Intensive intervention for alcohol-dependent smokers in early recovery: a randomized trial

Structured programs for the self-management of substance addiction consequences in outpatient services: A scoping review

Structured intervention programs are an important resource for supporting people with substance addiction. Although evidence suggests that they improve health outcomes, such as specific symptoms, less is known about their impact on patients’ ability to self-manage the consequences of substance addiction. The aim of this review is to scope outpatient intervention programs focused on the self-management of substance addiction consequences. Approach. This review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. MEDLINE and CINAHL (through Ebsco), Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collection (including PsycINFO) and Web of Science were screened to identify articles published in the last 10 years. Only primary research was included. Out of 891 records, 19 were eligible for this review—12 randomized controlled trials (RCT), 6 quasi-experimental study and 1 observational study. Those studies reported group interventions (10), individual interventions (8) and 1 mixed approach. The most common interventions were based on motivational strategies, relapse prevention and definition of active plans for risky situations. 10 studies reported positive effects. The identification of structured programs may support the development of new approaches focused on empowerment and quality of life of people with substance addiction. Programs to empower patients for self-management of substance addiction consequences are often complex and rely on health professionals’ commitment. Nevertheless, they are a feasible approach that seems to benefit patients managing chronic conditions associated with substance addiction.

The effect of alcohol use on smoking cessation: A systematic review

Only a small minority of all attempts to stop smoking are successful, especially among smokers who are heavy drinkers and those with an alcohol use disorder. The current systematic review focuses on the negative effects of alcohol use, either before or during attempts to quit smoking, on the success rate of these attempt(s) in alcohol-drinking tobacco smokers. We conducted a systematic review of naturalistic and experimental studies, which included at least 40 tobacco smokers with a recorded drinking status (non-drinking, heavy drinking, alcohol use disorder) and a clearly documented change in alcohol consumption. We could not conduct a meta-analysis and, thus, used consistency across studies to draw conclusions. The evidence presented here shows that alcohol use is associated with lower rates of success in quitting smoking in 20 out of 27 studies. This includes both lapses and relapses. Similarly, in 19 out of 20 long-term follow-up studies, the duration of smoking abstinence was shorter among persons with higher alcohol consumption. Finally, 12 out of 13 experimental studies showed that exposure of smokers to alcohol cues or to drinking of alcohol induce a strong propensity to smoke. It is, therefore, recommended for smokers who drink alcohol and who intend to quit smoking to use an integrated approach, i.e., to stop or substantially reduce their alcohol consumption before and/or during their attempt to quit smoking.

Nonsmoking after simultaneous alcohol abstinence and smoking cessation program was associated with better drinking status outcome in Japanese alcohol-dependent men: A prospective follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Growing evidence suggests that intervention for smoking cessation enhances alcohol abstinence in treatment settings for alcohol dependence. However, research in this field is rare in Asians.

METHOD

We prospectively investigated the association of smoking status with drinking status using 9 surveys mailed during a 12-month period in 198 Japanese alcohol-dependent men (70 never/ex-smokers and 128 smokers) who admitted for the first time and completed a 3-month inpatient program for simultaneous alcohol abstinence and smoking cessation.

