Impact of spirometry feedback and brief motivational counseling on long-term smoking outcomes: a comparison of smokers with and without lung impairment

Spirometry and Smoking Cessation in Primary Care: The ESPIROTAB STUDY, A Randomized Clinical Trial

This study aims to evaluate the effect of regularly reporting spirometry results during smoking cessation counseling from a primary care physician on the quit rate in adult smokers.

METHODS

A randomized, two-arm intervention study was conducted at six primary care centers. A total of 350 smokers, ≥18 years of age, who consulted their primary care physician, participated in the study. At the selection visit, smokers who gave their consent to participate underwent spirometry. Subsequently, an appointment (visit 0) was scheduled to complete a nicotine dependence test, a smoking cessation motivation questionnaire, and a sociodemographic questionnaire. Participants were also offered brief, structured advice on how to quit smoking, as well as detailed information on spirometry results. Patients were then randomized and scheduled for follow-up visits at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Both arms received brief, structured advice and detailed information on spirometry results at visit 0. At consecutive follow-up visits, the control group only received brief, structured smoking cessation advice, while the intervention group also received information on initial spirometry results at visits 3 and 6, and a spirometry retest at visit 12. Exhaled carbon monoxide testing was used to check smoking cessation.

RESULTS

The study included 350 smokers; 179 were assigned to the control group and 171 to the intervention group. Smoking cessation at one year was 24.0% in the intervention group compared to 16.2% in the control group. At two years, it was 25.2% in the intervention group and 18.4% in the control group. Overall, the adjusted odds of quitting smoking in the intervention group were 42% higher than in the control group (p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Regular and detailed feedback of spirometry results with smokers increases smoking cessation. Specifically, the likelihood of quitting smoking in the intervention group is 1.42 times higher than in the control group (p = 0.018).

Spirometry as a motivator for smoking cessation among patients attending the smoking cessation clinic of Monastir

BACKGROUND

The choice of spirometry, a biomarker of lung health, as a motivator for smoking cessation is based on its fidelity in emphasizing tobacco adverse effects. Yet, there is a paucity of evidence on its efficacy, and the findings are currently inconclusive. The aim of this study was to determine whether a spirometry and lung age communication has an effect on smoking cessation rates.

METHODOLOGY

We conducted a randomized controlled trial among patients who attended the smoking cessation clinic (SCC) at Fattouma Bourguiba University Hospital in Monastir, from June 2017 to February 2020. Participants were assigned into two groups, a control arm receiving standard program and intervention arm receiving a spirometry and lung age announcement along with usual care. The primary outcomes were the smoking cessation rates after one year of follow-up between the intervention arm and the control arm.

RESULTS

At one-year endpoint, a total of 456 were reachable for assessment, 236 in control group and 220 in spirometry group, which leads to a loss rate equal to 8.8%. One-year smoking cessation rate was higher among the intervention group than among control group (25.5% versus 16.5%), with a considerable statistical significance (p = 0.019). Lung age was significantly higher at paired comparison with chronological age.

CONCLUSION

Smoking cessation is still a challenging procedure with a high risk of relapse, making very valuable any approach that may increase motivation in both unmotivated and motivated smokers. This study is an additional evidence for spirometry and lung age announcement as motivators for smoking cessation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Pan African Clinical Trial Registry database ( PACTR202110595729653 ), 06/10/ 2021.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers with feedback on the current or potential future biomedical effects of smoking using, for example, measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer or other diseases.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was to determine the efficacy of providing smokers with feedback on their exhaled CO measurement, spirometry results, atherosclerotic plaque imaging, and genetic susceptibility to smoking-related diseases in helping them to quit smoking.

SEARCH METHODS

For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in March 2018 and ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP in September 2018 for studies added since the last update in 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria for the review were: a randomised controlled trial design; participants being current smokers; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase smoking cessation rates; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; and an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed results as a risk ratio (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials using a variety of biomedical tests interventions; one trial included two interventions, for a total of 21 interventions. We included a total of 9262 participants, all of whom were adult smokers. All studies included both men and women adult smokers at different stages of change and motivation for smoking cessation. We judged all but three studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. We pooled trials in three categories according to the type of biofeedback provided: feedback on risk exposure (five studies); feedback on smoking-related disease risk (five studies); and feedback on smoking-related harm (11 studies). There was no evidence of increased cessation rates from feedback on risk exposure, consisting mainly of feedback on CO measurement, in five pooled trials (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.21; I2 = 0%; n = 2368). Feedback on smoking-related disease risk, including four studies testing feedback on genetic markers for cancer risk and one study with feedback on genetic markers for risk of Crohn's disease, did not show a benefit in smoking cessation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; I2 = 0%; n = 2064). Feedback on smoking-related harm, including nine studies testing spirometry with or without feedback on lung age and two studies on feedback on carotid ultrasound, also did not show a benefit (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.61; I2 = 34%; n = 3314). Only one study directly compared multiple forms of measurement with a single form of measurement, and did not detect a significant difference in effect between measurement of CO plus genetic susceptibility to lung cancer and measurement of CO only (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.56; n = 189).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence about the effects of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. The most promising results relate to spirometry and carotid ultrasound, where moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision and risk of bias, did not detect a statistically significant benefit, but confidence intervals very narrowly missed one, and the point estimate favoured the intervention. A sensitivity analysis removing those studies at high risk of bias did detect a benefit. Moderate-certainty evidence limited by risk of bias did not detect an effect of feedback on smoking exposure by CO monitoring. Low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, did not detect a benefit from feedback on smoking-related risk by genetic marker testing. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.

