Reducing racial/ethnic tobacco cessation disparities via cognitive behavioral therapy: Design of a dualsite randomized controlled trial

Tobacco treatment in the setting of lung cancer screening

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lung cancer screening by low-dose CT is an increasingly implemented preventive medicine tool. Screening for lung cancer is incomplete without addressing problematic tobacco use, the greatest modifiable risk factor in the development of lung cancer. This review describes recent work related to lung cancer screening and treatment of tobacco use in that context.

RECENT FINDINGS

Implementation of lung cancer screening demonstrates socioeconomic disparities in terms of adherence to screening as well as likelihood of successful tobacco dependence treatment. Active tobacco dependence is a common comorbidity for patients undergoing lung cancer screening. The optimal implementation of tobacco dependence treatment in the context of lung cancer screening is still an area of active investigation.

SUMMARY

Treatment of tobacco dependence at time of lung cancer screening is a major opportunity for clinicians to intervene to reduce the major modifiable risk factor for lung cancer, tobacco use. Providing comprehensive tobacco dependence treatment is most effective using combination pharmacologic and behavioral interventions. Practices providing comprehensive treatment will benefit from accurate documentation for billing and coding and supplementing with external resources such as state Quit Lines.

Recruiting racially and ethnically diverse smokers seeking treatment: Lessons learned from a smoking cessation randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Recruiting racial/ethnic minorities in smoking cessation trials is a priority. This study described lessons learned from recruiting a diverse sample of African American, White, and Hispanic/Latinx smokers in a smoking cessation trial.

METHODS

We implemented a 42-month recruitment campaign utilizing reactive (e.g., word-of-mouth, newspaper, radio, online ads, flyers, community partnerships) and proactive (e.g., direct invitations) strategies. We included 821 participants in the analysis. We described our recruitment strategies' implementation, their enrollment yield and rate (number enrolled/number screened) by race/ethnicity, and direct cost-per-participant (CPP: total cost/number of enrolled) for paid strategies.

RESULTS

Enrollment yields were higher using reactive strategies than proactive strategies (94.3% vs. 5.7%). The top source of enrollment was word-of-mouth among African Americans (36%) and Whites (44%), and flyers among Hispanics/Latinxs (34%). Proactive recruitment, word-of-mouth, and flyers were more successful among African Americans than other groups. Newspaper and online ads were more successful among Hispanics/Latinxs than other groups (P < .05). Word-of-mouth was cost-free and yielded 23.1% of enrollment. The most economic method among paid strategies was flyer distribution (CPP = $47.6; yield 17.5%), followed by newspaper ($194.7; 23.7%) and online advertisements ($264.6; 24.0%). Radio and television ads were the most expensive and produced the least participant yield ($4,755.6; 0.8%).

CONCLUSION

Recruiting racially/ethnically diverse samples into smoking cessation clinical trials requires implementing multiple strategies and adjusting these strategies based on their enrollment yield and cost. Word-of-mouth, flyers, and newspaper and online ads were more successful among racial/ethnic minorities. Flyers and newspaper ads were the most economic methods for recruitment.