RESULTS

Nonsmoking during the first month after discharge and at the end of follow-up was reported in 28.9% and 25.0% of the baseline smokers, respectively. Kaplan-Meier estimates showed that a 12-month alcohol abstinence and heavy-drinking-free status were more frequent among never/ex-smokers (45.1% and 59.8%, respectively) and baseline smokers who quit smoking during the first month after discharge (59.0% and 60.8%, respectively), compared with sustained smokers (30.0% and 41.2%, respectively). Among the baseline smokers, the multivariate odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for smoking cessation during the first month were 2.77 (1.01-7.61) for alcohol abstinence during the period and 2.50 (1.00-6.25) for use of varenicline, a smoking cessation agent, during the inpatient program. After adjusting for age, drinking profile, lifestyle, family history of heavy or problem drinking, lifetime episodes of other major psychiatric disorders, and medications at discharge, the multivariate hazard ratios (HRs) for drinking lapse were 0.57 (0.37-0.89) for the never/ex-smoking and 0.41 (0.23-0.75) for new smoking cessation groups, respectively, compared with sustained smoking, while the corresponding HRs for heavy-drinking lapse were 0.55 (0.33-0.90) and 0.47 (0.25-0.88), respectively. The HR for drinking lapse was 0.63 (0.42-0.95) for the nonsmoking group (vs. smoking) during the observation period, while the HR for heavy-drinking lapse was 0.58 (0.37-0.91) for the nonsmoking group (vs. smoking) during the observation period. Other significant variables that worsened drinking outcomes were higher daily alcohol intake prior to hospitalization, family history of heavy or problem drinking and psychiatric medications at discharge.

CONCLUSION

Nonsmoking was associated with better outcomes on the drinking status of Japanese alcohol-dependent men, and a smoking cessation program may be recommended to be integrated into alcohol abstinence programs.

Smoking As an Outcome Moderator In the Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorders

AIMS

To clarify whether smoking interferes with successful treatment of alcohol use disorder (AUD).

METHODS

The current systematic review investigates the potential moderating effect of smoking on behavioural and pharmacological treatment of AUD. In addition, this review summarizes the results of randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of smoking cessation treatments in subjects with AUD on drinking outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, the results show that 16 out of the 31 pharmacological and psychotherapeutic alcohol treatment studies showed that being a non-smoker or decreased tobacco consumption during AUD treatment is associated with beneficial drinking outcomes, including reduced drinking, later relapse and prolonged alcohol abstinence. As such, smoking predicts poorer drinking outcomes in alcohol treatments. In the stop-smoking studies in patients with AUD, reduced smoking had virtually no effect on drinking behaviours. The inverse association between smoking and drinking outcome observed here indicates that non-smokers may be more successful to attain alcohol abstinence than smokers do. However, this association does not imply per se that smoking triggers alcohol consumption, since it can also mean that alcohol consumption promotes smoking.

CONCLUSIONS

It is concluded that (continued) tobacco smoking may have a negative moderating effect on the treatment outcome of AUD treatments. To optimize treatment outcome of AUD one may consider informing and counselling patients with AUD about the risks of smoking for treatment outcomes and offering support for smoking cessation.

Achieving Smoking Cessation Among Persons with Opioid Use Disorder

While prevalence of tobacco use in the US general population is declining, prevalence among those with opioid use disorder (OUD) remains high and results in excessive tobacco-related disease and premature mortality. Among smokers with OUD, tobacco cessation rates are negligible without treatment. However, both low-intensity behavioral interventions and more intensive motivational interventions yield negligible cessation rates. While contingency management has potent short-term cessation effects, effects are not maintained at post-intervention follow-up. Evidence-based smoking cessation pharmacotherapies, such as nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, and varenicline, result in very modest cessation rates among smokers with OUD. Intensification of pharmacotherapy, such as high-dose and combination nicotine replacement therapy or extended medication treatment, has failed to improve cessation outcomes compared with standard treatment regimens. Targeting the unique challenges faced by smokers with OUD, including nicotine-opioid interactions and poor medication adherence, has potential to improve cessation outcomes, but further research is needed to optimize intervention efficacy among smokers with OUD.