A pilot randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of a 'lung age' intervention on smoking cessation: study protocol

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness of the 'lung age' intervention on smoking cessation rates, smoking abstinence self-efficacy, nicotine dependence and behavioural change among the smoking population in Singapore.

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use has been linked to several preventable chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases, stroke, cancers and respiratory diseases. Despite numerous health education attempts to promote smoking cessation, there has been a sustained increase in smoking rates worldwide, including in Singapore.

DESIGN

A pilot randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

A convenience sample of 108 smoking individuals will be recruited from population health screenings conducted by a tertiary public hospital in Singapore, with 54 participants in the experimental group and 54 in the control group. Participants in the experimental group will receive a lung age intervention, consisting of lung age determination and education as well as smoking cessation advice, while the researchers will provide those in the control group with the usual smoking education. Outcome measures include smoking cessation rates, smoking abstinence self-efficacy, nicotine dependence and assessment of the stages of behavioural change. Data will be collected at the baseline and again at the 3- and 6-month follow-ups.

DISCUSSION

This study offers an additional intervention to improve smoking cessation rates in Singapore. It aims to reduce or delay the onset of smoking-related chronic diseases such as coronary heart diseases and cancer, which would eventually reduce the healthcare burden in an increasingly ageing society.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN15839687.

Genetic test to stop smoking (GeTSS) trial protocol: randomised controlled trial of a genetic test (Respiragene) and Auckland formula to assess lung cancer risk

BACKGROUND

A gene-based estimate of lung cancer risk in smokers has been shown to act as a smoking cessation motivator in hospital recruited subjects. The objective of this trial is to determine if this motivator is as effective in subjects recruited from an NHS primary care unit.

METHOD/DESIGN

Subjects will be recruited by mailings using smoking entries on the GP electronic data-base (total practice population = 32,048) to identify smokers who may want to quit. Smoking cessation clinics based on medical centre premises will run for eight weeks. Clinics will be randomised to have the gene-based test for estimation of lung cancer risk or to act as controls groups. The primary endpoint will be smoking cessation at eight weeks and six months. Secondary outcomes will include ranking of the gene-based test with other smoking cessation motivators.

DISCUSSION

The results will inform as to whether the gene-based test is both effective as motivator and acceptable to subjects recruited from primary care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered with Clinical Trials.gov,

REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01176383.

Acute and chronic respiratory symptoms among primary care patients who smoke crack cocaine

