTD was defined as cytisinicline 30 mg based on gastrointestinal symptoms, predominantly vomiting (2 of 6 subjects, 33%). Maximum plasma concentration (observed Cmax) values appeared to plateau at higher dose levels (beyond 24 mg).

CONCLUSIONS

Single cytisinicline doses up to 30 mg were well tolerated and raised no new safety concerns in fasting adult smokers. An increased frequency of gastrointestinal symptoms defined the MTD at 30 mg.

IMPLICATIONS

The cytisinicline therapeutic dose being evaluated in phase 3 clinical trials is 3 mg, which is a 10-fold lower dose than the 30 mg MTD level for cytisinicline, resulting in an excellent safety margin.

Biomarkers of potential harm in people switching from smoking tobacco to exclusive e-cigarette use, dual use or abstinence: secondary analysis of Cochrane systematic review of trials of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation

AIMS

This study aims to compare biomarkers of potential harm between people switching from smoking combustible cigarettes (CC) completely to electronic cigarettes (EC), continuing to smoke CC, using both EC and CC (dual users) and using neither (abstainers), based on behaviour during EC intervention studies.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis following systematic review, incorporating inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis and effect direction plots.

SETTING

This study was conducted in Greece, Italy, Poland, the United Kingdom and the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1299 adults smoking CC (nine studies) and provided EC.

MEASUREMENTS

Measurements were conducted using carbon monoxide (CO) and 26 other biomarkers.

FINDINGS

In pooled analyses, exhaled CO (eCO) was lower in EC versus EC + CC [mean difference (MD) = -4.40 parts per million (p.p.m.), 95% confidence interval (CI) = -12.04 to 3.24, two studies] and CC (MD = -9.57 p.p.m., 95% CI = -17.30 to -1.83, three studies). eCO was lower in dual users versus CC only (MD = -1.91 p.p.m., 95% CI = -3.38 to -0.45, two studies). Magnitude rather than direction of effect drove substantial statistical heterogeneity. Effect direction plots were used for other biomarkers. Comparing EC with CC, 12 of 13 biomarkers were significantly lower in EC users, with no difference for the 13th. Comparing EC with dual users, 12 of the 25 biomarkers were lower for EC, and five were lower for dual use. For the remaining eight measures, single studies did not detect statistically significant differences, or the multiple studies contributing to the outcome had inconsistent results. Only one study provided data comparing dual use with CC; of the 13 biomarkers measured, 12 were significantly lower in the dual use group, with no statistically significant difference detected for the 13th. Only one study provided data on abstainers.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from smoking to vaping or dual use appears to reduce levels of biomarkers of potential harm significantly.

A Women in Medicine Trainees' Council: a model for women trainee professional development

Women physicians are promoted less often, more likely to experience harassment and bias, and paid less than their male peers. Although many institutions have developed initiatives to help women physicians overcome these professional hurdles, few are specifically geared toward physicians-in-training. The Women in Medicine Trainees' Council (WIMTC) was created in 2015 to support the professional advancement of women physicians-in-training in the Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Medicine (MGH-DOM). In a 2021 survey, the majority of respondents agreed that the WIMTC ameliorated the challenges of being a woman physician-in-training and contributed positively to overall wellness. Nearly all agreed that they would advise other training programs to implement a similar program. We present our model for women-trainee support to further the collective advancement of women physicians.

A critique of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council CEO statement on electronic cigarettes

This paper critically analyses a statement by Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) on e-cigarettes in May 2022 that will be used to guide national policy. We reviewed the evidence and the conclusions drawn in the NHMRC Statement. In our view, the Statement is not a balanced reflection of the benefits and risks of vaping because it exaggerates the risks of vaping and fails to compare them to the far greater risks of smoking; it uncritically accepts evidence of harms from e-cigarettes while adopting a highly sceptical attitude towards evidence of their benefits; it incorrectly claims that the association between adolescent vaping and subsequent smoking is causal; and it understates the evidence of the benefits of e-cigarettes in assisting smokers to quit. The Statement dismisses the evidence that vaping is probably already having a positive net public health effect and misapplies the precautionary principle. Several sources of evidence supporting our assessment were published after the NHMRC Statement's publication and are also referenced. The NHMRC Statement on e-cigarettes does not present a balanced assessment of the available scientific literature and fails to meet the standard expected of a leading national scientific body.

A pilot adaptive trial of text messages, mailed nicotine replacement therapy, and telephone coaching among primary care patients who smoke

INTRODUCTION

Sequential multiple assignment randomized trials (SMART) inform the design of adaptive treatment interventions. We tested the feasibility of a SMART to deliver a stepped-care intervention among primary care patients who smoked daily.

METHODS

In a 12-week pilot SMART (NCT04020718), we tested the feasibility of recruiting and retaining (>80 %) participants to an adaptive intervention starting with cessation text messages (SMS). The study randomly assigned participants (R1) to assessment of quit status, the tailoring variable, after either 4 or 8 weeks of SMS. The study offered continued SMS alone to those reporting abstinence. Those reporting smoking were randomized (R2) to SMS + mailed NRT or SMS + NRT + brief telephone coaching.

RESULTS

During Jan-March and July-Aug 2020, we enrolled 35 patients (>18 years) from a primary care network in Massachusetts. Two (6 %) of 31 participants reported seven-day point prevalence abstinence at their tailoring variable assessment. The 29 participants who continued to smoke at 4 or 8 weeks were randomized (R2) to SMS + NRT (n = 16) or SMS + NRT + coaching (n = 13). Thirty of 35 participants (86 %) completed 12-weeks; 13 % (2/15) of those in 4-week group and 27 % (4/15) of those in 8-week group had CO < 6 ppm at 12-weeks (p = 0.65). Among 29 participants in R2, one was lost to follow-up, 19 % (3/16) of the SMS + NRT group had CO < 6 ppm vs. 17 % (2/12) of SMS + NRT + coaching (p = 1.00). Treatment satisfaction was high (93 %, 28 of 30 who completed 12-weeks).