Interventions for tobacco use cessation in people in treatment for or recovery from substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

Smoking rates in people with alcohol and other drug dependencies are two to four times those of the general population. Concurrent treatment of tobacco dependence has been limited due to concern that these interventions are not successful in this population or that recovery from other addictions could be compromised if tobacco cessation was combined with other drug dependency treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether interventions for tobacco cessation are associated with tobacco abstinence for people in concurrent treatment for or in recovery from alcohol and other drug dependence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases, with the most recent search completed in August 2016. A grey literature search of conference abstracts from the Society on Nicotine Research and Treatment and the ProQuest database of digital dissertations yielded one additional study, which was excluded.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions among people in concurrent treatment for alcohol or other drug dependence or in outpatient recovery programmes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study risk of bias and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by consensus. The primary outcome was abstinence from tobacco use at the longest period of follow-up, and the secondary outcome was abstinence from alcohol or other drugs, or both. We reported the strictest definition of abstinence. We summarised effects as risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Two clustered studies did not provide intraclass correlation coefficients, and were excluded from the sensitivity analysis. We used the I² statistic to assess heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-five randomised controlled trials, one ongoing, involving 5796 participants met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Included studies assessed the efficacy of tobacco cessation interventions, including counselling, and pharmacotherapy consisting of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or non-NRT, or the two combined, in both inpatient and outpatient settings for participants in treatment and in recovery. Most studies did not report information to assess the risk of allocation, selection, and attrition bias, and were classified as unclear.Analyses considered the nature of the intervention, whether participants were in treatment or recovery and the type of dependency. Of the 34 studies included in the meta-analysis, 11 assessed counselling, 11 assessed pharmacotherapy, and 12 assessed counselling in combination with pharmacotherapy, compared to usual care or no intervention. Tobacco cessation interventions were significantly associated with tobacco abstinence for two types of interventions. Pharmacotherapy appeared to increase tobacco abstinence (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.12, 11 studies, 1808 participants, low quality evidence), as did combined counselling and pharmacotherapy (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.18, 12 studies, 2229 participants, low quality evidence) at the period of longest follow-up, which ranged from six weeks to 18 months. There was moderate evidence of heterogeneity (I² = 56% with pharmacotherapy and 43% with counselling plus pharmacotherapy). Counselling interventions did not significantly increase tobacco abstinence (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.95).Interventions were significantly associated with tobacco abstinence for both people in treatment (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.50) and people in recovery (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.67), and for people with alcohol dependence (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.81) and people with other drug dependencies (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.40).Offering tobacco cessation therapy to people in treatment or recovery for other drug dependence was not associated with a difference in abstinence rates from alcohol and other drugs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.03, 11 studies, 2231 participants, moderate evidence of heterogeneity (I² = 66%)).Data on adverse effect of the interventions were limited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The studies included in this review suggest that providing tobacco cessation interventions targeted to smokers in treatment and recovery for alcohol and other drug dependencies increases tobacco abstinence. There was no evidence that providing interventions for tobacco cessation affected abstinence from alcohol and other drugs. The association between tobacco cessation interventions and tobacco abstinence was consistent for both pharmacotherapy and combined counselling and pharmacotherapy, for participants both in treatment and in recovery, and for people with alcohol dependency or other drug dependency. The evidence for the interventions was low quality due primarily to incomplete reporting of the risks of bias and clinical heterogeneity in the nature of treatment. Certain results were sensitive to the length of follow-up or the type of pharmacotherapy, suggesting that further research is warranted regarding whether tobacco cessation interventions are associated with tobacco abstinence for people in recovery, and the outcomes associated with NRT versus non-NRT or combined pharmacotherapy. Overall, the results suggest that tobacco cessation interventions incorporating pharmacotherapy should be incorporated into clinical practice to reduce tobacco addiction among people in treatment for or recovery from alcohol and other drug dependence.

A Randomized Trial of Contingency Management for Smoking Cessation During Intensive Outpatient Alcohol Treatment

INTRODUCTION

This randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of contingency management (CM) for smoking cessation for smokers with alcohol abuse or dependence delivered concurrently with intensive outpatient alcohol treatment. The study also explored the indirect effects of CM smoking treatment and smoking cessation on alcohol and drug use outcomes.

