Cancer-related disease factors and smoking cessation treatment: Analysis of an ongoing clinical trial

Identifying determinants of varenicline adherence using the Theoretical Domains framework: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Adhering to varenicline has been shown to significantly improve the chances of successfully quitting smoking, with studies indicating a twofold increase in 6-month quit rates. However, despite its potential benefits, many individuals struggle with maintaining good adherence to varenicline; thus there is a need to develop scalable strategies to help people adhere. As a first step to inform the development of an intervention to improve adherence to varenicline, we conducted a rapid literature review to identify: 1) modifiable barriers and facilitators to varenicline adherence, and 2) behaviour change techniques associated with increased adherence to varenicline.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published between 2006 and 2022. Search terms included "varenicline," "smoking cessation," and "adherence," and their respective subject headings and synonyms. We screened and included studies reporting modifiable determinants of adherence to varenicline and then assessed quality, extracted modifiable determinants and mapped them to the Theoretical Domains Framework version 2 and the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy version 1.

RESULTS

A total of 1,221 titles were identified through the database searches; 61 met the eligibility criteria. Most of the studies were randomized controlled trials and predominantly focused on barriers to varenicline. Only nine studies explicitly mentioned behaviour change techniques used to help varenicline adherence. Eight domains were identified as barriers to varenicline adherence (behavioural regulation, memory, goals, intentions, beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences, optimism/pessimism, and environmental context) and five as facilitators (knowledge, behavioural regulation, beliefs about capabilities, social influences, and environmental context).

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies barriers and facilitators that should be addressed when developing a complex adherence intervention tailored to patients' needs based on modifiable determinants of medication adherence, some of which are under- used by existing adherence interventions. The findings from this review will inform the design of a theory-based healthbot planned to improve varenicline adherence in people undergoing smoking cessation treatment.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This study was registered with PROSPERO (# CRD42022321838).

Effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions among persons with cancer: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Continued smoking after cancer diagnosis is associated with worse outcomes, however, many persons diagnosed with cancer who smoke are unable to quit successfully. Effective interventions are needed to promote quitting in this population. The purpose of this systematic review is to understand the most effective interventions for smoking cessation among persons with cancer and to identify gaps in knowledge and methodology to suggest directions for future research.

METHODS

Three electronic databases (The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) were searched for studies of smoking cessation interventions among persons with cancer, published up to 1 July 2021. Title and abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction was completed by two independent reviewers, via Covalence software, with any discordance resolved by a third reviewer. A quality assessment was completed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool Version 2.

RESULTS

Thirty-six articles were included in the review, including 17 randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) and 19 non-RCT studies. Of the 36 studies, 28 (77.8%) utilized an intervention that included both counseling and medication, with 24 (85.7%) providing medication to participants at no cost. Abstinence rates in the RCT intervention groups (n = 17) ranged from 5.2% to 75%, while the non-RCTs found abstinence rates ranging from 15% to 46%. Overall, studies met a mean of 2.28 out of seven quality items, ranging from 0 to 6.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the importance of utilizing intensive combined behavioral and pharmacological interventions for persons with cancer. While combined therapy interventions seem to be the most effective, more research is needed, as current studies have several quality issues, including the lack of biochemical verification for abstinence.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

Background

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. 

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e‐cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow‐up period of six months from baseline.

Data collection and analysis

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow‐up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel‐Haenszel fixed‐effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs).

Main results

We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk.

We found moderate‐certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I2 = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low‐certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I2 = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate‐certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I2 = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I2 = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low‐certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm.

Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline found no clear evidence of difference in quit rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.26; I2 = 65%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I2 = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low‐certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I2 = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I2 = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low‐certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I2 = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual‐form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low‐certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit.

Authors' conclusions

Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual‐form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be no difference or a benefit from either medication for quitting smoking.

Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard‐dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e‐cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Can medications like varenicline and cytisine (nicotine receptor partial agonists) help people to stop smoking and do they cause unwanted effects?

