Predictors of attendance in a randomized clinical trial of nicotine replacement therapy with behavioral counseling

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This helps to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and ease the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. Although there is high-certainty evidence that NRT is effective for achieving long-term smoking abstinence, it is unclear whether different forms, doses, durations of treatment or timing of use impacts its effects.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords, most recently in April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded studies that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of fewer than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Separate reviews cover studies comparing NRT to control, or to other pharmacotherapies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking abstinence after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and study withdrawals due to treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 68 completed studies with 43,327 participants, five of which are new to this update. Most completed studies recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. We judged 28 of the 68 studies to be at high risk of bias. Restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results for any comparisons apart from the preloading comparison, which tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day whilst still smoking.  There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form plus patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.37; I2 = 12%; 16 studies, 12,169 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg patches are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; I2 = 38%; 5 studies, 1655 participants), and that 21 mg patches are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08; 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3446 participants). Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4395 participants). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 3319 participants). We found no clear evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); or fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence). Cardiac AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no clear evidence of an effect on these outcomes, and rates were low overall. More withdrawals due to treatment were reported in people using nasal spray compared to patches in one study (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46; 1 study, 922 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in people using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two studies (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 544 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum can result in an increase in the chances of successfully stopping smoking. Due to imprecision, evidence was of moderate certainty for patch dose comparisons. There is some indication that the lower-dose nicotine patches and gum may be less effective than higher-dose products. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT before quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is limited. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are reported.

Treatment use patterns in a large extended-treatment tobacco cessation program: predictors and cost implications

BACKGROUND

Tobacco dependence follows a chronic and relapsing course, but most treatment programmes are short. Extended care has been shown to improve outcomes. Examining use patterns for longer term programmes can quantify resource requirements and identify opportunities for improving retention.

METHODS

We analyse 38 094 primary care treatment episodes from a multisite smoking cessation programme in Ontario, Canada that provides free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and counselling. We calculate distributional measures of weeks of NRT used, clinical visits attended and total length of care. We then divide treatment courses into four exclusive categories and fit a multinomial logistic regression model to measure associations with participant characteristics, using multiple imputation to address missing data.

RESULTS

Time in treatment (median=50 days), visits (median=3) and weeks NRT used (median=8) were well below the maximum available. Of all programme enrolments, 28.8% (95% CI=28.3% to 29.3%) were single contacts, 31.3% (30.8% to 31.8%) lasted <12 weeks, 19.2% (18.8% to 19.6%) were ≥12 weeks with an 8-week interruption and 20.7% (20.3%-21.1%) were ≥12 weeks without interruptions. Care use was most strongly associated with participant age and whether the nicotine patch was dispensed at the first visit.

CONCLUSION

Treatment use results imply that the marginal costs of extending treatment programmes are relatively low. The prevalence of single contacts supports additional engagement efforts at the initial visit, while interruptions in care highlight the ability of longer term care to address relapse. Results show that use of the nicotine patch is associated with retention in care, and that improving engagement of younger patients should be a priority.

Maternal depressive symptoms, attendance of sessions and reduction of home safety problems in a randomized toddler safety promotion intervention trial: A latent class analysis

Objective

Little is known about the association between maternal depressive symptoms and attendance at safety promotion interventions. This study used latent class analysis (LCA) to identify the profile of attendance within a toddler safety intervention and assessed its relation with maternal depressive symptoms at baseline and reduction of home safety problems over time, separately.

Methods

The analytic sample included 91 mothers of toddlers (mean maternal age 28.16 years) who were assigned to the safety promotion intervention group as part of a randomized trial and assessed at baseline, 6-month and 12-month follow-ups. Using LCA, we classified mothers into low and high attendance classes based on their attendance at 8 intervention sessions. We assessed maternal depressive symptoms with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and home safety problems with a 9-item home safety problem observation.

Results

The mothers were classified into low attendance (45%) and high attendance classes (55%). The posterior probability of attending each session ranged from 0–0.29 for the low attendance class and 0.68–0.92 for the high attendance class. Each one unit increase of BDI sum score at baseline was associated with an 8% reduced odds of being in the high attendance class (aOR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.86, 1.00, p = 0.037). The home safety problem score reduction was greater among high attendance class participants than low attendance class participants at the 6-month follow-up (b = -1.15, 95% CI:-2.09, -0.20, p = 0.018).

Conclusion

Maternal depressive symptoms were associated with the reduced probability of maternal attendance at toddler safety promotion sessions; high session attendance was related to greater reduction of toddler home safety problems. Identifying risk factors for maternal low attendance to interventions and developing strategies to promote attendance should lead to reductions in home safety problems and reductions in unintentional injuries among young children.

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Most people who stop smoking gain weight. This can discourage some people from making a quit attempt and risks offsetting some, but not all, of the health advantages of quitting. Interventions to prevent weight gain could improve health outcomes, but there is a concern that they may undermine quitting.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effects of: (1) interventions targeting post-cessation weight gain on weight change and smoking cessation (referred to as 'Part 1') and (2) interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that plausibly affect post-cessation weight gain (referred to as 'Part 2').

SEARCH METHODS

Part 1 - We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; latest search 16 October 2020. Part 2 - We searched included studies in the following 'parent' Cochrane reviews: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, e-cigarettes, and exercise interventions for smoking cessation published in Issue 10, 2020 of the Cochrane Library. We updated register searches for the review of nicotine receptor partial agonists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Part 1 - trials of interventions that targeted post-cessation weight gain and had measured weight at any follow-up point or smoking cessation, or both, six or more months after quit day. Part 2 - trials included in the selected parent Cochrane reviews reporting weight change at any time point.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. Change in weight was expressed as difference in weight change from baseline to follow-up between trial arms and was reported only in people abstinent from smoking. Abstinence from smoking was expressed as a risk ratio (RR). Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the inverse variance method for weight, and Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking.

