Impact of self-initiated pre-quit smoking reduction on cessation rates: results of a clinical trial of smoking cessation among female prisoners

Defining and Measuring Abstinence in Clinical Trials of Smoking Cessation Interventions: An Updated Review

BACKGROUND

Changes in tobacco products, use patterns, and assessment technology in the last 15 years led the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) Treatment Research Network to call for an update to the 2003 SRNT recommendations for assessing abstinence in clinical trials of smoking cessation interventions.

METHODS

The SRNT Treatment Research Network convened a group of investigators with decades of experience in conducting tobacco treatment clinical trials. To arrive at the updated recommendations, the authors reviewed the recommendations of the prior SRNT Workgroup as well as current literature. Ten additional experts in the field provided feedback on this paper and these recommendations.

RESULTS

With respect to defining abstinence, the authors recommend: (1) continuing to use the definition of no use of combustible tobacco products (regardless of use of noncombustible tobacco products [e.g., snus] and alternative products [e.g., e-cigarettes]) and collecting additional data to permit alternate abstinence definitions; (2) no use of combustible or smokeless tobacco products; and (3) no use of combustible or smokeless tobacco products or alternative products, as appropriate for the research question being addressed. The authors also recommend reporting point prevalence and prolonged abstinence at multiple timepoints (end of treatment, ≥3 months after the end of treatment, and ≥6 months postquit or posttreatment initiation).

CONCLUSIONS

Defining abstinence requires specification of which products a user must abstain from using, the type of abstinence (i.e., point prevalence or continuous), and the duration of abstinence. These recommendations are intended to serve as guidelines for investigators as they collect the necessary data to accurately describe participants' abstinence during smoking cessation clinical trials.

IMPLICATIONS

This paper provides updated recommendations for defining abstinence in the context of smoking cessation treatment clinical trials.

The Effects of Text Message and Infographic on Reducing the Number Cigarettes Consumption: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To test the effect of a text-message and infographic to promote smokers quit smoking.

Methods: A randomized control trial was conducted in two provinces of northeast Thailand. Three hundred and ninety-six participants were allocated to either a text-message and infographic group or a control group. We assessed the primary outcome by self-reported 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence. Multiple logistic regression was used to test the effect of quitting smoking.

Results: At 3-month follow-up, lost to follow-up 16 participants, 380 participants were included for analysis. The difference in the rate of quitting smoking between the intervention and control groups was not found a statistical significance (17.8% versus 11.6%). However, we found a statistically significant difference in the number of cigarettes smokes (the difference: -1.74; 95%CI: -2.63, -0.84).

Conclusion: No effect of text message and infographic for help smokers to quit smoking. However, the intervention showed a decrease in the number of cigarettes smoked.

Systematic Review of Factors Influencing Smoking Following Release From Smoke-Free Prisons

INTRODUCTION

Given the current proliferation of prison smoke-free policies internationally, and the multiple benefits of continued smoking abstinence for correctional populations, improved understanding of factors influencing postrelease smoking abstinence is required to inform support strategies aimed at individuals exiting smoke-free prisons.

METHODS

We systematically searched health, social science, and criminal justice databases for studies relating to smoking behaviors among people released from smoke-free prisons. Studies were included if: they were published between January 1, 2000 and July 26, 2017; they were published in English; the population was people who were incarcerated or formerly incarcerated in prisons with total smoke-free policies; and the reported outcomes included measures of: (1) prerelease intention to smoke or remain abstinent from smoking following release, (2) smoking relapse or abstinence following release, or (3) quit attempts following postrelease smoking relapse. Both authors independently screened returned citations to assess eligibility and reviewed studies for methodological quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project's Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies.

RESULTS

Fifteen of 121 publications were included. The evidence base in this area is small, almost exclusively US-based, and is mostly methodologically weak. Interventions delivered both pre and postrelease, that strengthen intention to quit, integrate with other substance-use treatment, and facilitate social support for quitting may help maintain postrelease smoking abstinence.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an urgent need for high-quality research to inform interventions to reduce high smoking relapse rates upon release from smoke-free prisons, to extend the multiple benefits of continued smoking abstinence into the community.

IMPLICATIONS

Interventions designed to help people remain abstinent from tobacco following release from smoke-free prisons are an important opportunity to improve the health, finances, and well-being of this vulnerable population.