Key messages

· Varenicline can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. Evidence shows it works better than bupropion and using only one type of nicotine replacement therapy (e.g. only patches). Quit rates might be similar to using more than one type of nicotine replacement therapy at the same time (e.g. patches and gum together).

· Cytisine can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. It may work as well as varenicline, but future evidence may show that while it helps, it is not quite as helpful as varenicline.

· Future studies should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other stop‐smoking medications, and should also  investigate giving cytisine or varenicline at different doses and for different lengths of time.

What are 'nicotine receptor partial agonists'?

Smoking tobacco is extremely bad for people’s health. For people who smoke, quitting is the best thing they can do to improve their health. Many people find it difficult to quit smoking. Nicotine receptor partial agonists (NRPAs) are a type of medication used to help people to stop smoking. They help to reduce the withdrawal symptoms people experience when they stop smoking, like cravings and unpleasant mood changes. They also reduce the pleasure people usually experience when they smoke. The most widely‐available treatment in this drug type is varenicline. Cytisine is another, similar medication. They may cause unwanted effects such as feeling sick (nausea) and other stomach problems, difficulties sleeping, abnormal dreams, and headache. They may also lead to potentially serious unwanted effects, such as suicidal thoughts, heart problems and raised blood pressure.

What did we want to find out?

We wanted to find out if using NRPAs can help people to quit smoking, and if they cause unwanted effects. We wanted to know:

· how many people stopped smoking for at least 6 months; and

· how many people had unwanted effects.

What did we do?

We searched for studies that investigated NRPAs used to help people quit smoking. People in the studies had to be chosen at random to receive an NRPA, or another NRPA, placebo (medication like the NRPA but with no active ingredients) or no treatment. They had to be adult tobacco smokers who wanted to stop smoking.

What did we find?

We found 75 studies that compared NRPAs with:

· placebo or no medicine;

· nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches or gum;

· bupropion (another medicine to help people stop smoking);

· another NRPA;

· e‐cigarettes.

The USA hosted the most studies (28 studies). Other studies took place in a range of countries across the world, some in several countries.

Main results

People are more likely to stop smoking for at least six months using varenicline than using placebo (41 studies, 17,395 people), bupropion (9 studies, 7560 people), or just one type of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches alone (11 studies, 7572 people). They may be just as likely to quit as people using two or more kinds of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches and gum together (5 studies, 2344 people).

Cytisine probably helps more people to stop smoking than placebo (4 studies, 4623 people) and may be just as effective as varenicline (2 studies, 2131 people).

For every 100 people using varenicline to stop smoking, 21 to 25 might successfully stop, compared with only 18 of 100 people using bupropion, 18 of 100 people using a single form of nicotine‐replacement therapy, and 20 of 100 using two or more kinds of nicotine‐replacement therapy. For every 100 people using cytisine to stop smoking, 18 to 23 might successfully stop.

The most common unwanted effect of varenicline is nausea, but this is mostly at mild or moderate levels and usually clears over time. People taking varenicline likely have an increased chance of a more serious unwanted effect that could result in going to hospital, however these are still rare (2.7% to 4% of people on varenicline, compared with 2.7% of people without) and may include many that are unrelated to varenicline. People taking cytisine may also have a slightly increased chance of serious unwanted effects compared with people not taking it, but this may be less likely compared with varenicline.

What are the limitations of the evidence?

The evidence for some of our results is very reliable. We’re very confident that varenicline helps people to quit smoking better than many alternatives. We’re less sure of some other results because fewer or smaller studies provided evidence.

Several results suggest one treatment is better or less harmful than another, but the opposite could still be true.

How up to date is the evidence?

