Cessation treatment adherence and smoking abstinence in patients after acute myocardial infarction

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.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied. However, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco: nicotine withdrawal can produce short-term low mood that antidepressants may relieve; and some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, harms, and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, most recently on 29 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people who smoked, comparing antidepressant medications with placebo or no pharmacological treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used differently. We excluded trials with fewer than six months of follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length for our analyses of harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months' follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Our secondary outcomes were harms and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropouts due to treatment. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 124 studies (48,832 participants) in this review, with 10 new studies added to this update version. Most studies recruited adults from the community or from smoking cessation clinics; four studies focused on adolescents (with participants between 12 and 21 years old). We judged 34 studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not change clinical interpretation of the results.  There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased smoking cessation rates when compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.49 to 1.72; I2 = 16%; 50 studies, 18,577 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that a combination of bupropion and varenicline may have resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I2 = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence to establish whether a combination of bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; I2 = 43%; 15 studies, 4117 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was moderate-certainty evidence that participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs than those taking placebo or no pharmacological treatment. However, results were imprecise and the CI also encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 23 studies, 10,958 participants). Results were also imprecise when comparing SAEs between people randomised to a combination of bupropion and NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.89; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 657 participants) and randomised to bupropion plus varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.42; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1268 participants). In both cases, we judged evidence to be of low certainty. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to AEs than placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.65; I2 = 2%; 25 studies, 12,346 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence that bupropion combined with NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 737 participants) or bupropion combined with varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.45; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1230 participants) had an impact on the number of dropouts due to treatment. In both cases, imprecision was substantial (we judged the evidence to be of low certainty for both comparisons). Bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.80; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7564 participants), and to combination NRT (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 720 participants). However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and single-form NRT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 7613 participants). We also found evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I2 = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), and some evidence that bupropion resulted in superior quit rates to nortriptyline (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants), although this result was subject to imprecision. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion may increase SAEs (moderate-certainty evidence when compared to placebo/no pharmacological treatment). There is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with people receiving placebo or no pharmacological treatment. Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo, although bupropion may be more effective. Evidence also suggests that bupropion may be as successful as single-form NRT in helping people to quit smoking, but less effective than combination NRT and varenicline. In most cases, a paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions regarding harms and tolerability. Further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over other licensed smoking cessation treatments; namely, NRT and varenicline. However, it is important that future studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation measure and report on harms and tolerability.

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.

Smoking cessation: strategies and effects in primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention

Although smoking is seen as a major health problem by most clinicians, few are able to provide evidence based smoking cessation interventions to their patients. Most individuals who smoke actually want to quit. Unfortunately, smoking is still seen as a vice or lifestyle choice, when it is actually a chronic disease which often starts in adolescence. Nicotine dependence is complex and must be quantified and treated differently for each patient in order to achieve high quit rates. Smoking has a significant impact on the development and progression of cardiovascular disease. Smoking cessation is a cost effective and often overlooked prevention tool which improves both short- and long-term outcomes. There are both pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies for smoking cessation that can be applied in clinical practice. Brief advice, specialized counseling including therapeutic education and behavioral support, and first- and second-line pharmacological interventions have been proven to be effective to help smokers quit. Although classically tobacco dependence was seen in relation to smoking, since the early 2000s, new nicotine delivery systems have appeared on the market, which despite being marketed as "healthy" alternatives, can often complicate smoking cessation efforts and act as gateway devices for new generations of smokers. In this article we review the results of several large systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which have shown that many cessation strategies are effective. We also offer practical tips on providing brief cessation advice and how pharmacotherapy can be prescribed and incorporated into clinical practice in both primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Whilst the pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco. Firstly, nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms and antidepressants may relieve these. Additionally, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, safety and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Specialized Register, which includes reports of trials indexed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO, clinicaltrials.gov, the ICTRP, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in May 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited smokers, and compared antidepressant medications with placebo or no treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used in a different way. We excluded trials with less than six months follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length in safety analyses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months follow-up, expressed as a risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. Similarly, we presented incidence of safety and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropout due to drug, as RRs (95% CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 115 studies (33 new to this update) in this review; most recruited adult participants from the community or from smoking cessation clinics. We judged 28 of the studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk did not change clinical interpretation of the results. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased long-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.52 to 1.77; I² = 15%; 45 studies, 17,866 participants). There was insufficient evidence to establish whether participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs compared to those taking placebo. Results were imprecise and CIs encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I² = 0%; 21 studies, 10,625 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded one level due to imprecision). We found high-certainty evidence that use of bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to adverse events of the drug than placebo (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.56; I² = 19%; 25 studies, 12,340 participants). Participants randomized to bupropion were also more likely to report psychiatric AEs compared with those randomized to placebo (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.37; I² = 15%; 6 studies, 4439 participants). We also looked at the safety and efficacy of bupropion when combined with other non-antidepressant smoking cessation therapies. There was insufficient evidence to establish whether combination bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.51; I² = 52%; 12 studies, 3487 participants), or whether combination bupropion and varenicline resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I² = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). We judged the certainty of evidence to be low and moderate, respectively; in both cases due to imprecision, and also due to inconsistency in the former. Safety data were sparse for these comparisons, making it difficult to draw clear conclusions. A meta-analysis of six studies provided evidence that bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.79; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 6286 participants), whilst there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and NRT (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; I² = 18%; 10 studies, 8230 participants). We also found some evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I² = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), whilst there was insufficient evidence to determine whether bupropion or nortriptyline were more effective when compared with one another (RR 1.30 (favouring bupropion), 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants). There was no evidence that any of the other antidepressants tested (including St John's Wort, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)) had a beneficial effect on smoking cessation. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion also increases the number of adverse events, including psychiatric AEs, and there is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with placebo. However, there is no clear evidence to suggest whether people taking bupropion experience more or fewer SAEs than those taking placebo (moderate certainty). Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo. Evidence suggests that bupropion may be as successful as NRT and nortriptyline in helping people to quit smoking, but that it is less effective than varenicline. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the other antidepressants tested, such as SSRIs, aid smoking cessation, and when looking at safety and tolerance outcomes, in most cases, paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions. Due to the high-certainty evidence, further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over front-line smoking cessation aids already available. However, it is important that where studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation are carried out they measure and report safety and tolerability clearly.

