Nicotine intervention during detoxification and treatment for other substance use

Impact of smoking bans and other smoking cessation interventions in prisons, mental health and substance use treatment settings: A systematic review of the evidence

ISSUES

We conducted a systematic review to examine whether smoking bans alone are effective in achieving smoking cessation in people released from prison, and patients discharged from mental health or substance use settings.

APPROACH

We searched health, criminology and social science databases. Detailed search strings were used to combine terms related to smoking bans and cessation interventions in prison, mental health and substance use treatment settings. We used backward and forward snowballing and manual hand searching to find additional studies. Studies were included if they: were published between 1 January 2000 and 25 February 2022; included a complete smoking ban; measured people released from prison and/or mental health and/or substance use patients smoking post-release/discharge from a smoke-free facility; and reported smoking cessation intervention and/or smoking ban outcomes. Methodological quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project's Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies and reviewed by two authors.

KEY FINDINGS

People released from prison, mental health and substance use in-patients who experience a smoking ban while incarcerated or in in-patient settings often relapse to smoking shortly after release or discharge. We found that although smoking bans alone do not promote cessation, multi-component interventions in combination with smoking bans can significantly increase cessation rates post-release/discharge provided they support participants during this time.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence to suggest tobacco bans alone in prison, mental health and substance use treatment settings are effective in achieving long-term smoking cessation. This review suggests that combining smoking bans and cessation interventions including pre- and post-release/discharge support can be effective in achieving smoking cessation.

Supporting smoking cessation and preventing relapse following a stay in a smoke-free setting: a meta-analysis and investigation of effective behaviour change techniques

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Admission to a smoke-free setting presents a unique opportunity to encourage smokers to quit. However, risk of relapse post-discharge is high, and little is known about effective strategies to support smoking cessation following discharge. We aimed to identify interventions that maintain abstinence following a smoke-free stay and determine their effectiveness, as well as the probable effectiveness of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) used in these interventions.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies of adult smokers aged ≥ 18 years who were temporarily or fully abstinent from smoking to comply with institutional smoke-free policies. Institutions included prison, inpatient mental health, substance misuse or acute hospital settings. A Mantel-Haenszel random-effects meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted using biochemically verified abstinence (7-day point prevalence or continuous abstinence). BCTs were defined as 'promising' in terms of probable effectiveness (if BCT was present in two or more long-term effective interventions) and feasibility (if BCT was also delivered in ≥ 25% of all interventions).

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies (intervention n = 9041, control n = 6195) were included: 23 RCTs (intervention n = 6593, control n = 5801); three non-randomized trials (intervention n = 845, control n = 394) and 11 cohort studies (n = 1603). Meta-analysis of biochemically verified abstinence at longest follow-up (4 weeks-18 months) found an overall effect in favour of intervention [risk ratio (RR) = 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.08-1.49, I²  = 42%]. Nine BCTs (including 'pharmacological support', 'goal-setting (behaviour)' and 'social support') were characterized as 'promising' in terms of probable effectiveness and feasibility.

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic review and meta-analyses indicate that behavioural and pharmacological support is effective in maintaining smoking abstinence following a stay in a smoke-free institution. Several behaviour change techniques may help to maintain smoking abstinence up to 18 months post-discharge.

Safety and Efficacy of Varenicline for Smoking Cessation in Alcohol-Dependent Smokers in Concurrent Treatment for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Pilot, Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Smoking prevalence among those with alcohol dependence is much higher than the general population. Despite this, cessation treatment in those with concurrent alcohol dependence is seldom undertaken. We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind pilot study, whereby patients enrolled at an addiction treatment facility in downtown Toronto, Canada, were recruited and assigned to placebo or varenicline treatment for 12 weeks. We hypothesized that varenicline would be a safe and efficacious treatment for tobacco dependence in this population.