METHODS

Alcohol abuse/dependent smokers were randomized to cognitive behavioral therapy plus nicotine replacement therapy plus contingency management (CBT+NRT+CM) or to cognitive behavior therapy plus nicotine replacement therapy (CBT+NRT) delivered concurrent with a three-week intensive outpatient alcohol treatment program.

RESULTS

Participants in the CBT+NRT+CM condition were significantly more likely to be cigarette abstinent at the end of treatment (χ²(1)=8.48, p=.004) with approximately double the carbon monoxide confirmed quit rate (60%) compared with the CBT+NRT condition (29%). At the one-month and six-month time-points there were nonsignificant differences in smoking abstinence outcomes by condition. Smoking treatment condition did not directly affect alcohol abstinence outcomes, but we observed an indirect effect of smoking treatment on alcohol and drug abstinence at one-month follow-up that was mediated by smoking cessation at the end of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding CM to an evidence-based smoking cessation treatment that included medication and behavioral counseling doubled the quit rate at the end of treatment. This finding provides strong evidence for the efficacy of CM for helping alcohol dependent smokers reach the milestone of initial smoking abstinence.

A Systematic Review of Smoking Cessation Interventions for Adults in Substance Abuse Treatment or Recovery

INTRODUCTION

The aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for patients with substance use disorders. The secondary aim was to evaluate impact on substance use treatment outcomes.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials involving adult smokers, recently or currently receiving inpatient or outpatient treatment for substance use disorders were reviewed. Databases, grey literature, reference lists, and journals were searched for relevant studies between 1990 and August 2014. Two authors extracted data and assessed quality. The primary outcome was biochemically verified continuous abstinence from smoking at 6 or 12 months, secondary outcomes were biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence (PPA) at 6 or 12 months and substance use outcomes. Heterogeneity between studies precluded pooled analyses of the data.

RESULTS

Seventeen of 847 publications were included. Five studies reported significant effects on smoking cessation: (1) nicotine patches improved continuous abstinence at 6 months; (2) nicotine gum improved continuous abstinence at 12 months; (3) counseling, contingency management and relapse prevention improved continuous abstinence at 6 and 12 months; (4) cognitive behavioral therapy, plus nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), improved PPA at 6 months; and (5) a combination of bupropion, NRT, counseling and contingency management improved PPA at 6 months. Two studies showed some evidence of improved substance use outcomes with the remaining eight studies measuring substance use outcomes showing no difference.

CONCLUSIONS

NRT, behavioral support, and combination approaches appear to increase smoking abstinence in those treated for substance use disorders. Higher quality studies are required to strengthen the evidence base.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medication to aid smoking cessation, compared to a minimal intervention or usual care, and to identify whether there are different effects depending on characteristics of the treatment setting, intervention, population treated, or take-up of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support for smoking cessation, compared to a control receiving usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by two authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by another.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 Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three studies with a total of more than 25,000 participants met the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of studies recruited people in healthcare settings or with specific health needs. Most studies provided NRT. Behavioural support was typically provided by specialists in cessation counselling, who offered between four and eight contact sessions. The planned maximum duration of contact was typically more than 30 minutes but less than 300 minutes. Overall, studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, and findings were not sensitive to the exclusion of any of the six studies rated at high risk of bias in one domain. One large study (the Lung Health Study) contributed heterogeneity due to a substantially larger treatment effect than seen in other studies (RR 3.88, 95% CI 3.35 to 4.50). Since this study used a particularly intensive intervention which included extended availability of nicotine gum, multiple group sessions and long term maintenance and recycling contacts, the results may not be comparable with the interventions used in other studies, and hence it was not pooled in other analyses. Based on the remaining 52 studies (19,488 participants) there was high quality evidence (using GRADE) for a benefit of combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care, brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.68 to 1.98) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 36%).The pooled estimate for 43 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.18) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Compared to the first version of the review, previous weak evidence of differences in other subgroup analyses has disappeared. We did not detect differences between subgroups defined by motivation to quit, treatment provider, number or duration of support sessions, or take-up of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Updating this review with an additional 12 studies (5,000 participants) did not materially change the effect estimate. Although trials differed in the details of their populations and interventions, we did not detect any factors that modified treatment effects apart from the recruitment setting. We did not find evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects.