Smoking reduction interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The standard way most people are advised to stop smoking is by quitting abruptly on a designated quit day. However, many people who smoke have tried to quit many times and may like to try an alternative method. Reducing smoking behaviour before quitting could be an alternative approach to cessation. However, before this method can be recommended it is important to ensure that abrupt quitting is not more effective than reducing to quit, and to determine whether there are ways to optimise reduction methods to increase the chances of cessation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of reduction-to-quit interventions on long-term smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO for studies, using the terms: cold turkey, schedul*, cut* down, cut-down, gradual*, abrupt*, fading, reduc*, taper*, controlled smoking and smoking reduction. We also searched trial registries to identify unpublished studies. Date of the most recent search: 29 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which people who smoked were advised to reduce their smoking consumption before quitting smoking altogether in at least one trial arm. This advice could be delivered using self-help materials or behavioural support, and provided alongside smoking cessation pharmacotherapies or not. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of less than six months, where participants spontaneously reduced without being advised to do so, where the goal of reduction was not to quit altogether, or where participants were advised to switch to cigarettes with lower nicotine levels without reducing the amount of cigarettes smoked or the length of time spent smoking. We also excluded trials carried out in pregnant women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking cessation was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison (no smoking cessation treatment, abrupt quitting interventions, and other reduction-to-quit interventions) and carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. We also extracted data on quit attempts, pre-quit smoking reduction, adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, and meta-analysed these where sufficient data were available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 51 trials with 22,509 participants. Most recruited adults from the community using media or local advertising. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked an average of 23 cigarettes a day. We judged 18 of the studies to be at high risk of bias, but restricting the analysis only to the five studies at low or to the 28 studies at unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results.We identified very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision, comparing the effect of reduction-to-quit interventions with no treatment on cessation rates (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.38; I2 = 45%; 6 studies, 1599 participants). However, when comparing reduction-to-quit interventions with abrupt quitting (standard care) we found evidence that neither approach resulted in superior quit rates (RR 1. 01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.17; I2 = 29%; 22 studies, 9219 participants). We judged this estimate to be of moderate certainty, due to imprecision. Subgroup analysis provided some evidence (P = 0.01, I2 = 77%) that reduction-to-quit interventions may result in more favourable quit rates than abrupt quitting if varenicline is used as a reduction aid. Our analysis comparing reduction using pharmacotherapy with reduction alone found low-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency and imprecision, that reduction aided by pharmacotherapy resulted in higher quit rates (RR 1. 68, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.58; I2 = 78%; 11 studies, 8636 participants). However, a significant subgroup analysis (P < 0.001, I2 = 80% for subgroup differences) suggests that this may only be true when fast-acting NRT or varenicline are used (both moderate-certainty evidence) and not when nicotine patch, combination NRT or bupropion are used as an aid (all low- or very low-quality evidence). More evidence is likely to change the interpretation of the latter effects.Although there was some evidence from within-study comparisons that behavioural support for reduction to quit resulted in higher quit rates than self-help resources alone, the relative efficacy of various other characteristics of reduction-to-quit interventions investigated through within- and between-study comparisons did not provide any evidence that they enhanced the success of reduction-to-quit interventions. Pre-quit AEs, SAEs and nicotine withdrawal symptoms were measured variably and infrequently across studies. There was some evidence that AEs occurred more frequently in studies that compared reduction using pharmacotherapy versus no pharmacotherapy; however, the AEs reported were mild and usual symptoms associated with NRT use. There was no clear evidence that the number of people reporting SAEs, or changes in withdrawal symptoms, differed between trial arms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that neither reduction-to-quit nor abrupt quitting interventions result in superior long-term quit rates when compared with one another. Evidence comparing the efficacy of reduction-to-quit interventions with no treatment was inconclusive and of low certainty. There is also low-certainty evidence to suggest that reduction-to-quit interventions may be more effective when pharmacotherapy is used as an aid, particularly fast-acting NRT or varenicline (moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence for any adverse effects of reduction-to-quit interventions was sparse, but available data suggested no excess of pre-quit SAEs or withdrawal symptoms. We downgraded the evidence across comparisons due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. Future research should aim to match any additional components of multicomponent reduction-to-quit interventions across study arms, so that the effect of reduction can be isolated. In particular, well-conducted, adequately-powered studies should focus on investigating the most effective features of reduction-to-quit interventions to maximise cessation rates.

Self-initiated gradual smoking reduction among community correction smokers

INTRODUCTION

Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Many smoking cessation guidelines advise smokers to quit precipitately; however, most quit attempts involve a more gradual cessation. Characteristics of individuals who tend to reduce prior to quitting and the effectiveness of pre-quit reduction are not well understood. This study examined individual differences and smoking cessation outcomes between individuals who self-initiated gradual reduction in cigarettes per day (CPD) and those who did not reduce prior to quit date.