MAIN RESULTS

Part 1: We include 37 completed studies; 21 are new to this update. We judged five studies to be at low risk of bias, 17 to be at unclear risk and the remainder at high risk.  An intermittent very low calorie diet (VLCD) comprising full meal replacement provided free of charge and accompanied by intensive dietitian support significantly reduced weight gain at end of treatment compared with education on how to avoid weight gain (mean difference (MD) -3.70 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.82 to -2.58; 1 study, 121 participants), but there was no evidence of benefit at 12 months (MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI -3.49 to 0.89; 1 study, 62 participants). The VLCD increased the chances of abstinence at 12 months (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73; 1 study, 287 participants). However, a second study  found that no-one completed the VLCD intervention or achieved abstinence. Interventions aimed at increasing acceptance of weight gain reported mixed effects at end of treatment, 6 months and 12 months with confidence intervals including both increases and decreases in weight gain compared with no advice or health education. Due to high heterogeneity, we did not combine the data. These interventions increased quit rates at 6 months (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.96; 4 studies, 619 participants; I² = 21%), but there was no evidence at 12 months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.06; 2 studies, 496 participants; I² = 26%). Some pharmacological interventions tested for limiting post-cessation weight gain (PCWG) reduced weight gain at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine, phenylpropanolamine, naltrexone). The effects of ephedrine and caffeine combined, lorcaserin, and chromium were too imprecise to give useful estimates of treatment effects. There was very low-certainty evidence that personalized weight management support reduced weight gain at end of treatment (MD -1.11 kg, 95% CI -1.93 to -0.29; 3 studies, 121 participants; I² = 0%), but no evidence in the longer-term 12 months (MD -0.44 kg, 95% CI -2.34 to 1.46; 4 studies, 530 participants; I² = 41%). There was low to very low-certainty evidence that detailed weight management education without personalized assessment, planning and feedback did not reduce weight gain and may have reduced smoking cessation rates (12 months: MD -0.21 kg, 95% CI -2.28 to 1.86; 2 studies, 61 participants; I² = 0%; RR for smoking cessation 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90; 2 studies, 522 participants; I² = 0%). Part 2: We include 83 completed studies, 27 of which are new to this update. There was low certainty that exercise interventions led to minimal or no weight reduction compared with standard care at end of treatment (MD -0.25 kg, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.29; 4 studies, 404 participants; I² = 0%). However, weight was reduced at 12 months (MD -2.07 kg, 95% CI -3.78 to -0.36; 3 studies, 182 participants; I² = 0%). Both bupropion and fluoxetine limited weight gain at end of treatment (bupropion MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.67; 10 studies, 1098 participants; I² = 3%); (fluoxetine MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.53; 2 studies, 144 participants; I² = 38%; low- and very low-certainty evidence, respectively). There was no evidence of benefit at 12 months for bupropion, but estimates were imprecise (bupropion MD -0.26 kg, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.78; 7 studies, 471 participants; I² = 0%). No studies of fluoxetine provided data at 12 months. There was moderate-certainty that NRT reduced weight at end of treatment (MD -0.52 kg, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.05; 21 studies, 2784 participants; I² = 81%) and moderate-certainty that the effect may be similar at 12 months (MD -0.37 kg, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.11; 17 studies, 1463 participants; I² = 0%), although the estimates are too imprecise to assess long-term benefit. There was mixed evidence of the effect of varenicline on weight, with high-certainty evidence that weight change was very modestly lower at the end of treatment (MD -0.23 kg, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.06; 14 studies, 2566 participants; I² = 32%); a low-certainty estimate gave an imprecise estimate of higher weight at 12 months (MD 1.05 kg, 95% CI -0.58 to 2.69; 3 studies, 237 participants; I² = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is no intervention for which there is moderate certainty of a clinically useful effect on long-term weight gain. There is also no moderate- or high-certainty evidence that interventions designed to limit weight gain reduce the chances of people achieving abstinence from smoking.

Patterns and predictors of nicotine replacement therapy use among alcohol and other drug clients enrolled in a smoking cessation randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) use to support client smoking quit attempts is low and inconsistent at alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment services. This study examined predictors of any NRT use and combination NRT use among AOD clients who were smokers.

METHODS

The study was part of a cluster-RCT of an organisational change intervention to introduce smoking cessation support as part of routine treatment in 32 AOD services. The intervention provided AOD services with free NRT and training. Service clients completed baseline (n = 896), 8-week (n = 471) and 6.5-month (n = 427) follow-up surveys. Mixed-model logistic regression examined whether baseline socio-demographic and smoking variables were associated with single and combination NRT use.

RESULTS

At 8-weeks follow-up 57% (n = 269/471), and at 6.5-months 33% (n = 143/427) of participants reported using at least one form of NRT. Odds of NRT use at 8-weeks follow-up were greater among participants from treatment vs control group (OR = 3.69, 95%CI 1.8-7.4; p < 0.001), higher vs lower nicotine dependence (OR = 1.74 95%CI 1.1-2.8; p = 0.024), or those motivated to quit (OR = 1.18 95%CI 1.0-1.4; p = 0.017). At 6.5-months, only the treatment arm remained significant. Combination NRT use at the 8-week follow-up was higher among those in treatment vs control group (OR = 2.75 95%CI 1.4-5.6; p = 0.005), or with higher vs lower nicotine dependence (OR = 2.12 95%CI 1.2-3.8; p = 0.014). No factors were associated with combination NRT use at 6.5-months.

CONCLUSIONS

An organisational change intervention that supplied AOD services with NRT training and products to provide to clients during treatment significantly increases client single form and combination NRT use in the short term.

History and Correlates of Smoking Cessation Behaviors Among Smokers With Serious Mental Illness

INTRODUCTION

Individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) smoke at rates two to three times greater than the general population but are less likely to receive treatment. Increasing our understanding of correlates of smoking cessation behaviors in this group can guide intervention development.

AIMS AND METHODS

Baseline data from an ongoing trial involving smokers with SMI (N = 482) were used to describe smoking cessation behaviors (ie, quit attempts, quit motivation, and smoking cessation treatment) and correlates of these behaviors (ie, demographics, attitudinal and systems-related variables).

RESULTS

Forty-three percent of the sample did not report making a quit attempt in the last year, but 44% reported making one to six quit attempts; 43% and 20%, respectively, reported wanting to quit within the next 6 months or the next 30 days. Sixty-one percent used a smoking cessation medication during their quit attempt, while 13% utilized counseling. More quit attempts were associated with lower nicotine dependence and carbon monoxide and greater beliefs about the harms of smoking. Greater quit motivation was associated with lower carbon monoxide, minority race, benefits of cessation counseling, and importance of counseling within the clinic. A greater likelihood of using smoking cessation medications was associated with being female, smoking more cigarettes, and receiving smoking cessation advice. A greater likelihood of using smoking cessation counseling was associated with being male, greater academic achievement, and receiving smoking cessation advice.