Predictors of adherence to nicotine replacement therapy: Machine learning evidence that perceived need predicts medication use

BACKGROUND

Nonadherence to smoking cessation medication is a frequent problem. Identifying pre-quit predictors of nonadherence may help explain nonadherence and suggest tailored interventions to address it.

AIMS

Identify and characterize subgroups of smokers based on adherence to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).

METHOD

Secondary classification tree analyses of data from a 2-arm randomized controlled trial of Recommended Usual Care (R-UC, n = 315) versus Abstinence-Optimized Treatment (A-OT, n = 308) were conducted. R-UC comprised 8 weeks of nicotine patch plus brief counseling whereas A-OT comprised 3 weeks of pre-quit mini-lozenges, 26 weeks of nicotine patch plus mini-lozenges, 11 counseling contacts, and 7-11 automated reminders to use medication. Analyses identified subgroups of smokers highly adherent to nicotine patch use in both treatment conditions, and identified subgroups of A-OT participants highly adherent to mini-lozenges.

RESULTS

Varied facets of nicotine dependence predicted adherence across treatment conditions 4 weeks post-quit and between 4- and 16-weeks post-quit in A-OT, with greater baseline dependence and greater smoking trigger exposure and reactivity predicting greater medication use. Greater quitting motivation and confidence, and believing that stop smoking medication was safe and easy to use were associated with greater adherence.

CONCLUSION

Adherence was especially high in those who were more dependent and more exposed to smoking triggers. Quitting motivation and confidence predicted greater adherence, while negative beliefs about medication safety and acceptability predicted worse adherence. Results suggest that adherent use of medication may reflect a rational appraisal of the likelihood that one will need medication and will benefit from it.

Treatment adherence and short-term outcomes of smoking cessation outpatient clinic patients

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies have shown that adherence to treatment is fundamental to success in smoking cessation. However, smoking cessation medication regimens are limited significantly by the struggle to adhere to them. This study was conducted to evaluate the factors associated with treatment adherence and quitting success in a group of patients that applied to our smoking cessation outpatient clinic (SCC).

METHODS

Patients that applied to SCC between April 2015 and December 2016 who were evaluated, found suitable for smoking cessation interventions and started pharmacological treatment were included in this study. Only those who could be reached by phone three months after their first application became participants. Those who had used the prescribed treatment for at least 30 days were grouped as treatment-adherent.

RESULTS

In total, data for 346 patients were evaluated. Mean (±SD) age was 44.3±13.9 years; most of them were male (63%), primary school graduated (36.1%), self-employed (43.7%), and had no comorbid diseases (71%). Bupropion was started in 52% of the patients, that rate was 35.8% for varenicline and 12.1% for a combination of the nicotine patch and gum. Mean days for treatment use was 20.9±18.5; 59% of the patients were non-adherent to their treatment and 51.7% had only one control visit number. Adverse reactions due to treatment were recorded in 25% of participants, and at their third month 37.9% of them had quit smoking. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, increase in control visit number, absence of adverse reaction, and varenicline use, were each associated with higher treatment adherence (p<0.001) and only being in the treatment-adherent group was associated with quit success (OR=3.01, 95% CI: 1.88–4.81, p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that most patients did not use their prescribed SC treatments adequately; a main factor that affects quit success is treatment adherence. There is a need for closer monitoring and follow-up to ensure adequate use of treatment of patients.

Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension and their determinants: Results from the first cohort of non-communicable diseases in a Kurdish settlement

Hypertension is a public health issue in Iran. The study aimed to estimate the prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension, and to explore their determinants among 10,040 Kurdish adults from Ravansar Non-Communicable Disease (RaNCD) cohort study in Iran. Univariate, and multivariate analyses were used for statistical analysis. Prevalence of hypertension was 15.7%. Among hypertensive patients, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension were 80.7%, 73.2%, and 53.3%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, significant associations were found between awareness and female sex, older age, being married rather than being single, literacy, living in rural areas, having family history, and comorbidities, with a higher probability for those who had both diabetes and dyslipidemia. Being married, living in rural areas, being ex-smokers, having less physical activity and individuals who had diabetes and dyslipidemia had higher odds of receiving treatment. Being female had a statistically significant association with the control of hypertension. The Kurdish population had higher awareness, with a greater proportion of treated, and controlled patients compared to populations included in previous studies for the last 20 years in Iran. With the continuing health promotion programs in Iran, it is expected to observe a lower prevalence of hypertension, higher awareness and greater number of treated individuals with controlled hypertension.

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.