METHODS

This study is a secondary analysis from a randomized clinical trial of smoking cessation with pharmacotherapy among individuals under community corrections supervision. We compared participants who self-initiated smoking reduction by at least 25% between baseline and the first treatment session (n = 128) to participants who either increased or did not reduce smoking between baseline and the first treatment session (n = 354).

RESULTS

African American race, no previous cigar smoking, no previous use of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation, less withdrawal symptoms at baseline, and older age at first smoking were associated with being a self-initiated gradual reduction in univariate analyses. Individuals who self-initiated gradual reduction also had a had a greater likelihood of achieving at least one quit during the one-year study period as compared to those who did not reduce prior to the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals who self-initiate gradual reduction differ from those who increase or do not change their smoking prior to a quit date. Gradual reduction also increased success in quitting.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medication to aid smoking cessation, compared to a minimal intervention or usual care, and to identify whether there are different effects depending on characteristics of the treatment setting, intervention, population treated, or take-up of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support for smoking cessation, compared to a control receiving usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by two authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by another.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three studies with a total of more than 25,000 participants met the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of studies recruited people in healthcare settings or with specific health needs. Most studies provided NRT. Behavioural support was typically provided by specialists in cessation counselling, who offered between four and eight contact sessions. The planned maximum duration of contact was typically more than 30 minutes but less than 300 minutes. Overall, studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, and findings were not sensitive to the exclusion of any of the six studies rated at high risk of bias in one domain. One large study (the Lung Health Study) contributed heterogeneity due to a substantially larger treatment effect than seen in other studies (RR 3.88, 95% CI 3.35 to 4.50). Since this study used a particularly intensive intervention which included extended availability of nicotine gum, multiple group sessions and long term maintenance and recycling contacts, the results may not be comparable with the interventions used in other studies, and hence it was not pooled in other analyses. Based on the remaining 52 studies (19,488 participants) there was high quality evidence (using GRADE) for a benefit of combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care, brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.68 to 1.98) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 36%).The pooled estimate for 43 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.18) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Compared to the first version of the review, previous weak evidence of differences in other subgroup analyses has disappeared. We did not detect differences between subgroups defined by motivation to quit, treatment provider, number or duration of support sessions, or take-up of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Updating this review with an additional 12 studies (5,000 participants) did not materially change the effect estimate. Although trials differed in the details of their populations and interventions, we did not detect any factors that modified treatment effects apart from the recruitment setting. We did not find evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects.

Repeated administration of an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor attenuates nicotine taking in rats and smoking behavior in human smokers

Tobacco smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death worldwide and current smoking cessation medications have limited efficacy. Thus, there is a clear need for translational research focused on identifying novel pharmacotherapies for nicotine addiction. Our previous studies demonstrated that acute administration of an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI) attenuates nicotine taking and seeking in rats and suggest that AChEIs could be repurposed for smoking cessation. Here, we expand upon these findings with experiments designed to determine the effects of repeated AChEI administration on voluntary nicotine taking in rats as well as smoking behavior in human smokers. Rats were trained to self-administer intravenous infusions of nicotine (0.03 mg kg(-1) per 0.59 ml) on a fixed-ratio-5 schedule of reinforcement. Once rats maintained stable nicotine taking, galantamine or donepezil was administered before 10 consecutive daily nicotine self-administration sessions. Repeated administration of 5.0 mg kg(-1) galantamine and 3.0 mg kg(-1) donepezil attenuated nicotine self-administration in rats. These effects were reinforcer-specific and not due to adverse malaise-like effects of drug treatment as repeated galantamine and donepezil administration had no effects on sucrose self-administration, ad libitum food intake and pica. The effects of repeated galantamine (versus placebo) on cigarette smoking were also tested in human treatment-seeking smokers. Two weeks of daily galantamine treatment (8.0 mg (week 1) and 16.0 mg (week 2)) significantly reduced smoking rate as well as smoking satisfaction and reward compared with placebo. This translational study indicates that repeated AChEI administration reduces nicotine reinforcement in rats and smoking behavior in humans at doses not associated with tolerance and/or adverse effects.

Prevalence and factors associated with smoking tobacco among men recently released from prison in California: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Over 1.5 million people are incarcerated in state and federal correctional facilities in the United States. Formerly incarcerated men have significantly higher rates of mortality and morbidity than the general population, disparities that have been partially attributed to higher rates of tobacco smoking-related illnesses such as cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease and cancer.