Contingent vouchers and motivational interviewing for cigarette smokers in residential substance abuse treatment

Residential drug treatment provides an opportunity to intervene with smokers with substance use disorders (SUD). A randomized controlled clinical trial compared: (1) contingent vouchers (CV) for smoking abstinence to noncontingent vouchers (NCV), crossed with (2) motivational interviewing (MI) or brief advice (BA), for 184 smokers in SUD treatment. During the voucher period, 36% of carbon monoxide readings indicated smoking abstinence for those receiving CV versus 13% with NCV (p < .001). Post-treatment (3-9 months) point-prevalence abstinence rates were low (3-4% at each follow up), with more abstinence when CV was combined with MI (6.6% on average) than with BA (0% on average). No differential effects on drug use or motivation to quit smoking occurred. Thus, CV had limited effects on long-term smoking abstinence in this population but effects were improved when CV was combined with MI. More effective methods are needed to increase motivation to quit smoking and quit rates in this high-risk population.

Engaging veterans with substance abuse disorders into a research trial: success with study branding, networking, and presence

Recruiting and retaining clients in health interventions can be challenging especially when targeting multiple behavior change in high-risk populations. To inform the methods of trials working with similarly complex clinical populations, we describe multi-pronged efforts to recruit and retain a representative sample. In a two-group RCT, veterans were recruited from a Veteran Affairs Medical Center. The goal was to enroll 200 participants over a 25-month period, and to exceed 70 % follow-up for all treatment arms. To meet these goals, a four-pronged strategy was developed: branding, outreach/networking, onsite presence, and incentives. In month 1, 32 % of the proposed sample size was met (n = 64), and by month 2, 45 % (n = 90); the recruitment goal (n = 200) was achieved 13 months ahead of schedule. Retention exceeds 90 % at all time points out to 18 months. The multipronged recruitment and retention plan was efficient, cost effective, and may generalize to other health promotion initiatives.

Concurrent alcohol and tobacco treatment: Effect on daily process measures of alcohol relapse risk

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of alcohol treatment along with concurrent smoking treatment or delayed smoking treatment on process measures related to alcohol relapse risk.

METHOD

Alcohol dependent smokers (N = 151) who were enrolled in an intensive outpatient alcohol treatment program and were interested in smoking cessation were randomized to a concurrent smoking cessation (CSC) intervention or to a waiting list for delayed smoking cessation (DSC) intervention scheduled to begin 3 months later. Daily assessments of relapse process measures were obtained using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system for 12 weeks after the onset of smoking treatment in the CSC condition, and before beginning smoking treatment in the DSC condition. Smoking outcomes were assessed at 2 and 13 weeks after starting treatment.

RESULTS

Seven-day carbon monoxide (CO) verified smoking abstinence in the CSC condition was 50.5% at 2 weeks and 19.0% at 13 weeks compared with 2.2% abstinence at 2 weeks and 0% abstinence at 13 weeks for those in the DSC condition. Drinking outcomes were not significantly different for CSC versus DSC treatment conditions. On daily IVR assessments, CSC participants had significantly lower positive alcohol outcome expectancies relative to DSC participants. Multilevel modeling (MLM) analyses of within-person effects across the 12 weeks of daily monitoring showed that daily smoking abstinence was significantly associated with same day reports of lower alcohol consumption, lower urge to drink, lower negative affect, lower positive alcohol outcome expectancies, greater alcohol abstinence self-efficacy, greater alcohol abstinence readiness to change, and greater perceived self-control demands.