The evidence is up to date to 29 April 2022.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e-cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from baseline.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk. We found moderate-certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I² = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low-certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I² = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I² = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I² = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low-certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I² = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low-certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm. Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline showed that more people in the varenicline arm quit smoking (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I² = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I² = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I² = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I² = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I² = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual-form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low-certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I² not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I² not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual-form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be a benefit from varenicline for quitting smoking, however further evidence could strengthen this finding or demonstrate a benefit from cytisine. Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard-dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Adherence and Efficacy of Smoking Cessation Treatment Among Patients with COPD in China

Background

Smoking cessation is a key intervention for all smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Poor treatment adherence is a challenge in clinical practice that might contribute to the lower efficacy of medication (eg, oral drug). However, it is unclear what factors will influence adherence among smokers with COPD.

Methods

This study was based on an open-label randomized controlled trial (RCT) of varenicline and bupropion for smoking cessation among patients with COPD in China. The medication was given for 12 weeks, and visits and assessments were conducted at weeks 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 24. We assessed whether the adherence to smoking cessation treatment affects the smoking cessation efficacy and evaluated predictors of adherence.

Results

A total of 136 participants were recruited from February 2019 to June 2020, and analyzed using the intention-to-treat (ITT) method. In this study, 48.5% (66/136) of the total participants had good adherence to smoking cessation, and good adherence significantly improved the efficacy of smoking cessation (OR=9.60, 95% CI 4.02–22.96, P < 0.001). After adjusting for age, gender, nationality, education, and marital status, we found older age, higher education level, having more previous quitting attempts, stronger self-efficacy and preparation in quitting smoking, recognizing hazards of smoking, longer duration of COPD, and higher St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores were relevant to good adherence (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

To our best knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate adherence to smoking cessation treatment among patients with COPD in China. Our study found that good adherence to smoking cessation treatment significantly improved the smoking cessation efficacy, and predictors of adherence were evaluated. We call on the medical community to pay attention to the adherence to smoking cessation among patients with COPD.

Longitudinal associations between smoking and affect among cancer patients using varenicline to quit smoking

During a quit attempt, high negative affect predicts relapse to smoking. In this study, we evaluated bidirectional longitudinal associations between smoking and negative affect among cancer patients treated with varenicline. Participants (N = 119, 50% female, Mage = 59 years) were smokers (≥5 cigarettes/week) who were diagnosed with cancer and were recruited for a 24-week trial of extended duration varenicline plus behavioral counseling; data for this secondary analyses were drawn from the 12-week open-label phase of the trial. Smoking was assessed via self-reported number of cigarettes in the past 24 h. Negative affect was assessed using the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS). Data were collected at pre-quit (week 0), target quit day (week 1), week 4, and week 12. We evaluated cross-lagged panel models for negative affect and smoking using PROC CALIS in SAS. Models were run separately for participants who were adherent (≥80% of medication taken) or nonadherent to varenicline. Among adherent participants (n = 96), smoking accounted for up to 22% of variance in subsequent negative affect throughout treatment. Cross-lagged associations were not observed between smoking and negative affect among non-adherent participants (n = 23). Negative affect did not predict subsequent smoking among either adherent or nonadherent participants. These results suggest that varenicline may attenuate abstinence-induced negative affect among cancer patients treated for nicotine dependence.

Adherence to Pharmacological Smoking Cessation Interventions: A Literature Review and Synthesis of Correlates and Barriers

Introduction

Efficacious pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation are available, but poor adherence to these treatments may limit these interventions overall impact. To improve adherence to smoking cessation interventions, it is first necessary to identify and understand smoker-level characteristics that drive nonadherence (ie, nonconformance with a provider's recommendation of timing, dosage, or frequency of medication-taking during the prescribed length of time).

Methods

We present a literature review of studies examining correlates of, or self-reported reasons for, nonadherence to smoking cessation pharmacotherapies. Studies were identified through PubMed-using MeSH terms, Embase-using Emtree terms, and ISI Web of Science.

Results and Conclusions

This literature review included 50 studies that examined nonpreventable (eg, sociodemographics) and preventable (eg, forgetfulness) factors associated with adherence to smoking cessation medication and suggestions for overcoming some of the identified barriers. Systematic study of this topic would be facilitated by consistent reporting of adherence and correlates thereof in the literature, development of consistent definitions of medication adherence across studies, utilization of more objective measures of adherence (eg, blood plasma levels vs. self-report) in addition to reliance on self-reported adherence.