Smoking cessation for improving mental health

BACKGROUND

There is a common perception that smoking generally helps people to manage stress, and may be a form of 'self-medication' in people with mental health conditions. However, there are biologically plausible reasons why smoking may worsen mental health through neuroadaptations arising from chronic smoking, leading to frequent nicotine withdrawal symptoms (e.g. anxiety, depression, irritability), in which case smoking cessation may help to improve rather than worsen mental health.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the association between tobacco smoking cessation and change in mental health.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the trial registries clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, from 14 April 2012 to 07 January 2020. These were updated searches of a previously-conducted non-Cochrane review where searches were conducted from database inception to 13 April 2012.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included controlled before-after studies, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysed by smoking status at follow-up, and longitudinal cohort studies. In order to be eligible for inclusion studies had to recruit adults who smoked tobacco, and assess whether they quit or continued smoking during the study. They also had to measure a mental health outcome at baseline and at least six weeks later.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcomes were change in depression symptoms, anxiety symptoms or mixed anxiety and depression symptoms between baseline and follow-up. Secondary outcomes  included change in symptoms of stress, psychological quality of life, positive affect, and social impact or social quality of life, as well as new incidence of depression, anxiety, or mixed anxiety and depression disorders. We assessed the risk of bias for the primary outcomes using a modified ROBINS-I tool.  For change in mental health outcomes, we calculated the pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the difference in change in mental health from baseline to follow-up between those who had quit smoking and those who had continued to smoke. For the incidence of psychological disorders, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. For all meta-analyses we used a generic inverse variance random-effects model and quantified statistical heterogeneity using I2. We conducted subgroup analyses to investigate any differences in associations between sub-populations, i.e. unselected people with mental illness, people with physical chronic diseases. We assessed the certainty of evidence for our primary outcomes (depression, anxiety, and mixed depression and anxiety) and our secondary social impact outcome using the eight GRADE considerations relevant to non-randomised studies (risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, publication bias, magnitude of the effect, the influence of all plausible residual confounding, the presence of a dose-response gradient).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 102 studies representing over 169,500 participants. Sixty-two of these were identified in the updated search for this review and 40 were included in the original version of the review.  Sixty-three studies provided data on change in mental health, 10 were included in meta-analyses of incidence of mental health disorders, and 31 were synthesised narratively.  For all primary outcomes, smoking cessation was associated with an improvement in mental health symptoms compared with continuing to smoke: anxiety symptoms (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.13; 15 studies, 3141 participants; I2 = 69%; low-certainty evidence); depression symptoms: (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.21; 34 studies, 7156 participants; I2 = 69%' very low-certainty evidence);  mixed anxiety and depression symptoms (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.22; 8 studies, 2829 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence).  These findings were robust to preplanned sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analysis generally did not produce evidence of differences in the effect size among subpopulations or based on methodological characteristics. All studies were deemed to be at serious risk of bias due to possible time-varying confounding, and three studies measuring depression symptoms were judged to be at critical risk of bias overall. There was also some evidence of funnel plot asymmetry. For these reasons, we rated our certainty in the estimates for anxiety as low, for depression as very low, and for mixed anxiety and depression as moderate. For the secondary outcomes, smoking cessation was associated with an improvement in symptoms of stress (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.04; 4 studies, 1792 participants; I2 = 50%), positive affect (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.33; 13 studies, 4880 participants; I2 = 75%), and psychological quality of life (SMD 0.11, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16; 19 studies, 18,034 participants; I2 = 42%). There was also evidence that smoking cessation was not associated with a reduction in social quality of life, with the confidence interval incorporating the possibility of a small improvement (SMD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; 9 studies, 14,673 participants; I2 = 0%). The incidence of new mixed anxiety and depression was lower in people who stopped smoking compared with those who continued (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86; 3 studies, 8685 participants; I2 = 57%), as was the incidence of anxiety disorder (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.12; 2 studies, 2293 participants; I2 = 46%). We deemed it inappropriate to present a pooled estimate for the incidence of new cases of clinical depression, as there was high statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 87%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, these data provide evidence that mental health does not worsen as a result of quitting smoking, and very low- to moderate-certainty evidence that smoking cessation is associated with small to moderate improvements in mental health.  These improvements are seen in both unselected samples and in subpopulations, including people diagnosed with mental health conditions. Additional studies that use more advanced methods to overcome time-varying confounding would strengthen the evidence in this area.