CONCLUSIONS

Many smokers with SMI are engaged in efforts to quit smoking. Measures of smoking cessation behavior are associated with tobacco use indicators, beliefs about smoking, race and gender, and receiving cessation advice.

IMPLICATIONS

Consideration of factors related to cessation behaviors among smokers with SMI continues to be warranted, due to their high smoking rates compared to the general population. Increasing our understanding of these predictive characteristics can help promote higher engagement in evidence-based smoking cessation treatments among this subpopulation.

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes to ease the transition from cigarette smoking to abstinence. It works by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. Although there is clear evidence that NRT used after smoking cessation is effective, it is unclear whether higher doses, longer durations of treatment, or using NRT before cessation add to its effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to one another.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, and trial registries for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search: April 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up less than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Trials comparing NRT to control, and trials comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered elsewhere.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking abstinence was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and study withdrawals due to treatment. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 63 trials with 41,509 participants. Most recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day. We judged 24 of the 63 studies to be at high risk of bias, but restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results, apart from in the case of the preloading comparison. There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form + patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.36, 14 studies, 11,356 participants; I² = 4%). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29, 5 studies, 1655 participants; I² = 38%), and that 21 mg are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08, 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence (again limited by imprecision) also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41, 3 studies, 3446 participants; I² = 0%). Five studies comparing 4 mg gum to 2 mg gum found a benefit of the higher dose (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.83, 5 studies, 856 participants; I² = 63%); however, results of a subgroup analysis suggest that only smokers who are highly dependent may benefit. Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward; there was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44, 9 studies, 4395 participants; I² = 0%). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05, 8 studies, 3319 participants; I² = 0%). We found no evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); 16-hour versus 24-hour daily patch use; duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); tapering of patch dose versus abrupt patch cessation; fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence); duration of nicotine gum use; ad lib versus fixed dosing of fast-acting NRT; free versus purchased NRT; length of provision of free NRT; ceasing versus continuing patch use on lapse; and participant- versus clinician-selected NRT. However, in most cases these findings are based on very low- or low-certainty evidence, and are the findings from single studies.AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no evidence of an effect on cardiac AEs, SAEs or withdrawals. Rates of these were low overall. Significantly more withdrawals due to treatment were reported in participants using nasal spray in comparison to patch in one trial (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46, 922 participants; very low certainty) and in participants using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two trials (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50, 2 studies, 544 participants; I² = 0%; low certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT, and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum, can increase the chances of successfully stopping smoking. For patch dose comparisons, evidence was of moderate certainty, due to imprecision. Twenty-one mg patches resulted in higher quit rates than 14 mg (24-hour) patches, and using 25 mg patches resulted in higher quit rates than using 15 mg (16-hour) patches, although in the latter case the CI included one. There was no clear evidence of superiority for 42/44 mg over 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT prior to quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is of low and very low certainty. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are both measured and reported.

Assessment of factors related to smokers' adherence to a short-term support group for smoking cessation: a longitudinal study in a developing country

Objective:

The aim of this study was to determine which individual characteristics of smokers are associated with their adherence to a support group for smoking cessation.

Methods:

Smokers from Porto Alegre, Brazil, were invited to participate in a support group for smoking cessation consisting of four weekly sessions. Demographic data, smoking history, presence of tobacco-related diseases, severity of nicotine dependence, stage of motivation, and symptoms of anxiety and depression were evaluated at baseline. Adherence was defined as attendance at group sessions and was measured at the second and fourth sessions of the program.

Results:

The study recruited 167 smokers who attended the first meeting and met criteria for admission to the study. One hundred and two of the participants returned to the second session and only 55 of those who attended the first meeting completed the four-week program. For immediate adherence (second session), adult smokers over the age of 35 were more likely to adhere to the treatment (p = 0.004), whereas smoking higher numbers of cigarettes per day was associated with lower adherence to attendance at group meetings (p = 0.031). For final adherence (fourth session), only minimal level symptoms of anxiety were associated with a higher likelihood of adherence (p = 0.02).

Conclusions:

Older smokers, those who smoked fewer cigarettes per day, and those with lower levels of anxiety exhibited higher rates of adherence to a smoking cessation support group.

Smoking Cessation in Pulmonary Care Subjects: A Mixed Methods Analysis of Treatment-Seeking Participation and Preferences

BACKGROUND

African-American smokers experience disproportionate COPD morbidity. As a front-line COPD behavioral management strategy, smoking cessation is less prevalent among African-American smokers. Identifying barriers and predictors to smoking cessation in this population is important to bridging this disparity.

METHODS

In this study, the predictors of enrollment and attendance to a 3-session urban hospital smoking cessation program were examined. A retrospective chart review was conducted for all pulmonary clinic patients who smoked and were referred to the cessation program between June 2013 and May 2014. Demographic, smoking behavior, cardiopulmonary, and health status variables were extracted (N = 253). Second, a qualitative assessment of the beliefs and barriers for smoking cessation and physical activity were examined in a sub-sample of the population (n = 41).

RESULTS

One-hundred forty-seven of the pulmonary subjects (58%) enrolled in the cessation program, and 40 attended all sessions (16% of the total sample). Participants with COPD (odds ratio = 4.65, P = .030), or had a mother who had cancer (odds ratio = 4.49, P = .027), were more likely to attend the program. Qualitatively, pulmonary care patients who wanted to quit smoking and be more physically active cited: strong beliefs about the inability to engage in these behaviors, belief that quitting and increased activity might exacerbate poor health, and an inability to obtain pharmacotherapy as barriers to adopting these behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking cessation program attendance in this sample of mostly African-American smokers was poor. Increased knowledge about cessation benefits and access to full-course pharmacotherapy, particularly in those without a COPD diagnosis and who do not have a maternal history of cancer, may be high-priority targets to promote cessation program uptake in this population. Increased knowledge and access to safe forms of physical activity may also be beneficial.

Predictors of adherence to pharmacological and behavioral treatment in a cessation trial among smokers in Aleppo, Syria

INTRODUCTION

The development of evidence-based smoking cessation programs is in its infancy in developing countries, which continue to bear the main brunt of the tobacco epidemic. Adherence to treatment recommendations is an important determinant of the success of smoking cessation programs, but little is known about factors influencing adherence to either pharmacological or behavioral treatment in developing countries settings. Our study represents the first attempt to examine the predictors of adherence to cessation treatment in a low-income developing country.

