Treatment development, implementation, and participant baseline characteristics: A randomized pilot study of a tailored quitline intervention for individuals who smoke and vape

Testing a Brief Quitline Intervention for Tobacco Cannabis Co-Users: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study

Background: Tobacco cannabis co-use is common and becoming more prevalent. Frequent and heavy users of cannabis may struggle to quit smoking. Quitlines offer free cessation treatment in the United States and 25% of quitline callers may also be cannabis users. The present paper describes a randomized pilot study of a tailored intervention for cannabis and cigarette co-users. The intervention combines the quitline smoking cessation treatment with a motivational enhancement therapy-based cannabis intervention. Methods: The randomized pilot study was conducted within four state-funded quitlines with quitline coaches as interventionists. 102 quitline callers who were cannabis and cigarette co-users were randomized to receive treatment as usual (TAU) or the new Quitline Check-Up (QLCU) intervention. Outcomes were collected 90 days post-randomization. Primary outcomes included feasibility and acceptability of delivering the QLCU in the quitline setting. Secondary outcomes included 7-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence, past 30-day cannabis use, and Cannabis Use Disorder Identification Test scores. Results: Study participants were heavy cannabis users, averaging 25 days of use in the past 30; nearly 70% used at a level considered hazardous. Fidelity ratings indicated coaches were successful at delivering the intervention. Treatment engagement was high for both groups (TAU m = 3.4 calls; QLCU m = 3.6 calls) as was treatment satisfaction. Intent-to-treat quit rates (with survey non-responders classified as smokers) were 28.6% for the TAU control group and 24.5% for the QLCU group (P = .45). Discussion: Hazardous cannabis use rates were high in this sample of tobacco cannabis co-users calling quitlines to quit smoking. The intervention for co-users was acceptable and feasible to deliver. No improvements in tobacco cessation outcomes were observed. Pragmatic intervention development within a real-world clinical setting can streamline the intervention development process. More research is needed on tobacco cannabis co-users and who can benefit from a tailored intervention. Registered: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04737772, February 4, 2021.

Relative Efficacy of an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-Based Smartphone App with a Standard US Clinical Practice Guidelines-Based App for Smoking Cessation in Dual Users of Combustible and Electronic Cigarettes: Secondary Findings from a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

While smartphone apps for smoking cessation have shown promise for combustible cigarette smoking cessation, their efficacy in helping dual users of combustible and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) to quit cigarettes remains unknown. This study utilized data from a randomized trial to determine if an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT)-based app (iCanQuit) was more efficacious than a US Clinical Practice Guidelines-based app (QuitGuide) for combustible cigarette smoking cessation among 575 dual users.

METHODS

The primary cessation outcome was self-reported, complete-case 30-day abstinence from combustible cigarettes at 12 months. Logistic regression assessed the interaction between dual use and treatment arm on the primary outcome in the full trial sample (N = 2,415). We then compared the primary outcome between arms among dual users (iCanQuit: n = 297; QuitGuide: n = 178). Mediation analyses were conducted to explore mechanisms of action of the intervention: acceptance of cues to smoke and app engagement. Results: There was an interaction between dual use of combustible and e-cigarettes and treatment arm on the primary outcome (p = 0.001). Among dual users, 12-month abstinence from cigarettes did not differ between arms (23% for iCanQuit vs. 27% for QuitGuide, p = 0.40). Mediation analysis revealed a significant positive indirect effect of the iCanQuit app on 12-month abstinence from cigarettes through acceptance of emotions that cue smoking (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this study of dual users of combustible and e-cigarettes showed no evidence of a difference in quit rates between arms. Acceptance of emotions that cue smoking is a potential mechanism contributing to cigarette smoking abstinence among dual users.