CONCLUSIONS

Analyses of process measures provide support for recommending smoking intervention concurrent with intensive outpatient alcohol treatment. (PsycINFO Database Record

Negative affect is associated with alcohol, but not cigarette use in heavy drinking smokers

Co-use of alcohol and cigarettes is highly prevalent, and heavy drinking smokers represent a large and difficult-to-treat subgroup of smokers. Negative affect, including anxiety and depressive symptomatology, has been associated with both cigarette and alcohol use independently, but less is known about the role of negative affect in heavy drinking smokers. Furthermore, while some studies have shown negative affect to precede substance use, a precise biobehavioral mechanism has not been established. The aims of the present study were twofold. First, to test whether negative affect is associated with alcohol and cigarette use in a large community sample of heavy drinking smokers (n=461). And second, to examine craving as a plausible statistical mediator of the association between negative affect and alcohol and/or cigarette use. Hypothesis testing was conducted using a structural equation modeling approach with cross-sectional data. Analysis revealed a significant main effect of negative affect on alcohol use (β=0.210, p<0.05), but not cigarette use (β=0.131, p>0.10) in this sample. Mediational analysis revealed that alcohol craving was a full statistical mediator of this association (p<0.05), such that there was no direct association between negative affect and alcohol use after accounting for alcohol craving. These results are consistent with a negative reinforcement and relief craving models of alcohol use insofar as the experience of negative affect was associated with increased alcohol use, and the relationship was statistically mediated by alcohol craving, presumably to alleviate negative affect. Further longitudinal or experimental studies are warranted to enhance the causal inferences of this mediated effect.

Reciprocal effects of alcohol and nicotine in smoking cessation treatment studies

OBJECTIVE

Smoking and alcohol use are highly related; as such the present study investigated whether alcohol use is associated with failure in tobacco cessation attempts. We first examined the self-reported drinking behavior and smoking over the course of a year at a basic level. Next, we addressed two hypotheses to characterize this relationship at a deeper level: (Hypothesis 1) Alcohol use would be lower for those who attempted to quit smoking (quit for one or more days) during the year compared to those who never quit, and (Hypothesis 2) for those who relapsed to smoking after a quit increases in alcohol consumption would be positively associated with increases in smoking.

METHOD

Subjects were participants in two smoking cessation programs. One group of participants (N=139) was part of a smoking cessation study in alcohol dependent smokers in early recovery and the other group of participants (N=163) was drawn from a smoking cessation study for HIV positive smokers. H1 was tested using t-tests. For H2, a time series analysis examined relationships between smoking and alcohol use within person over a one year period. For H1 and for H2, the analyses utilized bivariate time series procedures. Timeline follow-back data allowed for detailed daily reports of both tobacco and alcohol use.

RESULTS

In the overall sample, there was no difference in alcohol use between those who stopped smoking and those who never stopped. However, when broken up by study, a difference was found in the alcohol dependent sample such that mean drinks were higher for those who stopped compared to those who never stopped smoking (H1). The results indicated a high number of positive significant cross-correlations between tobacco and alcohol use such that one substance predicted current, as well as past and future use of the alternate substance. Same-day cross-correlations were the most common, and dissipated with time (H2).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis provided insights into the proximal influence of one substance on the other. Alcohol is related to relapse in smoking cessation attempts. It is important that smoking cessation efforts in alcohol using populations consider alcohol use in treatment.

Motivational interviewing versus brief advice for cigarette smokers in residential alcohol treatment

Residential treatment for substance use disorders (SUD) provides opportunity for smoking intervention. A randomized controlled trial compared: (1) motivational interviewing (MI) to brief advice (BA), (2) in one session or with two booster sessions, for 165 alcoholics in SUD treatment. All received nicotine replacement (NRT). MI and BA produced equivalent confirmed abstinence, averaging 10% at 1 month, and 2% at 3, 6 and 12 months. However, patients with more drug use pretreatment (>22 days in 6 months) given BA had more abstinence at 12 months (7%) than patients in MI or with less drug use (all 0%). Boosters produced 16-31% fewer cigarettes per day after BA than MI. Substance use was unaffected by treatment condition or smoking cessation. Motivation to quit was higher after BA than MI. Thus, BA plus NRT may be a cost-effective way to reduce smoking for alcoholics with comorbid substance use who are not seeking smoking cessation.