METHODS

Predictors of adherence to pharmacological and behavioral treatment were identified by analyzing data from a multi-site, two-group, parallel-arm, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled smoking cessation trial in primary care clinics in Aleppo, Syria. Participants received 3 in-person behavioral counseling sessions plus 5 brief follow-up phone counseling sessions, and were randomized to either 6 weeks of nicotine or placebo patch.

RESULTS

Of the 269 participants, 68% adhered to pharmacological treatment, while 70% adhered to behavioral counseling. In logistic regression modeling, lower adherence to pharmacological and behavioral treatment was associated with higher daily smoking at baseline, greater withdrawal symptoms, and perception of receiving placebo instead of active nicotine patch. Women showed lower adherence than men to behavioral treatment, while being assigned to placebo condition and baseline waterpipe use were associated with lower adherence to pharmacological treatment.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to cessation treatment for cigarette smokers in low-income countries such as Syria may benefit from integrated cessation components that provide intensive treatment for subjects with higher nicotine dependence, and address concurrent waterpipe use at all stages.

Smoking cessation behavioural therapy in disadvantaged neighbourhoods: an explorative analysis of recruitment channels

BACKGROUND

The optimum channel(s) used to recruit smokers living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods for smoking cessation behavioural therapy (SCBT) is unknown. This paper examines the channels through which smokers participating in a free, multi-session SCBT programme heard about and were referred to this service in a disadvantaged neighbourhood, and compares participants' characteristics and attendance between channels.

METHODS

109 participants, recruited from free SCBT courses in disadvantaged areas of two cities in the Netherlands, underwent repeated surveys. Participants were asked how they heard about the SCBT and who referred them. Participant characteristics were compared between five channels, including the General Practitioner (GP), a community organisation, word of mouth, another health professional, and media or self-referred. Whether the channels through which people heard about or were referred to the service predicted attendance of ≥4 sessions was investigated with logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Over a quarter of the participants had no or primary education only, and more than half belonged to ethnic minority populations. Most participants heard through a single channel. More participants heard about (49%) and were referred to (60%) the SCBT by the (GP) than by any other channel. Factors influencing quit success, including psychosocial factors and nicotine dependence, did not differ significantly between channel through which participants heard about the SCBT. No channel significantly predicted attendance.

CONCLUSION

The GP was the single most important source to both hear about and be referred to smoking cessation behavioural therapy in a disadvantaged neighbourhood. A majority of participants of low socioeconomic or ethnic minority status heard about the programme through this channel. Neither the channel through which participants heard about or were referred to the therapy influenced attendance. As such, concentrating on the channel which makes use of the existing infrastructure and which is highest yielding, the GP, would be an appropriate strategy if recruitment resources were scarce.

Wanting to attend isn't just wanting to quit: why some disadvantaged smokers regularly attend smoking cessation behavioural therapy while others do not: a qualitative study

Background

Attendance of a behavioural support programme facilitates smoking cessation. Disadvantaged smokers have been shown to attend less than their more affluent peers. We need to gain in-depth insight into underlying reasons for differing attendance behaviour in disadvantaged smokers, to better address this issue. This study aims to explore the underlying motivations, barriers and social support of smokers exhibiting different patterns of attendance at a free smoking cessation behavioural support programme in a disadvantaged neighbourhood of The Netherlands.

Methods

In 29 smokers undertaking smoking cessation group therapy or telephone counselling in a disadvantaged neighbourhood, qualitative interviews were completed, coded and analysed. Major themes were motivations, barriers to attend and social support. Motivations and social support were analysed with reference to the self-determination theory.

Results

Two distinct patterns of attendance emerged: those who missed up to two sessions (“frequent attenders”), and those who missed more than two sessions (“infrequent attenders”). The groups differed in their motivations to attend, barriers to attendance, and in the level of social support they received. In comparison with the infrequent attenders, frequent attenders more often had intrinsic motivation to attend (e.g. enjoyed attending), and named more self-determined extrinsic motivations to attend, such as commitment to attendance and wanting to quit. Most of those mentioning intrinsic motivation did not mention a desire to quit as a motivation for attendance. No organizational barriers to attendance were mentioned by frequent attenders, such as misunderstandings around details of appointments. Frequent attenders experienced more social support within and outside the course.

Conclusion

Motivation to attend behavioural support, as distinct from motivation to quit smoking, is an important factor in attendance of smoking cessation courses in disadvantaged areas. Some focus on increasing motivation to attend may help to prevent participants missing sessions.

Development and preliminary randomized controlled trial of a distress tolerance treatment for smokers with a history of early lapse

INTRODUCTION

An inability to tolerate distress is a significant predictor of early smoking lapse following a cessation attempt. We conducted a preliminary randomized controlled trial to compare a distress tolerance (DT) treatment that incorporated elements of exposure-based therapies and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy to standard smoking cessation treatment (ST).

METHODS

Smokers with a history of early lapse in prior quit attempts received either DT (N = 27; 9 2-hr group and 6 50-min individual sessions) or ST (N = 22; 6 90-min group and 1 20-min individual session), plus 8 weeks of transdermal nicotine patch.

RESULTS

At the end of behavioral treatment, odds of abstinence among participants receiving DT were 6.46 times greater than among participants receiving ST (66.7% vs. 31.8%), equivalent to a medium- to large-effect size. Odds of abstinence for DT were still 1.73 times greater at 8 weeks, corresponding to a small- to medium-effect size, although neither this difference nor those at 13 and 26 weeks were statistically significant. Furthermore, of those who lapsed to smoking during the first week postquit, DT participants had more than 4 times greater odds of abstinence than ST participants at the end of treatment. Relative to ST, DT participants also reported a larger decrease in experiential avoidance, a hypothesized DT treatment mediator, prior to quit day. The trajectory of negative mood and withdrawal symptoms in DT differed from ST and was largely consistent with hypotheses.