Among inner-city populations in Canada, the use of crack cocaine by inhalation is prevalent. Crack smoking is associated with acute respiratory symptoms and complications, but less is known about chronic respiratory problems related to crack smoking. There is also a gap in the literature addressing the management of respiratory disease in primary health care among people who smoke crack. The purpose of our study was to assess the prevalence of acute and chronic respiratory symptoms among patients who smoke crack and access primary care. We conducted a pilot study among 20 patients who currently smoke crack (used within the past 30 days) and who access the "drop-in clinic" at an inner-city primary health care center. Participants completed a 20- to 30-min interviewer-administered survey and provided consent for a chart review. We collected information on respiratory-related symptoms, diagnoses, tests, medications, and specialist visits. Data were analyzed using frequency tabulations in SPSS (version 19.0). In the survey, 95 % (19/20) of the participants reported having at least one respiratory symptom in the past week. Thirteen (13/19, 68.4 %) reported these symptoms as bothersome. Chart review indicated that 12/20 (60 %) had a diagnosis of either asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and four participants (4/20, 20 %) had a diagnosis of both asthma and COPD. Majority of the participants had been prescribed an inhaled medication (survey 16/20, 80 %; chart 12/20, 60 %). We found that 100 % (20/20) of the participants currently smoked tobacco, and 16/20 (80 %) had smoked both tobacco and marijuana prior to smoking crack. Our study suggests that respiratory symptoms and diagnoses of asthma and COPD are prevalent among a group of patients attending an inner-city clinic in Toronto and who also smoke crack. The high prevalence of smoking tobacco and marijuana among our participants is a major confounder for attributing respiratory symptoms to crack smoking alone. This novel pilot study can inform future research evaluating the primary health care management of respiratory disease among crack smokers, with the aim of improving health and health care delivery.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in July 2012 for studies added since the last update in 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, a pooled effect was estimated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials using a variety of biomedical tests. Two pairs of trials had sufficiently similar recruitment, setting and interventions to calculate a pooled effect; there was no evidence that carbon monoxide (CO) measurement in primary care (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) or spirometry in primary care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81) increased cessation rates. We did not pool the other 11 trials due to the presence of substantial clinical heterogeneity. Of the remaining 11 trials, two trials detected statistically significant benefits: one trial in primary care detected a significant benefit of lung age feedback after spirometry (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62) and one trial that used ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries and photographs of plaques detected a benefit (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.04 to 7.41) but enrolled a population of light smokers and was judged to be at unclear risk of bias in two domains. Nine further trials did not detect significant effects. One of these tested CO feedback alone and CO combined with genetic susceptibility as two different interventions; none of the three possible comparisons detected significant effects. One trial used CO measurement, one used ultrasonography of carotid arteries and two tested for genetic markers. The four remaining trials used a combination of CO and spirometry feedback in different settings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment on smoking cessation. Of the fifteen included studies, only two detected a significant effect of the intervention. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial but the evidence is not optimal. A trial of carotid plaque screening using ultrasound also detected a significant effect, but a second larger study of a similar feedback mechanism did not detect evidence of an effect. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in terms of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analyses; neither of these found evidence of an effect. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.

Effectiveness of a structured motivational intervention including smoking cessation advice and spirometry information in the primary care setting: the ESPITAP study

Background

There is current controversy about the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions that are based on information obtained by spirometry. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness in the primary care setting of structured motivational intervention to achieve smoking cessation, compared with usual clinical practice.

Methods

Discussion

Application of a motivational intervention based on structured information about spirometry results, improved abstinence rates among smokers seen in actual clinical practice conditions in primary care.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrial.gov, number NCT01194596.

Motivating smokers in the hospital pulmonary function laboratory to quit smoking by use of the lung age concept

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of lung age to motivate a quit attempt among smokers presenting to a hospital pulmonary function testing (PFT) laboratory.

METHODS

Participants were randomized to receive a lung age-based motivational strategy (intervention group) versus standard care (control group). At 1 month, all participants were interviewed by telephone to determine whether they made a quit attempt.

RESULTS

A total of 67 participants were enrolled, and 51 completed the study. Baseline mean data included age = 52 years, 70% women, 40 pack-years of smoking, FEV(1) = 69% predicted, and lung age = 83 years. The quit attempt rates were not different between the intervention and control groups (32% vs. 24%, respectively, p = .59). There was a near significant interaction between lung age and intervention strategy (p = .089), with quit attempt rates among those with normal lung age of 18% in the intervention group versus 33% in the control group and among those with high (worse) lung age of 39% in the intervention group versus 17% in the control group; p = .38.

CONCLUSIONS

Using lung age to motivate smokers presenting to the PFT laboratory to quit may succeed in patients with high lung age but may undermine motivation in smokers with normal lung age. Further work is needed to refine the approach to smokers with normal lung age.

Smoking cessation and development of respiratory health in smokers screened with normal spirometry

BACKGROUND

Case-finding of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using spirometry may deter people with normal lung function from stopping smoking. The objective of this study was to observe the percentage of smokers screened with normal lung function that quit smoking.

METHODS

As part of a study on early detection of COPD, 518 smokers were screened with normal lung function (post-bronchodilator FEV(1)/FVC ≥ 70%). They were invited for a follow-up measurement after an average of 2.4 years. Non-smoking was validated by carbon monoxide (<10 ppm), and respiratory health related quality of life was measured with the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ).

RESULTS

A total of 255 participants were followed up (49%). The point prevalence rate of non-smoking at follow-up was 18% (N = 47), and 9% assuming that all non-respondents were smokers. This rate was not lower than the expected rate of quitting in the Dutch population (8-9%) and primary "care as usual" in smokers screened with abnormal lung function (10%; p > 0.05 for all comparisons). The average decline in post-bronchodilator FEV(1) was 26 mL/year, which was unrelated to smoking status at follow-up. Non-smokers showed a clinically meaningful and statistically significant (p < 0.001) improvement in CCQ respiratory symptoms (-0.96) and total score (-0.51).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results do not suggest that early detection of airflow limitation to motivate smoking cessation reduces the rate of quitting in smokers shown to have normal lung function. Such smokers should be advised to quit smoking on the grounds that they are likely to improve their respiratory health in the short term and reduce their risk for smoking related diseases in the long term.