CONCLUSIONS

A SMART exploring a stepped-care adaptive intervention combining SMS, NRT, and coaching for primary care patients was feasible. Retention and satisfaction were high and quit rates were promising.

Patients With Serious Mental Illness Can Engage in Tobacco Treatment Trials and Tobacco Cessation Interventions During Cancer Treatment

PURPOSE

More than half of individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) smoke, contributing to premature cancer mortality. A cancer diagnosis provides an opportunity to assist with smoking cessation; however, supportive oncology trials frequently exclude patients with SMI. To fill this gap, we examined differences in engagement and tobacco cessation in a pragmatic clinical trial.

METHODS

We recruited 303 participants from two National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers, of which 10% had prior diagnoses of SMI (major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia spectrum disorders). We compared self-reported smoking behaviors, patient attitudes and beliefs about cessation, and rates of trial completion, engagement, and smoking abstinence among recently diagnosed patients with cancer with and without SMI. Six months after trial completion, we completed qualitative interviews on barriers and facilitators to tobacco cessation in a random sample of participants with SMI.

RESULTS

Trial participants with SMI had similar motivation to quit smoking as those without SMI. Additionally, participants with SMI had a similar ability to engage in a tobacco treatment trial (6.5 counseling sessions completed v 7.3 sessions) and benefit from tobacco treatment as those without SMI (32.3% v 27.8% 6-month quit rates).

CONCLUSION

Patients with cancer and SMI were able to engage in and benefit from a tobacco cessation trial integrated into cancer care. A cancer diagnosis provides an opportunity to assist patients with SMI with smoking cessation referrals and treatment. Pragmatic supportive oncology trials that include a diverse population of adults with SMI are needed to inform care delivery and improve cancer outcomes for patients with SMI and cancer.

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-Based Smartphone Applications for Cessation of Tobacco Use among Adults with High Nicotine Dependence: Results from the iCanQuit Randomized Trial

Background: With 1 in 2 adult tobacco users being highly dependent on nicotine, population-based interventions specifically designed for this group are urgently needed. This study used data from a randomized trial to evaluate whether (1) Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) delivered via a smartphone application (iCanQuit) would be more efficacious for cessation of nicotine-containing tobacco products than the US Clinical Practice Guidelines (USCPG)-based application (QuitGuide) among highly nicotine-dependent adults, (2) the effect of treatment on cessation was mediated by increases in acceptance of cravings to smoke, and (3) treatment utilization and satisfaction differed by arm. Methods: A total of 1452 highly nicotine-dependent adults received the iCanQuit or QuitGuide application for 12-months. Cessation outcomes were self-reported complete-case 30-day abstinence of nicotine-containing tobacco products (e.g., combustible cigarettes, e-cigarettes, chewing tobacco, snus, hookahs, cigars, cigarillos, tobacco pipes, and kreteks) at 3, 6, and 12-month post-randomization timepoints, missing-as-smoking, and multiple imputation analyses. Acceptance of cues to smoke and satisfaction with the applications was also reported. Results: Participants who received iCanQuit were significantly more likely to report 30-day abstinence of nicotine-containing tobacco products than those who received QuitGuide at 12-months (24% vs. 17%; OR = 1.47 95% CI: 1.11, 1.95). iCanQuit participants utilized their application more frequently and reported greater satisfaction than those who received QuitGuide. Increases in participants' acceptance of cues to smoke mediated the intervention effect on cessation of nicotine-containing tobacco products. Conclusions: Among nicotine-dependent adults, an application-delivered ACT-based intervention was more engaging and efficacious than a USCPG-based intervention for cessation of nicotine-containing tobacco products.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Tobacco Treatment Program Implementation at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted cancer screening and treatment delivery, but COVID-19's impact on tobacco cessation treatment for cancer patients who smoke has not been widely explored.

AIMS AND METHODS

We conducted a sequential cross-sectional analysis of data collected from 34 National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers participating in NCI's Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I), across three reporting periods: one prior to COVID-19 (January-June 2019) and two during the pandemic (January-June 2020, January-June 2021). Using McNemar's Test of Homogeneity, we assessed changes in services offered and implementation activities over time.

RESULTS

The proportion of centers offering remote treatment services increased each year for Quitline referrals (56%, 68%, and 91%; p = .000), telephone counseling (59%, 79%, and 94%; p = .002), and referrals to Smokefree TXT (27%, 47%, and 56%; p = .006). Centers offering video-based counseling increased from 2020 to 2021 (18% to 59%; p = .006), Fewer than 10% of centers reported laying off tobacco treatment staff. Compared to early 2020, in 2021 C3I centers reported improvements in their ability to maintain staff and clinician morale, refer to external treatment services, train providers to deliver tobacco treatment, and modify clinical workflows.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid transition to new telehealth program delivery of tobacco treatment for patients with cancer. C3I cancer centers adjusted rapidly to challenges presented by the pandemic, with improvements reported in staff morale and ability to train providers, refer patients to tobacco treatment, and modify clinical workflows. These factors enabled C3I centers to sustain evidence-based tobacco treatment implementation during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

IMPLICATIONS

This work describes how NCI-designated cancer centers participating in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) adapted to challenges to sustain evidence-based tobacco use treatment programs during the COVID-19 pandemic. This work offers a model for resilience and rapid transition to remote tobacco treatment services delivery and proposes a policy and research agenda for telehealth services as an approach to sustaining evidence-based tobacco treatment programs.