CONCLUSIONS

Reasons for the decrease in abstinence in DT after treatment discontinuation and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Treatment adherence in a lay health adviser intervention to treat tobacco dependence

Lay health advisers (LHAs) are increasingly used to deliver tobacco dependence treatment, especially with low-socioeconomic status (SES) populations. More information is needed about treatment adherence to help interpret mixed evidence of LHA intervention effectiveness. This study examined adherence to behavioral counseling and nicotine patches in an LHA intervention with 147 Ohio Appalachian female daily smokers. Participants were randomly selected from clinics and randomized to the intervention condition of a randomized controlled trial. Overall, 75.5% of participants received all seven planned LHA visits, 29.3% used patches for >7 weeks and approximately half received high average ratings on participant responsiveness. Depressive symptoms and low nicotine dependence were associated with lower patch adherence while high poverty-to-income ratio was associated with high responsiveness. Compared with those with fewer visits, participants who received all visits were more likely to be abstinent (22.5 versus 2.8%, P=0.026) or have attempted quitting (85.0 versus 47.4%, P=0.009) at 3 months. High participant responsiveness was associated with 12-month abstinence. LHA interventions should focus on improving adherence to nicotine patches and managing depression because it is an independent risk factor for low adherence.

Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were: To determine the effect of NRT compared to placebo in aiding smoking cessation, and to consider whether there is a difference in effect for the different forms of NRT (chewing gum, transdermal patches, oral and nasal sprays, inhalers and tablets/lozenges) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes. To determine whether the effect is influenced by the dosage, form and timing of use of NRT; the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; or the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated. To determine whether combinations of NRT are more likely to lead to successful quitting than one type alone. To determine whether NRT is more or less likely to lead to successful quitting compared to other pharmacotherapies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search July 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or to no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the type of participants, the dose, duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up. 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) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 150 trials; 117 with over 50,000 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The risk ratio (RR) of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.60 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53 to 1.68). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 55 trials) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.52 to 1.78, 43 trials) for nicotine patch; 1.95 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.36, 6 trials) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials) for nicotine inhaler; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials) for nicotine nasal spray. One trial of oral spray had an RR of 2.48 (95% CI 1.24 to 4.94). The effects were largely independent of the duration of therapy, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. The effect was similar in a small group of studies that aimed to assess use of NRT obtained without a prescription. In highly dependent smokers there was a significant benefit of 4 mg gum compared with 2 mg gum, but weaker evidence of a benefit from higher doses of patch. There was evidence that combining a nicotine patch with a rapid delivery form of NRT was more effective than a single type of NRT (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.51, 9 trials). The RR for NRT used for a short period prior to the quit date was 1.18 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.40, 8 trials), just missing statistical significance, though the efficacy increased when we pooled only patch trials and when we removed one trial in which confounding was likely. Five studies directly compared NRT to a non-nicotine pharmacotherapy, bupropion; there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.18). A combination of NRT and bupropion was more effective than bupropion alone (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.45, 4 trials). Adverse effects from using NRT are related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. There is no evidence that NRT increases the risk of heart attacks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All of the commercially available forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhaler and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50 to 70%, regardless of setting. The effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT.

Effects of cognitive impairment on substance abuse treatment attendance: predictive validation of a brief cognitive screening measure

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Neuropsychological impairment among patients with substance use disorders (SUDs) contributes to poorer treatment processes and outcomes. However, neuropsychological assessment is typically not an aspect of patient evaluation in SUD treatment programs because it is prohibitively time and resource consuming. In a previous study, we examined the concurrent validity, classification accuracy, and clinical utility of a brief screening measure, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), in identifying cognitive impairment among SUD patients. To provide further evidence of criterion-related validity, MoCA classification should optimally predict a clinically relevant behavior or outcome among SUD patients. The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of the MoCA in predicting treatment attendance.

METHODS

We compared previously collected clinical assessment data on 60 SUD patients receiving treatment in a program of short duration and high intensity to attendance data obtained via medical chart review.

RESULTS

Though the proportion of therapy sessions attended did not differ between groups, cognitively impaired subjects were significantly less likely than unimpaired subjects to attend all of their group therapy sessions.

CONCLUSION

These results complement our previous findings by providing further evidence of criterion-related validity of the MoCA in predicting a clinically relevant behavior (i.e., perfect attendance) among SUD patients.

SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

The capacity of the MoCA to predict a clinically relevant behavior provides support for its validity as a brief cognitive screening measure.

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Most people who stop smoking gain weight. There are some interventions that have been designed to reduce weight gain when stopping smoking. Some smoking cessation interventions may also limit weight gain although their effect on weight has not been reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effect of: (1) Interventions targeting post-cessation weight gain on weight change and smoking cessation.(2) Interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that may also plausibly affect weight on post-cessation weight change.