Smoking cessation interventions for smokers with current or past depression

BACKGROUND

Individuals with current or past depression are often smokers who are more nicotine dependent, more likely to suffer from negative mood changes after nicotine withdrawal, and more likely to relapse to smoking after quitting than the general population, which contributes to their higher morbidity and mortality from smoking-related illnesses. It remains unclear what interventions can help them to quit smoking.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions, with and without specific mood management components, in smokers with current or past depression.

SEARCH METHODS

In April 2013, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, other reviews, and asked experts for information on trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Criteria for including studies in this review were that they had to be randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing smoking cessation interventions in adult smokers with current or past depression. Depression was defined as major depression or depressive symptoms. We included studies where subgroups of participants with depression were identified, either pre-stated or post hoc. The outcome was abstinence from smoking after six months or longer follow-up. We preferred prolonged or continuous abstinence and biochemically validated abstinence where available.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

When possible, we estimated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with the Mantel-Haenszel method (fixed-effect model). We also performed subgroup analyses, by length of follow-up, depression measurement, depression group in study, antidepressant use, published or unpublished data, format of intervention, level of behavioural support, additional pharmacotherapy, type of antidepressant medication, and additional nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-nine RCTs were included of which 33 trials investigated smoking cessation interventions with specific mood management components for depression. In smokers with current depression, meta-analysis showed a significant positive effect for adding psychosocial mood management to a standard smoking cessation intervention when compared with standard smoking cessation intervention alone (11 trials, N = 1844, RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.92). In smokers with past depression we found a similar effect (13 trials, N = 1496, RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.77). Meta-analysis resulted in a positive effect, although not significant, for adding bupropion compared with placebo in smokers with current depression (5 trials, N = 410, RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.27). There were not enough trial data to evaluate the effectiveness of fluoxetine and paroxetine for smokers with current depression. Bupropion (4 trials, N = 404, RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.31 to 3.18) might significantly increase long-term cessation among smokers with past depression when compared with placebo, but the evidence for bupropion is relatively weak due to the small number of studies and the post hoc subgroups for all the studies. There were not enough trial data to evaluate the effectiveness of fluoxetine, nortriptyline, paroxetine, selegiline, and sertraline in smokers with past depression.Twenty-three of the 49 trials investigated smoking cessation interventions without specific components for depression. There was heterogeneity between the trials which compared psychosocial interventions with standard smoking cessation counselling for both smokers with current and past depression. Therefore, we did not estimate a pooled effect. One trial compared nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) versus placebo in smokers with current depression and found a positive, although not significant, effect (N = 196, RR 2.64, 95% CI 0.93 to 7.45). Meta-analysis also found a positive, although not significant, effect for NRT versus placebo in smokers with past depression (3 trials, N = 432, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.60). Three trials compared other pharmacotherapy versus placebo and six trials compared other interventions in smokers with current or past depression. Due to heterogeneity between the interventions of the included trials we did not estimate pooled effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that adding a psychosocial mood management component to a standard smoking cessation intervention increases long-term cessation rates in smokers with both current and past depression when compared with the standard intervention alone. Pooled results from four trials suggest that use of bupropion may increase long-term cessation in smokers with past depression. There was no evidence found for the use of bupropion in smokers with current depression. There was not enough evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of the other antidepressants in smokers with current or past depression. There was also not enough evidence to evaluate the group of trials that investigated interventions without specific mood management components for depression, including NRT and psychosocial interventions.