Implications

This article provides the most comprehensive review to date on correlates of adherence to pharmacological smoking cessation interventions. Challenges and specific gaps in the literature that should be a priority for future research are discussed. Future priorities include additional research, particularly among vulnerable populations of smokers, developing standardized definitions of adherence and methods for measuring adherence, regular assessment of cessation pharmacotherapy adherence in the context of research and clinical practice, and development of novel treatments aimed at preventable barriers to medication adherence.

Internet-based self-help smoking cessation and alcohol moderation interventions for cancer survivors: a study protocol of two RCTs

Background

Brief interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation may contribute considerably to the prevention of cancer among populations at risk, such as cancer survivors, in addition to improving their general wellbeing. There is accumulating evidence for the effectiveness of internet-based brief health behaviour interventions. The objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness, patient-level cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of two new online theory-based self-help interventions among adult cancer survivors in the Netherlands. One of the interventions focuses on alcohol moderation, the other on smoking cessation. Both interventions are tailored to cancer survivors.

Methods

Effectiveness will be assessed in two separate, nearly identical 2-armed RCTs: alcohol moderation (AM RCT) and smoking cessation (SC RCT). Participants are randomly allocated to either the intervention groups or the control groups. In the intervention groups, participants have access to one of the newly developed interventions. In the control groups, participants receive an online static information brochure on alcohol (AM RCT) or smoking (SC RCT). Main study outcome parameters are the number of drinks post-randomisation (AM RCT) and tobacco abstinence (SC RCT). In addition, cost-data and possible effect moderators and mediators will be assessed. Both treatments are internet-based minimally guided self-help interventions: MyCourse – Moderate Drinking (in Dutch: MijnKoers – Minderen met Drinken) and MyCourse – Quit Smoking (MijnKoers – Stoppen met Roken). They are based on cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), motivational interviewing (MI) and acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). Both interventions are optimized in collaboration with the target population of cancer survivors in focus groups and interviews, and in collaboration with several experts on eHealth, smoking cessation, alcohol misuse and cancer survivorship.

Discussion

The present study will add to scientific knowledge on the (cost-)effectiveness of internet-based self-help interventions to aid in smoking cessation or alcohol moderation, working mechanisms and impact on quality of life of cancer survivors. If found effective, these interventions can contribute to providing evidence-based psychosocial oncology care to a growing population of cancer survivors.

Trial registration

Trials are prospectively registered in The Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR6011 (SC RCT), NTR6010 (AM RCT) on 1 September 2016.

Cancer Patients Enrolled in a Smoking Cessation Clinical Trial: Characteristics and Correlates of Smoking Rate and Nicotine Dependence

Introduction

A substantial proportion of cancer patients continue to smoke after their diagnosis but few studies have evaluated correlates of nicotine dependence and smoking rate in this population, which could help guide smoking cessation interventions.

Aim

This study evaluated correlates of smoking rate and nicotine dependence among 207 cancer patients.

Methods

A cross-sectional analysis using multiple linear regression evaluated disease, demographic, affective, and tobacco-seeking correlates of smoking rate and nicotine dependence. Smoking rate was assessed using a timeline follow-back method. The Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence measured levels of nicotine dependence.

Results

A multiple linear regression predicting nicotine dependence showed an association with smoking to alleviate a sense of addiction from the Reasons for Smoking scale and tobacco-seeking behavior from the concurrent choice task (p < .05), but not with affect measured by the HADS and PANAS (p > .05). Multiple linear regression predicting prequit showed an association with smoking to alleviate addiction (p < .05). ANOVA showed that Caucasian participants reported greater rates of smoking compared to other races.

Conclusions

The results suggest that behavioral smoking cessation interventions that focus on helping patients to manage tobacco-seeking behavior, rather than mood management interventions, could help cancer patients quit smoking.