SEARCH METHODS

Part 1 - We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register and CENTRAL in September 2011.Part 2 - In addition we searched the included studies in the following "parent" Cochrane reviews: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, cannabinoid type 1 receptor antagonists and exercise interventions for smoking cessation published in Issue 9, 2011 of the Cochrane Library.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Part 1 - We included trials of interventions that were targeted at post-cessation weight gain and had measured weight at any follow up point and/or smoking cessation six or more months after quit day.Part 2 - We included trials that had been included in the selected parent Cochrane reviews if they had reported weight gain at any time point.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on baseline characteristics of the study population, intervention, outcome and study quality. Change in weight was expressed as difference in weight change from baseline to follow up between trial arms and was reported in abstinent smokers only. Abstinence from smoking was expressed as a risk ratio (RR). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the inverse variance method for weight and Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Part 1: Some pharmacological interventions tested for limiting post cessation weight gain (PCWG) resulted in a significant reduction in WG at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine (Mean difference (MD) -2.50 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.98 to -2.02, 1 study), phenylpropanolamine (MD -0.50 kg, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.20, N=3), naltrexone (MD -0.78 kg, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.05, N=2). There was no evidence that treatment reduced weight at 6 or 12 months (m). No pharmacological intervention significantly affected smoking cessation rates.Weight management education only was associated with no reduction in PCWG at end of treatment (6 or 12m). However these interventions significantly reduced abstinence at 12m (Risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90, N=2). Personalised weight management support reduced PCWG at 12m (MD -2.58 kg, 95% CI -5.11 to -0.05, N=2) and was not associated with a significant reduction of abstinence at 12m (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.43, N=2). A very low calorie diet (VLCD) significantly reduced PCWG at end of treatment (MD -3.70 kg, 95% CI -4.82 to -2.58, N=1), but not significantly so at 12m (MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI -3.49 to 0.89, N=1). The VLCD increased chances of abstinence at 12m (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73, N=1). There was no evidence that cognitive behavioural therapy to allay concern about weight gain (CBT) reduced PCWG, but there was some evidence of increased PCWG at 6m (MD 0.74, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.24). It was associated with improved abstinence at 6m (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.13, N=2) but not at 12m (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.86, N=2). However, there was significant statistical heterogeneity.Part 2: We found no evidence that exercise interventions significantly reduced PCWG at end of treatment (MD -0.25 kg, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.29, N=4) however a significant reduction was found at 12m (MD -2.07 kg, 95% CI -3.78 to -0.36, N=3).Both bupropion and fluoxetine limited PCWG at the end of treatment (bupropion MD -1.12 kg, 95% CI -1.47 to -0.77, N=7) (fluoxetine MD -0.99 kg, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.61, N=2). There was no evidence that the effect persisted at 6m (bupropion MD -0.58 kg, 95% CI -2.16 to 1.00, N=4), (fluoxetine MD -0.01 kg, 95% CI -1.11 to 1.10, N=2) or 12m (bupropion MD -0.38 kg, 95% CI -2.00 to 1.24, N=4). There were no data on WG at 12m for fluoxetine.Overall, treatment with NRT attenuated PCWG at the end of treatment (MD -0.69 kg, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.51, N=19), with no strong evidence that the effect differed for the different forms of NRT. There was evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity caused by one study which reported a 4.3 kg reduction in PCWG due to NRT. With this study removed, the difference in weight change at end of treatment was -0.45 kg (95% CI -0.66 to -0.27, N=18). There was no evidence of an effect on PCWG at 12m (MD -0.42 kg, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.08, N=15).We found evidence that varenicline significantly reduced PCWG at end of treatment (MD -0.41 kg, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.19, N=11), but this effect was not maintained at 6 or 12m. Three studies compared the effect of bupropion to varenicline. Participants taking bupropion gained significantly less weight at the end of treatment (-0.51 kg (95% CI -0.93 to -0.09 kg), N=3). Direct comparison showed no significant difference in PCWG between varenicline and NRT.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although some pharmacotherapies tested to limit PCWG show evidence of short-term success, other problems with them and the lack of data on long-term efficacy limits their use. Weight management education only, is not effective and may reduce abstinence. Personalised weight management support may be effective and not reduce abstinence, but there are too few data to be sure. One study showed a VLCD increased abstinence but did not prevent WG in the longer term. CBT to accept WG did not limit PCWG and may not promote abstinence in the long term. Exercise interventions significantly reduced weight in the long term, but not the short term. More studies are needed to clarify whether this is an effect of treatment or a chance finding. Bupropion, fluoxetine, NRT and varenicline reduce PCWG while using the medication. Although this effect was not maintained one year after stopping smoking, the evidence is insufficient to exclude a modest long-term effect. The data are not sufficient to make strong clinical recommendations for effective programmes to prevent weight gain after cessation.

Reduction of missed appointments at an urban primary care clinic: a randomised controlled study

BACKGROUND

Missed appointments are known to interfere with appropriate care and to misspend medical and administrative resources. The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of a sequential intervention reminding patients of their upcoming appointment and to identify the profile of patients missing their appointments.

METHODS

We conducted a randomised controlled study in an urban primary care clinic at the Geneva University Hospitals serving a majority of vulnerable patients. All patients booked in a primary care or HIV clinic at the Geneva University Hospitals were sent a reminder 48 hrs prior to their appointment according to the following sequential intervention: 1. Phone call (fixed or mobile) reminder; 2. If no phone response: a Short Message Service (SMS) reminder; 3. If no available mobile phone number: a postal reminder. The rate of missed appointment, the cost of the intervention, and the profile of patients missing their appointment were recorded.

RESULTS

2123 patients were included: 1052 in the intervention group, 1071 in the control group. Only 61.7% patients had a mobile phone recorded at the clinic. The sequential intervention significantly reduced the rate of missed appointments: 11.4% (n = 122) in the control group and 7.8% (n = 82) in the intervention group (p < 0.005), and allowed to reallocate 28% of cancelled appointments. It also proved to be cost effective in providing a total net benefit of 1846. - EUR/3 months. A satisfaction survey conducted with 241 patients showed that 93% of them were not bothered by the reminders and 78% considered them to be useful. By multivariate analysis, the following characteristics were significant predictors of missed appointments: younger age (OR per additional decade 0.82; CI 0.71-0.94), male gender (OR 1.72; CI 1.18-2.50), follow-up appointment >1 year (OR 2.2; CI: 1.15-4.2), substance abuse (2.09, CI 1.21-3.61), and being an asylum seeker (OR 2.73: CI 1.22-6.09).

CONCLUSION

A practical reminder system can significantly increase patient attendance at medical outpatient clinics. An intervention focused on specific patient characteristics could further increase the effectiveness of appointment reminders.

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Most people who stop smoking gain weight, on average about 7 kg in the long term. There are some interventions that have been specifically designed to tackle smoking cessation whilst also limiting weight gain. Many smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and other interventions may also limit weight gain.

OBJECTIVES

This review is divided into two parts. (1) Interventions designed specifically to aid smoking cessation and limit post-cessation weight gain (2) Interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that may also plausibly have an effect on weight

