YMCA exercise intervention to augment smoking cessation treatment in adults with high anxiety sensitivity: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Anxiety Sensitivity as a Malleable Mechanistic Target for Prevention Interventions: A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Brief Treatment Interventions

Anxiety sensitivity (AS) is a transdiagnostic risk factor and potential treatment target for prevention of associated psychopathology and negative health behaviors. We conducted a meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy of brief interventions in at-risk samples for reducing AS and associated clinical/behavioral outcomes (e.g., depression, alcohol use) across 28 studies (1,998 participants). AS targeted interventions, compared to control conditions, evidenced a significant moderate effect size for alleviating AS from pre- to post-treatment (d = 0.54) and approached a large effect size from pre-treatment to short-term follow-up (d = 0.78). The effect size for long-term follow-up did not reach significance (d = 0.29). For clinical/behavioral outcomes, AS interventions demonstrated significant small-to-moderate effect sizes for the three timepoints examined (d's = 0.20-0.41). Our findings help validate AS as a modifiable mechanistic target for prevention efforts.

Community-based smoking cessation treatment for adults with high anxiety sensitivity: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

People with anxiety disorders are more likely to smoke and less likely to succeed when they try to quit. Anxiety sensitivity may underlie both phenomena, such that people with high anxiety sensitivity react to interoceptive distress by avoidance. This study aimed to test the efficacy of an exercise program that induced interoceptive distress and thereby created tolerance to this distress in a safe environment.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized clinical trial at four YMCA branches in Austin, Texas, USA. Participants [n = 150; 130 (86.7%) white; 101 (67.3%) female; mean_age  = 38.6, standard deviation (SD)_age  = 10.4] were adult, daily smokers with high anxiety sensitivity motivated to quit smoking, who reported no regular moderate-intensity exercise.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were assigned a YMCA personal trainer who guided them through a 15-week intervention aerobic exercise program. Participants assigned to the personalized intervention trained at 60-85% of their heart rate reserve (HRR), whereas participants assigned to the control intervention trained at 20-40% of their HRR. Participants in both groups received standard behavioral support and nicotine replacement therapy.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was biologically verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) at 6-month follow-up.

FINDINGS

Sixty-one per cent of participants were available at the 6-month follow-up. PPA at 6 months was higher in the personalized intervention than the control intervention [27.6 versus 14.8%; odds ratio (OR) = 2.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.28, 3.80, P = 0.005], assuming missing at random. Anxiety sensitivity declined in both groups with no evidence that this differed between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

An exercise program of high intensity increased abstinence from smoking in people with high anxiety sensitivity, but may not have done so by reducing anxiety sensitivity.

Network analysis reveals the associations of past quit experiences on current smoking behavior and motivation to quit

INTRODUCTION

Smoking is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. While most smokers endorse a desire to quit, achieving abstinence is notoriously difficult. Network analysis is a method for understanding the complex relationships of factors that maintain smoking behavior and impact motivation to quit.

METHODS

This study examined self-report prescreen data from treatment-seeking smokers (N = 3913). The number of prior quit attempts and withdrawal symptoms experienced, as well as current smoking behavior and motivation to quit were modeled as interconnected nodes in a network. Two key network metrics were examined: 1) edge weights, which quantify the strength and direction of the associations of interest, and 2) the sum of each node's edge weights, which quantifies the expected influence of a node on the overall network.

RESULTS

The withdrawal symptom of craving, r = 0.10, 95% CI [0.07, 0.13] and digestive problems, r = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.09, -0.03], had the strongest positive and negative association with daily cigarettes, respectively. The number of prior quit attempts, r = 0.17, 95% CI [0.14, 0.20], concentration problems, r = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.027, -0.01], showed the strongest positive and negative associations, respectively, with current motivation to quit. Nodes with significant links to current smoking and motivation to quit were also among the most influential in the overall network.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest prior quit experiences and consequences associated with withdrawal symptoms may differentially relate to maintenance of smoking behavior and motivation to quit in treatment-seeking smokers. Interventions targeting key withdrawal symptoms may enhance motivation to quit.

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.