METHODS

We compared the prevalence of smoking tobacco in a sample of 172 men who were released from California state prisons to Oakland and San Francisco between 2009 and 2011 to sub-populations of respondents to the 2009 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS). Using logistic regression, we analyzed the association between lifetime history of incarceration and self-reported smoking status.

RESULTS

Seventy-four percent of men recently released from prison reported being current tobacco smokers. The prevalence of smoking in a demographically similar group of men in the CHIS was 24%. We found in bivariate analysis that each additional five years of history of incarceration was associated with 1.32 times greater odds of smoking (95% CI 1.02 to 1.71). Illicit substance use was associated with a 2.47 higher adjusted odds of smoking (95% CI 1.29 to 5.39). In the multivariate model adjusting for age, income, substance use and mental health, every five years of incarceration was associated with 1.23 greater odds of smoking (95% CI 0.94 to 1.63) which was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the high prevalence of smoking tobacco among former prisoners and the underlying high tobacco-related mortality rates, these findings suggest that a history of incarceration may be an important determinant of smoking. Prison and parole systems may be important potential settings for smoking-cessation interventions.

Comparing Motivational Interviewing-Based Treatment and its combination with Nicotine Replacement Therapy on smoking cessation in prisoners: a randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of smoking is much higher in prisoners than it is in the general population. Prisoners who smoke cause many health problems for themselves and other prisoners. Therefore, we should help them stop smoking.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of motivational interviewing-based (MI-based) treatment and its combination with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) on smoking cessation in prisoners at Mashhad Central Prison.

METHODS

The study was designed as a double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial, and it began in February 2013 and ended in February 2014. Two hundred and thirteen prisoners met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled in the study. They were divided randomly into three groups, i.e., MI-based treatment, MI with NRT, and the control group, which didn't receive any therapy. The outcome measures were reported after intervention and at a 90-day follow-up, and changes in the CO levels in expired air and nicotine dependency were measured.

RESULTS

The average age of the subjects was 37.59 ± 8.76, and their mean duration of imprisonment was 3.3 ± 1.90 years. They smoked an average of 21.84 ± 8.72 cigarettes per day. Analysis of the concentration of CO in expired air in the pre-test, post-test, and at the follow-up for the three groups showed that the variations in the mean CO concentrations in the MI group and the MI with NRT group at the pre-test and at the post-test were statistically significant (p < 0.001), but no significant changes occurred between the post-test and the follow-up (p > 0.050). In addition, the results indicated that CO concentration in expired air in the MI with NRT group was statistically significant, with better efficacy of smoking cessation, compared with control group and the MI group after the follow-up (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Motivational interviewing combined with NRT for smoking cessation is more effective than MI alone, and it resulted in a significant decrease in the CO concentration in expired air at the 90-day follow-up.

Predictors of Tobacco Use Among New York State Addiction Treatment Patients

Objectives. We used admissions data from the New York State addiction treatment system to assess patient self-reported tobacco use and factors associated with tobacco use. Methods. We compared prevalence of tobacco use in the state addiction treatment system with that of a national sample of people receiving addiction treatment and with that of the New York general population in 2005 to 2008. A random effects logistic model assessed relationships between patient- and program-level variables and tobacco use. Results. Prevalence of tobacco use in the New York treatment system was similar to that in national addiction treatment data and was 3 to 4 times higher than that in the general population. Co-occurring mental illness, opiate use, methadone treatment, and being a child of a substance-abusing parent were associated with higher rates of tobacco use. Conclusions. We call on federal leadership to build capacity to address tobacco use in addiction treatment, and we call on state leadership to implement tobacco-free grounds policies in addiction treatment systems.

A comparative study of perceptions on tobacco in vulnerable populations between India and France

Perceptions of tobacco are a relatively unexplored issue in disadvantaged populations in India and France. The objectives of this study included the following: obtain qualitative information on representations of tobacco use and cessation within two vulnerable populations; identify cultural factors that influence tobacco use and cessation; and acquire information for the development of effective tobacco cessation strategies. A total of 21 focus groups were conducted in India and France. All study participants were disadvantaged adults 18 years old or older. Sixty women resided in South Delhi in India and 163 adults with disabilities resided in the south of France. They were all current tobacco users. Data were collected by focus group and analysed with thematic coding. In both samples, the most relevant reasons of tobacco use were daily life circumstances, which were also a major barrier to quitting. None of the participants reported that quitting difficulties could be due to dependence or nicotine addiction. The data also suggested that whilst some participants wanted to stop, they also anticipated quitting would be extremely challenging. In addition, there were a number of cross-cultural differences between Indian and French disadvantaged people: level of information concerning the health risk related to tobacco use and level of demand for support to quit from health professionals were most often cited. Recommendations are made for a specific approach among disadvantaged people. The paper concludes that in order to facilitate cessation, tobacco control interventions need to focus on coping strategies to deal with feelings of distress, withdrawal symptoms, and the circumstances of everyday life experienced by disadvantaged tobacco users.