SEARCH STRATEGY

Part 1: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register which includes trials indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, SciSearch and PsycINFO, and other reviews and conference abstracts. Part 2: We searched the included studies of Cochrane smoking cessation reviews of nicotine replacement therapy, antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, cannabinoid type 1 receptor antagonists (rimonabant), and exercise interventions, published in Issue 4, 2008 of The Cochrane Library.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Part 1: We included trials of interventions designed specifically to address both smoking cessation and post-cessation weight gain that had measured weight at any follow-up point and/or smoking six months or more after quitting.Part 2: We included trials from the selected Cochrane reviews that could plausibly modify post-cessation weight gain if they had reported weight gain by trial arm at end of treatment or later.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on smoking and weight for part 1 trials, and on weight only for part 2. Abstinence from smoking is expressed as a risk ratio (RR), using the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. The outcome is expressed as the difference in weight change between trial arms from baseline. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking and inverse variance for weight using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We found evidence that pharmacological interventions aimed at reducing post-cessation weight gain resulted in a significant reduction in weight gain at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine (-2.50kg [-2.98kg to -2.02kg], fluoxetine (-0.80kg [-1.27kg to -0.33kg], phenylpropanolamine (PPA) (-0.50kg [-0.80kg to -0.20kg], naltrexone (-0.76kg [-1.51kg to -0.01kg])). No evidence of maintenance of the treatment effect was found at six or 12 months.Among the behavioural interventions, only weight control advice was associated with no reduction in weight gain and with a possible reduction in abstinence. Individualized programmes were associated with reduced weight gain at end of treatment and at 12 months (-2.58kg [-5.11kg to -0.05kg]), and with no effect on abstinence (RR 0.74 [0.39 to 1.43]). Very low calorie diets (-1.30kg (-3.49kg to 0.89kg] at 12 months) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) (-5.20kg (-9.28kg to -1.12kg] at 12 months) were both associated with improved abstinence and reduced weight gain at end of treatment and at long-term follow up.Both bupropion (300mg/day) and fluoxetine (30mg and 60mg/day combined) were found to limit post-cessation weight gain at the end of treatment (-0.76kg [-1.17kg to -0.35kg] I(2)=48%) and -1.30kg [-1.91kg to -0.69kg]) respectively. There was no evidence that the weight reducing effect of bupropion was dose-dependent. The effect of bupropion at one year was smaller and confidence intervals included no effect (-0.38kg [-2.001kg to 1.24kg]).We found no evidence that exercise interventions significantly reduced post-cessation weight gain at end of treatment but evidence for an effect at 12 months (-2.07kg [-3.78kg, -0.36kg]).Treatment with NRT resulted in attenuation of post-cessation weight gain (-0.45kg [-0.70kg, -0.20kg]) at the end of treatment, with no evidence that the effect differed for different forms of NRT. The estimated weight gain reduction was similar at 12 months (-0.42kg [-0.92kg, 0.08kg]) but the confidence intervals included no effect.There were no relevant data on the effect of rimonabant on weight gain.We found no evidence that varenicline significantly reduced post-cessation weight gain at end of treatment and no follow-up data are currently available. One study randomizing successful quitters to 12 more weeks of active treatment showed weight to be reduced by 0.71kg (-1.04kg to -0.38kg). In three studies, participants taking bupropion gained significantly less weight at the end of treatment than those on varenicline (-0.51kg [-0.93kg to -0.09kg]).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural interventions of general advice only are not effective and may reduce abstinence. Individualized interventions, very low calorie diets, and CBT may be effective and not reduce abstinence. Exercise interventions are not associated with reduced weight gain at end of treatment, but may be associated with worthwhile reductions in weight gain in the long term, Bupropion, fluoxetine, nicotine replacement therapy, and probably varenicline all reduced weight gain while being used. Although this effect was not maintained one year after quitting for bupropion, fluoxetine, and nicotine replacement, the evidence is insufficient to exclude a modest long-term effect. The data are not sufficient to make strong clinical recommendations for effective programmes.

Smoking cessation intervention for female prisoners: addressing an urgent public health need

OBJECTIVES

We tested the efficacy of a combined pharmacologic and behavioral smoking cessation intervention among women in a state prison in the southern United States.

METHODS

The study design was a randomized controlled trial with a 6-month waitlist control group. The intervention was a 10-week group intervention combined with nicotine replacement therapy. Two hundred and fifty participants received the intervention, and 289 were in the control group. Assessments occurred at baseline; end of treatment; 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment; and at weekly sessions for participants in the intervention group.

RESULTS

The intervention was efficacious compared with the waitlist control group. Point prevalence quit rates for the intervention group were 18% at end of treatment, 17% at 3-month follow-up, 14% at 6-month follow-up, and 12% at 12-month follow-up, quit rates that are consistent with outcomes from community smoking-cessation interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Female prisoners are interested in smoking cessation interventions and achieved point-prevalence quit rates similar to community samples. Augmenting tobacco control policies in prison with smoking cessation interventions has the potential to address a significant public health need.

Distress tolerance treatment for early-lapse smokers: rationale, program description, and preliminary findings

A significant percentage of individuals attempting smoking cessation lapse within a matter of days, and very few are able to recover to achieve long-term abstinence. This observation suggests that many smokers may have quit-attempt histories characterized exclusively by early lapses to smoking following quit attempts. Recent negative-reinforcement conceptualizations of early lapse to smoking suggest that individuals' reactions to withdrawal and inability to tolerate the experience of these symptoms, rather than withdrawal severity itself, may represent an important treatment target in the development of new behavioral interventions for this subpopulation of smokers. This article presents the theoretical rationale and describes a novel, multicomponent distress-tolerance treatment for early-lapse smokers that incorporates behavioral and pharmacological elements of standard smoking-cessation treatment, whereas drawing distress-tolerance elements from exposure-based and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-based treatment approaches. Preliminary data from a pilot study (N = 16) are presented, and clinical implications are discussed.

Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is temporarily to replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were:To determine the effect of NRT compared to placebo in aiding smoking cessation, and to consider whether there is a difference in effect for the different forms of NRT (chewing gum, transdermal patches, nasal spray, inhalers and tablets/lozenges) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes. To determine whether the effect is influenced by the dosage, form and timing of use of NRT; the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; or the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated. To determine whether combinations of NRT are more likely to lead to successful quitting than one type alone. To determine whether NRT is more or less likely to lead to successful quitting compared to other pharmacotherapies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers with 'nicotine' or 'NRT' in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search July 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or to no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow up of less than six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the type of participants, the dose, duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow up. 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) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 132 trials; 111 with over 40,000 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.58 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50 to 1.66). The pooled RR for each type were 1.43 (95% CI: 1.33 to 1.53, 53 trials) for nicotine gum; 1.66 (95% CI: 1.53 to 1.81, 41 trials) for nicotine patch; 1.90 (95% CI: 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials) for nicotine inhaler; 2.00 (95% CI: 1.63 to 2.45, 6 trials) for oral tablets/lozenges; and 2.02 (95% CI: 1.49 to 3.73, 4 trials) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the duration of therapy, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. The effect was similar in a small group of studies that aimed to assess use of NRT obtained without a prescription. In highly dependent smokers there was a significant benefit of 4 mg gum compared with 2 mg gum, but weaker evidence of a benefit from higher doses of patch. There was evidence that combining a nicotine patch with a rapid delivery form of NRT was more effective than a single type of NRT. Only one study directly compared NRT to another pharmacotherapy. In this study quit rates with nicotine patch were lower than with the antidepressant bupropion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All of the commercially available forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhaler and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50-70%, regardless of setting. The effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT.