Medications for substance use disorders

In this article, the authors briefly review the pharmacotherapeutic agents that are currently available for the treatment of substance use disorders. Nicotine replacement therapies are most effective for tobacco cessation. Naltrexone, acamprosate, and disulfiram are effective for reducing alcohol use. The most effective pharmacotherapies for opiate use disorders are agonist therapies, including methadone and buprenorphine. The authors also examine recent advances in medication development for other substance use disorders such as stimulant addiction. The role of medication adherence and behavioral treatments and the integration of behavioral and pharmacotherapeutic interventions are also discussed.

Cognitive behavioral smoking cessation during alcohol detoxification treatment: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Among alcohol-dependent subjects tobacco smoking is very common and causes a variety of health risks. Therefore, it is necessary to reach this high-risk population early with appropriate smoking interventions.

METHODS

Smokers in alcohol detoxification treatment were offered to participate in a smoking cessation study. A total of 103 patients was enrolled and randomly assigned to either the experimental group (EG) receiving a cognitive behavioral smoking cessation treatment (CBT) or the control group (CG) receiving autogenic training. Smoking outcomes were measured by self-report and carbon monoxide levels, directly after intervention and 6 months later, where additionally alcohol outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS

There were no differences in smoking quit rates directly after intervention. However, patients in the EG were significantly more likely to reduce their daily cigarette use compared to CG (p=.046). Sub-group analyses revealed that heavy smokers (FTND score ≥ 7) seemed to profit most in the EG regarding cigarette reduction. After 6 months, these positive effects had leveled out. No evidence was found that smoking cessation might jeopardize alcohol outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that alcohol-dependent smokers are interested in smoking interventions even during alcohol detoxification. CBT is promising in short-term smoking outcomes and in the approach of harm reduction, however, long-term effects are desirable. These findings underline the feasibility and the importance to provide smoking cessation interventions to patients in alcohol detoxification treatments.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medication to aid smoking cessation, compared to a minimal intervention or usual care, and to identify whether there are different effects depending on characteristics of the treatment setting, intervention, population treated, or take-up of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2012 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support for smoking cessation, compared to a control receiving usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by both authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by the other.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 Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one studies with a total of more than 20,000 participants met the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of studies recruited people in healthcare settings or with specific health needs. Most studies provided NRT. Behavioural support was typically provided by specialists in cessation counselling, who offered between four and eight contact sessions. The planned maximum duration of contact was typically more than 30 minutes but less than 300 minutes. Overall, studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, and findings were not sensitive to the exclusion of any of the three studies rated at high risk of bias in one domain. One large study (the Lung Health Study) contributed heterogeneity due to a substantially larger treatment effect than seen in other studies (RR 3.88, 95% CI 3.35 to 4.50). Since this study used a particularly intensive intervention which included extended availability of nicotine gum, multiple group sessions and long term maintenance and recycling contacts, the results may not be comparable with the interventions used in other studies, and hence it was not pooled in other analyses. Based on the remaining 40 studies (15,021 participants) there was good evidence for a benefit of combination pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.00) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 40%). The pooled estimate for 31 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.81 to 2.34) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Pooled estimates were lower in a subgroup of trials where the behavioural intervention was provided by specialist counsellors versus trials where counselling was linked to usual care (specialist: RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.55 to 1.93, 28 trials; usual provider: RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.91 to 3.02, 8 trials) but this was largely attributable to the small effect size in two trials using specialist counsellors where the take-up of the planned intervention was low, and one usual provider trial with alarge effect. There was little indirect evidence that the relative effect of an intervention differed according to whether participants in a trial were required to be motivated to make a quit attempt or not. There was only weak evidence that studies offering more sessions had larger effects and there was not clear evidence that increasing the duration of contact increased the effect, but there was more evidence of a dose-response relationship when analyses were limited to trials where the take-up of treatment was high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Further trials would be unlikely to change this conclusion. We did not find strong evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects but this could be because intensive interventions are less likely to be delivered in full.