Varenicline efficacy and safety among methadone maintained smokers: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

AIMS

To test the efficacy and safety of varenicline as an aid to smoking cessation in methadone-maintained smokers.

DESIGN

Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with random assignment to 12 weeks of varenicline 1 mg twice daily (n = 57) or matched placebo (n = 55), with in-person and telephone counseling.

SETTING

Urban methadone programs in the Bronx, New York City, New York, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Methadone maintenance patients, smoking ≥5 cigarettes/day, interested in quitting, stable in methadone treatment, without current Axis I psychiatric disorders, suicidal ideation or recent suicide attempts.

MEASUREMENTS

Seven-day point prevalence abstinence verified by expired carbon monoxide (CO) < 8 parts per million at week 12 (primary outcome); carbon monoxide (CO)-verified abstinence, cigarettes/day, incident Axis I psychiatric illness, suicidal ideation or serious adverse events (SAEs) at weeks 2, 4, 8, 12 or 24 (secondary outcomes).

FINDINGS

Baseline demographic, smoking and clinical factors were similar between groups. Retention at 24 weeks was 90%. Subjects receiving varenicline were more likely than those receiving placebo to achieve abstinence (10.5 versus 0%, P = 0.03; effect size 10.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.4-19.3%) and to reduce smoking (median five versus two cigarettes/day, P < 0.001) at 12 weeks. These effects were not maintained after drug treatment ceased. Incident psychiatric illness (OR= 0.84, 95% CI = 0.16, 4.4) and suicidality [odds ratio (OR) = 0.88, 95% CI 0.2, 3.9] were not different between groups. There were no psychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline can aid short-term smoking abstinence in methadone-maintained smokers.

Women and Smoking: The Effect of Gender on the Epidemiology, Health Effects, and Cessation of Smoking

Smoking is still the leading cause of premature morbidity and mortality. This paper examines new research on gender differences and the epidemiology of smoking, smoking-related morbidity and mortality, and factors that affect smoking cessation. The rate of decline in the prevalence of smoking has been slowing, especially among adolescent girls. New research suggests that, compared with men, women may be more susceptible to smoking-related morbidity and mortality. Gender-related barriers to smoking cessation include weight gain, sex hormones, and mood. Furthermore, the sensory aspects of smoking may have more of an effect on smoking treatment for women than for men. We discuss new studies that examine smoking-cessation interventions that may be particularly beneficial for women, including exercise (as an adjunct intervention), very low nicotine content cigarettes, and a variety of pharmacotherapy. Further research is needed to identify and target the gender-specific needs of smokers.

A randomized controlled trial of a smoking cessation intervention conducted among prisoners

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of nortriptyline (NOR) added to a multi-component smoking cessation intervention, which included cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and provision of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing two study groups with blinded follow-up at 3, 6 and 12 months. Both groups received a multi-component smoking cessation intervention comprising two half-hour individual sessions of CBT and NRT with either active NOR or placebo.

SETTING

Prisons in New South Wales (17) and Queensland (one), Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 425 male prisoners met inclusion criteria and were allocated to either treatment (n = 206) or control group (n = 219).

MEASUREMENTS

Primary end-points at 3, 6 and 12 months were continuous abstinence, point prevalence abstinence and reporting a 50% reduction in smoking. Smoking status was confirmed by expired carbon monoxide, using a cut-point of ≤10 parts per million.

FINDINGS

Participants' demographics and baseline tobacco use were similar in treatment and control groups. Based on an intention-to-treat analysis, continuous abstinence between the treatment and control groups was not significantly different at 3 months (23.8 versus 16.4%), 6 months (17.5 versus 12.3%) and 12 months (11.7 versus 11.9%).

CONCLUSION

Adding nortriptyline to a smoking cessation treatment package consisting of behavioural support and nicotine replacement therapy does not appear to improve long-term abstinence rates in male prisoners.