Cost effectiveness analysis of smoking cessation interventions

OBJECTIVE

To identify which smoking cessation interventions provide the most efficient use of health care resources at a population level.

METHODS

Effectiveness data were obtained from a review of the international literature. Costs and effects of smoking cessation interventions were estimated from the perspective of the Australian Government. Treatment costs and effects were modelled using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Assumptions regarding effectiveness, resource use and costs were tested by sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

From the population perspective, telephone counselling appeared to be the most cost-effective intervention. Adding proactive forms of telephone counselling increased the effectiveness of pharmacotherapies at a low incremental cost and, therefore, this could be a highly cost-effective strategy. Bupropion appeared to be more cost effective than nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Combined bupropion and NRT did not appear to be cost effective.

CONCLUSIONS

General practitioners should be encouraged to refer patients to telephone quit lines and if prescribing pharmacotherapy consider the addition of telephone counselling.

IMPLICATIONS

The results support greater investment in proactive forms of telephone counselling and more formal integration of pharmacotherapies with proactive telephone counselling services as cost-effective strategies for reducing population-level smoking rates.

Predictors of participation in a smoking cessation program among young adult smokers

This study investigated the predictors of participation in a smoking cessation trial for young adults ages 18 to 30 years old. Eligible smokers (n = 164) completed a telephone survey that measured demographic, smoking history, and psychosocial variables before the initiation of smoking cessation treatment. Young adult smokers who attended at least one smoking cessation session were compared with those who did not attend any sessions. Logistic regression analysis indicated that race and age were statistically significant multivariate predictors of participation. Caucasians were over six times (odds ratio, 6.03; 95% confidence interval, 2.41-15.05) more likely to participate in the smoking cessation program compared with non-Caucasians (61% versus 19%). For every SD increase in age (SD, 2.45), there was about a 2-fold increase in the likelihood that a young adult smoker participated in the smoking cessation program (odds ratio, 1.82; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.71). Future research should investigate how to promote participation in smoking cessation programs among smokers in emerging adulthood and among non-Caucasian young adult smokers to prevent a lifelong habit associated with disproportionate morbidity and mortality.

Results of a union-based smoking cessation intervention for apprentice iron workers (United States)

OBJECTIVE

Blue-collar workers are more likely to smoke, smoke more heavily, and have less success in quitting compared to white-collar workers, and this occupational gap is growing over time. Effective smoking cessation interventions among blue-collar workers are needed to address growing class-based disparities.

METHODS

We used a pre-post study design to test feasibility and effect size of a smoking cessation trial in a union apprenticeship training program for iron workers (n = 337). The 4-month intervention drew upon a health promotion-health protection model for smoking cessation among blue-collar workers. We conducted pairwise analyses to assess pre-post intervention differences in 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence measured 1 month after intervention was completed. Additional secondary outcomes, including smoking frequency, intensity, intention and self-efficacy to quit, were also assessed.

RESULTS

Baseline smoking prevalence was 41%. We observed a 19.4% post-intervention quit rate among baseline smokers. There were statistically significant positive changes pre- and post-intervention in intention to quit smoking, self-efficacy to quit, and a reduction in the number of days smoked. Participation in pro-active intervention components was associated with a three-fold (OR = 3.0, 1.15, 7.83) increase in the likelihood of quitting. Overall, participation in intervention components was low.

CONCLUSIONS

Labor union apprenticeship programs represent a promising venue for smoking cessation interventions, particularly those that draw upon a health promotion-health protection model.

Effects of different nicotine replacement therapies on postcessation psychological responses

Transdermal nicotine patch (TN) and nicotine nasal spray (NS) are both efficacious forms of smoking cessation treatment, but have different pharmacokinetic properties and modes of action. To understand better psychological responses to treatment, we investigated the effects of TN versus NS on positive affect, negative affect, and withdrawal symptoms during treatment. Participants were randomly assigned to receive TN (n=172) or NS (n=163) plus seven sessions of behavioral counseling, and completed self-report questionnaires at pretreatment and during treatment. TN participants, but not NS participants, reported significant increases in positive affect during treatment. Increases in negative affect and withdrawal were observed, independent of treatment. Only changes in negative affect predicted relapse by the end of the treatment phase. These findings indicate that, although TN may enhance positive affect for smokers in treatment compared with NS, only changes in negative affect predict treatment outcome.

Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This reduces withdrawal symptoms associated with smoking cessation thus helping resist the urge to smoke cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were:to determine the effectiveness of the different forms of NRT (chewing gum, transdermal patches, nasal spray, inhalers and tablets) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes, or a sustained reduction in amount smoked; to determine whether the effect is influenced by the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated, the dosage and form of the NRT used, or the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; to determine whether combinations of NRT are more effective than one type alone; to determine its effectiveness compared to other pharmacotherapies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register in March 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or to no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow up of less than six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the type of participants, the dose, duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow up. 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. For each study we calculated summary odds ratios. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 123 trials; 103 contributing to the primary comparison between NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The odds ratio (OR) for abstinence with NRT compared to control was 1.77 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.66 to 1.88). The ORs for the different forms of NRT were 1.66 (95% CI: 1.52 to 1.81) for gum, 1.81 (95% CI: 1.63 to 2.02) for patches, 2.35 (95% CI: 1.63 to 3.38) for nasal spray, 2.14 (95% CI: 1.44 to 3.18) for inhaled nicotine and 2.05 (95% CI: 1.62 to 2.59) for nicotine sublingual tablet/lozenge. These odds were largely independent of the duration of therapy, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. In highly dependent smokers there was a significant benefit of 4 mg gum compared with 2 mg gum (OR 2.20, 95% CI: 1.85 to 3.25). There was weak evidence that combinations of forms of NRT are more effective. Higher doses of nicotine patch may produce small increases in quit rates. Only one study directly compared NRT to another pharmacotherapy. In this study quit rates with bupropion were higher than with nicotine patch or placebo.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

All of the commercially available forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhaler and sublingual tablets/lozenges) are effective as part of a strategy to promote smoking cessation. They increase the odds of quitting approximately 1.5 to 2 fold regardless of setting. The effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the smoker. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT.