Trial design: blood pressure control and weight gain prevention in prehypertensive and hypertensive smokers: the treatment and prevention study

Exercise interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Taking regular exercise, whether cardiovascular-type exercise or resistance exercise, may help people to give up smoking, particularly by reducing cigarette withdrawal symptoms and cravings, and by helping to manage weight gain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of exercise-based interventions alone, or combined with a smoking cessation programme, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared with a smoking cessation intervention alone or other non-exercise intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register for studies, using the term 'exercise' or 'physical activity' in the title, abstract or keywords. The date of the most recent search was May 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared an exercise programme alone, or an exercise programme as an adjunct to a cessation programme, with a cessation programme alone or another non-exercise control group. Trials were required to recruit smokers wishing to quit or recent quitters, to assess abstinence as an outcome and have follow-up of at least six months.

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, as either smoking cessation or relapse prevention. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 24 eligible trials with a total of 7279 adult participants randomised. Two studies focused on relapse prevention among smokers who had recently stopped smoking, and the remaining 22 studies were concerned with smoking cessation for smokers who wished to quit. Eleven studies were with women only and one with men only. Most studies recruited fairly inactive people. Most of the trials employed supervised, group-based cardiovascular-type exercise supplemented by a home-based exercise programme and combined with a multi-session cognitive behavioural smoking cessation programme. The comparator in most cases was a multi-session cognitive behavioural smoking cessation programme alone. Overall, we judged two studies to be at low risk of bias, 11 at high risk of bias, and 11 at unclear risk of bias. Among the 21 studies analysed, we found low-certainty evidence, limited by potential publication bias and by imprecision, comparing the effect of exercise plus smoking cessation support with smoking cessation support alone on smoking cessation outcomes (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.22; I² = 0%; 6607 participants). We excluded one study from this analysis as smoking abstinence rates for the study groups were not reported. There was no evidence of subgroup differences according to the type of exercise promoted; the subgroups considered were: cardiovascular-type exercise alone (17 studies), resistance training alone (one study), combined cardiovascular-type and resistance exercise (one study) and type of exercise not specified (two studies). The results were not significantly altered when we excluded trials with high risk of bias, or those with special populations, or those where smoking cessation intervention support was not matched between the intervention and control arms. Among the two relapse prevention studies, we found very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, that adding exercise to relapse prevention did not improve long-term abstinence compared with relapse prevention alone (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.47; I² = 0%; 453 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence that adding exercise to smoking cessation support improves abstinence compared with support alone, but the evidence is insufficient to assess whether there is a modest benefit. Estimates of treatment effect were of low or very low certainty, because of concerns about bias in the trials, imprecision and publication bias. Consequently, future trials may change these conclusions.

Exercise interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Taking regular exercise may help people give up smoking by moderating nicotine withdrawal and cravings, and by helping to manage weight gain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether exercise-based interventions alone, or combined with a smoking cessation programme, are more effective than a smoking cessation intervention alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in April 2014, and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL Plus in May 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials which compared an exercise programme alone, or an exercise programme as an adjunct to a cessation programme, with a cessation programme (which we considered the control in this review). Studies were required to recruit smokers or recent quitters and have a follow-up of six months or more. Studies that did not meet the full inclusion criteria because they only assessed the acute effects of exercise on smoking behaviour, or because the outcome was smoking reduction, are summarised but not formally included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on study characteristics and smoking outcomes. Because of differences between studies in the characteristics of the interventions used we summarized the results narratively, making no attempt at meta-analysis. We assessed risk of selection and attrition bias using standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 20 trials with a total of 5,870 participants. The largest study was an internet trial with 2,318 participants, and eight trials had fewer than 30 people in each treatment arm. Studies varied in the timing and intensity of the smoking cessation and exercise programmes offered. Only one included study was judged to be at low risk of bias across all domains assessed. Four studies showed significantly higher abstinence rates in a physically active group versus a control group at end of treatment. One of these studies also showed a significant benefit for exercise versus control on abstinence at the three-month follow-up and a benefit for exercise of borderline significance (p = 0.05) at the 12-month follow-up. Another study reported significantly higher abstinence rates at six month follow-up for a combined exercise and smoking cessation programme compared with brief smoking cessation advice. One study showed significantly higher abstinence rates for the exercise group versus a control group at the three-month follow-up but not at the end of treatment or 12-month follow-up. The other studies showed no significant effect for exercise on abstinence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only two of the 20 trials offered evidence for exercise aiding smoking cessation in the long term. All the other trials were too small to reliably exclude an effect of intervention, or included an exercise intervention which may not have been sufficiently intense to achieve the desired level of exercise. Trials are needed with larger sample sizes, sufficiently intense interventions in terms of both exercise intensity and intensity of support being provided, equal contact control conditions, and measures of exercise adherence and change in physical activity in both exercise and comparison groups.

Exercise interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Taking regular exercise may help people give up smoking by moderating nicotine withdrawal and cravings, and by helping to manage weight gain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether exercise-based interventions alone, or combined with a smoking cessation programme, are more effective than a smoking cessation intervention alone.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2011, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for studies including the terms 'exercise' or 'physical activity'. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Dissertation Abstracts and CINAHL using the terms 'exercise' or 'physical activity' and 'smoking cessation'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials which compared an exercise programme alone, or an exercise programme as an adjunct to a cessation programme, with a cessation programme, recruiting smokers or recent quitters, and with a follow up of six months or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on study characteristics and smoking outcomes. Because of differences in studies we summarized the results narratively, making no attempt at meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 15 trials, seven of which had fewer than 25 people in each treatment arm. They varied in the timing and intensity of the smoking cessation and exercise programmes. Three studies showed significantly higher abstinence rates in a physically active group versus a control group at end of treatment. One of these studies also showed a significant benefit for exercise versus control on abstinence at the three-month follow up and a benefit for exercise of borderline significance (p = 0.05) at the 12-month follow up. One study showed significantly higher abstinence rates for the exercise group versus a control group at the three-month follow up but not at the end of treatment or 12-month follow up. The other studies showed no significant effect for exercise on abstinence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only one of the 15 trials offered evidence for exercise aiding smoking cessation at a 12-month follow up. All the other trials were too small to reliably exclude an effect of intervention, or included an exercise intervention which was insufficiently intense to achieve the desired level of exercise. Trials are needed with larger sample sizes, sufficiently intense interventions, equal contact control conditions, and measures of exercise adherence and change in physical activity in both exercise and comparison groups.

Selection of priority groups for obesity prevention: current approaches and development of an evidence-informed framework

Resources for obesity prevention interventions are inevitably limited, necessitating the selection of priority groups to ensure effective and equitable use of funds. This paper aims to review published approaches to selection of priority groups ('target populations') for obesity prevention, and to present the development of a new systematic framework for organizing and assessing evidence for selecting priority groups. A review was conducted of the process and justification described for selecting priority groups in a sample of obesity prevention publications. Using the results of this review and adaptation of theory and frameworks in both the obesity prevention and health promotion priority-setting literature, a framework was developed for assessment of potential priority groups for obesity prevention. The published literature lacks discussion of and explicit processes for selection of priority groups for obesity prevention intervention. The new framework describes specific types of evidence that should be considered in the assessment of a potential priority group for obesity prevention and has applications for funding and implementing community-based or settings-level obesity prevention interventions and research. Application of this framework has the potential to enhance the effective use of limited obesity prevention resources and to identify areas in need of additional research evidence.

Smoking cessation, alcohol intake and transient increase in the risk of metabolic syndrome among Japanese smokers at one health checkup institution

BACKGROUND

Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is potentially effective measures to identify individuals at risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and type 2 diabetes. To verify the hypothesis that smoking cessation may increase the risk of MetS, a follow-up study taking drinking habit into account was conducted for the examinees at one health checkup institution.

METHODS

Subjects were the examinees who visited the Institution for Disease Prevention and Health Checkup, Seirei Mikatabara Hospital for annual health checkup from January 2003 to December 2006. Among them, 5,872 smokers (5,479 men, 93.3%) free from MetS at the first year in two consecutive years were selected. For the long term follow-up, the risk of MetS among those who maintained their nonsmoking status for 1 or 2 additional years was evaluated.

RESULTS

Relative to non-quitters, quitters showed a significantly elevated adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of MetS in two consecutive years (aHR = 2.09, 95% confidence interval: 1.43-3.04, P < 0.001). The aHR was higher among the quitters who had a drinking habit at the first year (aHR = 2.42, 95% CI: 1.48-3.94, P < 0.001). Analyses for 1 or 2 additional years of follow-up revealed that this significant increase in risk of MetS was transient.

CONCLUSION

The present study revealed that smoking cessation elevated the risk of MetS significantly, especially among drinkers. Although this detrimental effect of smoking cessation was found to be during only a short term, our results suggested that we should take measures, presumably including interventions for alcohol cessation, not to expose smoking quitters to this adverse effect. Further investigations are required to confirm our findings.

Exercise interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Taking regular exercise may help people give up smoking by moderating nicotine withdrawal and cravings, and by helping to manage weight gain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether exercise-based interventions alone or combined with a smoking cessation programme are more effective than a smoking cessation intervention alone.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In July 2008, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for studies including the terms 'exercise' or 'physical activity'. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Dissertation Abstracts and CINAHL.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials which compared an exercise programme alone, or an exercise programme as an adjunct to a cessation programme, with a cessation programme, recruiting smokers or recent quitters, and with a follow up of six months or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on study characteristics and smoking outcomes. Because of differences in studies we summarized the results narratively, making no attempt at meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 13 trials, six of which had fewer than 25 people in each treatment arm. They varied in the timing and intensity of the smoking cessation and exercise programmes. Three studies showed significantly higher abstinence rates in a physically active group versus a control group at end of treatment. One of these studies also showed a significant benefit for exercise versus control on abstinence at the three-month follow up and a benefit for exercise of borderline significance (P = 0.05) at the 12-month follow up. One study showed significantly higher abstinence rates for the exercise group versus a control group at the three-month follow up but not at the end of treatment or 12-month follow up. The other studies showed no significant effect for exercise on abstinence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only one of the 13 trials offered evidence for exercise aiding smoking cessation at a 12-month follow up. All the other trials were too small to exclude reliably an effect of intervention, or included an exercise intervention which was insufficiently intense to achieve the desired level of exercise. Trials are needed with larger sample sizes, sufficiently intense interventions, equal contact control conditions, measures of exercise adherence and change in physical activity in both exercise and comparison groups.