Cognitive Behavioral and Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Smoking Cessation: a Review of the Recent Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cigarette smoking is the primary cause of cancer and is the leading preventable cause of morbidity and mortality. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is one of the most well-established and efficacious interventions for smoking cessation. The study of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) has increased exponentially in recent years, showing efficacy for smoking cessation as well. This review highlights research from the past 5 years examining CBT and MBIs for smoking cessation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Both CBT and MBIs are efficacious for special populations (e.g., low SES; pregnant smokers) and have shown initial efficacy when delivered via mhealth/ehealth. CBT has shown efficacy when combined with another behavioral treatment (e.g., ACT). Continued research is needed on CBT and MBIs that have high potential for scalability. Understanding whether they are beneficial for certain populations (e.g., cancer survivors), along with determining for whom CBT vs MBIs are most effective, is also needed.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation increase the likelihood of achieving abstinence in a quit attempt. It is plausible that providing support, or, if support is offered, offering more intensive support or support including particular components may increase abstinence further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of adding or increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition. We also looked at studies which directly compare behavioural interventions matched for contact time, where pharmacotherapy is provided to both groups (e.g. tests of different components or approaches to behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in June 2018 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline, that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount or type of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact (defined as face-to-face or telephone). The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, a different type of personal contact, written information, or no behavioural support at all. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women and trials which did not set out to assess smoking cessation at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. 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 random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-three studies, 36 of which were new to this update, met the inclusion criteria, representing 29,536 participants. Overall, we judged 16 studies to be at low risk of bias and 21 studies to be at high risk of bias. All other studies were judged to be at unclear risk of bias. Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of studies at high risk of bias. We pooled all studies comparing more versus less support in the main analysis. Findings demonstrated a benefit of behavioural support in addition to pharmacotherapy. When all studies of additional behavioural therapy were pooled, there was evidence of a statistically significant benefit from additional support (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.22, I² = 8%, 65 studies, n = 23,331) for abstinence at longest follow-up, and this effect was not different when we compared subgroups by type of pharmacotherapy or intensity of contact. This effect was similar in the subgroup of eight studies in which the control group received no behavioural support (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43, I² = 20%, n = 4,018). Seventeen studies compared interventions matched for contact time but that differed in terms of the behavioural components or approaches employed. Of the 15 comparisons, all had small numbers of participants and events. Only one detected a statistically significant effect, favouring a health education approach (which the authors described as standard counselling containing information and advice) over motivational interviewing approach (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.94, n = 378).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking increases quit rates. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 20%, based on a pooled estimate from 65 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of specific components that comprise behavioural support.

Reasons for Exclusion from a Smoking Cessation Trial: An Analysis by Race/Ethnicity

Objective

The exclusion criteria of tobacco cessation randomized clinical trials (RCTs) may have unintended consequences on inclusion and cessation disparities. We examined racial/ethnic differences in: a) exclusion from a group-based cessation RCT; and b) reasons for exclusion.

Design

Quasi-experimental. Inclusion criteria were self-identification as African American/Black, non-Hispanic White, or Hispanic (any race), adults, minimum five cigarettes/day or carbon monoxide reading of ≥ 8 parts per million (ppm), interest in quitting, and spoke/read English. Data were obtained from a parent trial, which is ongoing and will be completed in 2019. Analyses for our present study on participant screening and enrollment were conducted in 2018.

Main Outcome Measures

Study ineligibility, and reasons for exclusion (contraindications for nicotine patch use, serious mental illness [SMI, eg, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia], alcohol dependence or illicit drug use, current tobacco treatment, attendance barriers [eg, transportation], and other concerns [eg, aggressive, intoxicated, disruptive, visibly ill]).

Results

Of 1,206 individuals screened, 36% were ineligible. The most frequent reasons were SMI (28%), alcohol dependence or drug use (10%), and attendance barriers (7%). Ineligibility was greater among African Americans (42%) and Hispanics (37%), compared with Whites (24%; P<.001). Compared with African Americans and Hispanics, Whites were more likely to be excluded for single reasons, including attendance barriers, and medical conditions (P<.05). African Americans were more than twice as likely as Whites to be excluded for 3 or more reasons (12% vs 5% respectively, P<.05).

Conclusions

A notable proportion of smokers were ineligible for this RCT, with SMI as the greatest single cause. Racial/ethnic minorities were more likely to be excluded, with African Americans deemed ineligible for multiple reasons. Findings have implications for RCT generalizability, addressing tobacco disparities and health equity.