A randomized pilot of a tailored smoking cessation quitline intervention for individuals who smoke and vape

INTRODUCTION

Although e-cigarettes are not a federally approved tobacco cessation aid in the US, many smokers use them to quit or cut down on smoking. Tailored behavioral support could improve rates of complete smoking cessation for those individuals. A novel behavioral treatment to help dual cigarette and e-cigarette users quit smoking was tested in a randomized pilot with a state tobacco quitline.

METHOD

96 dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes were recruited from incoming state quitline callers and randomized to receive enhanced e-cigarette coaching (EEC) or quitline treatment as usual (TAU) to examine EEC feasibility and acceptability. Outcomes at 3 months were treatment satisfaction, engagement, beliefs, and smoking cessation. This pilot was not powered to detect differences in quit rates.

RESULTS

69% responded to the 3-month survey. EEC treatment satisfaction was noninferior to TAU: 93.8% (30/32) of EEC and 73.5% (25/34) of TAU reported being "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with treatment. EEC participants completed more coaching calls than TAU (M=3.4 vs. M=2.7, p=0.03), and the majority in both groups elected to receive nicotine replacement therapy (EEC: 100%, TAU: 94%, p=0.24). With missing data imputed as smoking, intent to treat 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence rates were 41.3% (19/46) for EEC and 28.0% (14/50) for TAU, p=0.20.

CONCLUSIONS

The EEC quitline intervention for dual cigarette and e-cigarette users demonstrated high levels of treatment satisfaction and engagement. This pilot was not powered to detect significant differences in smoking cessation; however, cessation rates were promising and warrant evaluation in a fully powered trial.

IMPLICATIONS

If this scalable behavioral treatment to help dual cigarette and e-cigarette users quit smoking proves to be effective in a larger trial, quitlines could implement this harm reduction approach to improve outcomes for callers who already use e-cigarettes and are planning to use them while quitting smoking.

Documento de posicionamiento de la Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica (SEPAR) ante las estrategias de reducción del daño del tabaco

In the last decade, the appearance of electronic cigarettes and new tobacco products (heated tobacco or smokeless tobacco) has generated a growing interest in harm reduction methods that are defined as mechanisms that seek to reduce the harmful consequences of tobacco without give up the pleasant effects of it by replacing it with these new electronic devices. However, these products are addictive and not safe as they contain nicotine. Harm reduction is a false solution as it represents a commercial strategy of the tobacco industry to increase its sales, making it difficult to control smoking, since it keeps smokers from consuming tobacco and prevents them from making serious attempts to quit. In addition, these products are a gateway to adolescents in tobacco.

In vivo Experience With NRT to Increase Adherence and Smoking Abstinence Among Individuals in the Criminal Legal System: Study Protocol for a Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

While tobacco use among individuals involved in the criminal legal system remains 3-4 times higher than the general population, few interventions have been targeted for this population to aid in smoking cessation. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is a relatively effective and accessible smoking cessation aid; however, individuals frequently stop use of NRT early due to side effects and misperceptions about the products. The present study aims to address low medication adherence by examining the efficacy of an "in vivo" NRT sampling experience in individuals under community criminal legal supervision.

METHODS

Following recruitment through community legal outlets, participants (N = 517) are randomized to either an "in vivo NRT sampling" group or a standard smoking cessation behavioral counseling group. The in vivo group uses NRT in session and discusses perceptions and experiences of using NRT in real time while the standard smoking cessation counseling group receives four sessions of standard behavioral smoking cessation counseling. Both groups receive four intervention sessions and 12 weeks of NRT following the intervention. The 6-month post-intervention primary outcome measures are smoking point-prevalence abstinence and medication adherence.

CONCLUSION

This is a novel smoking cessation intervention specifically aimed at increasing NRT adherence and smoking cessation among those involved in the criminal legal system, a group of individuals with high smoking rates and low rates of pharmacotherapy use. If proven effective, the present treatment could be a novel intervention to implement in criminal legal settings given the minimal requirement of resources and training.This trial is registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov-NCT02938403.