METHODS

Daily dependent smokers in treatment for alcohol dependence and interested in participating in the study were first screened over the phone and then assessed in-person. If eligible, they were randomly assigned to placebo or varenicline in a double-blind fashion. They attended weekly appointments for smoking cessation counseling and completed daily diaries for the full 12 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Thirty-one subjects were randomized to either varenicline (n = 16) or placebo treatment (n = 15). Participants were predominantly male (73.3%) with a mean age of 44.6 (23-66). Only one subject in the placebo group was quit by end of treatment (7-day point prevalence abstinence), compared with 7 in the varenicline group (χ(1) = 5.56, P = 0.037). Both groups had a significant decline in cigarettes per day (CPD) by end of treatment (varenicline = 22.1 ± 13.3 to 2.0 ± 3.0 CPD, t(10) = 4.45, P = 0.001; placebo: 14.9 ± 4.4 to 5.3 ± 6.3 CPD, t(13) = 3.61, P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this pilot study indicate that varenicline is a safe and effective treatment for tobacco dependence in a sample of alcohol-dependent smokers undergoing concurrent treatment for alcohol use disorder.

Smoking reduction interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The standard way most people are advised to stop smoking is by quitting abruptly on a designated quit day. However, many people who smoke have tried to quit many times and may like to try an alternative method. Reducing smoking behaviour before quitting could be an alternative approach to cessation. However, before this method can be recommended it is important to ensure that abrupt quitting is not more effective than reducing to quit, and to determine whether there are ways to optimise reduction methods to increase the chances of cessation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of reduction-to-quit interventions on long-term smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO for studies, using the terms: cold turkey, schedul*, cut* down, cut-down, gradual*, abrupt*, fading, reduc*, taper*, controlled smoking and smoking reduction. We also searched trial registries to identify unpublished studies. Date of the most recent search: 29 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which people who smoked were advised to reduce their smoking consumption before quitting smoking altogether in at least one trial arm. This advice could be delivered using self-help materials or behavioural support, and provided alongside smoking cessation pharmacotherapies or not. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of less than six months, where participants spontaneously reduced without being advised to do so, where the goal of reduction was not to quit altogether, or where participants were advised to switch to cigarettes with lower nicotine levels without reducing the amount of cigarettes smoked or the length of time spent smoking. We also excluded trials carried out in pregnant women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking cessation was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison (no smoking cessation treatment, abrupt quitting interventions, and other reduction-to-quit interventions) and carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. We also extracted data on quit attempts, pre-quit smoking reduction, adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, and meta-analysed these where sufficient data were available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 51 trials with 22,509 participants. Most recruited adults from the community using media or local advertising. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked an average of 23 cigarettes a day. We judged 18 of the studies to be at high risk of bias, but restricting the analysis only to the five studies at low or to the 28 studies at unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results.We identified very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision, comparing the effect of reduction-to-quit interventions with no treatment on cessation rates (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.38; I2 = 45%; 6 studies, 1599 participants). However, when comparing reduction-to-quit interventions with abrupt quitting (standard care) we found evidence that neither approach resulted in superior quit rates (RR 1. 01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.17; I2 = 29%; 22 studies, 9219 participants). We judged this estimate to be of moderate certainty, due to imprecision. Subgroup analysis provided some evidence (P = 0.01, I2 = 77%) that reduction-to-quit interventions may result in more favourable quit rates than abrupt quitting if varenicline is used as a reduction aid. Our analysis comparing reduction using pharmacotherapy with reduction alone found low-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency and imprecision, that reduction aided by pharmacotherapy resulted in higher quit rates (RR 1. 68, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.58; I2 = 78%; 11 studies, 8636 participants). However, a significant subgroup analysis (P < 0.001, I2 = 80% for subgroup differences) suggests that this may only be true when fast-acting NRT or varenicline are used (both moderate-certainty evidence) and not when nicotine patch, combination NRT or bupropion are used as an aid (all low- or very low-quality evidence). More evidence is likely to change the interpretation of the latter effects.Although there was some evidence from within-study comparisons that behavioural support for reduction to quit resulted in higher quit rates than self-help resources alone, the relative efficacy of various other characteristics of reduction-to-quit interventions investigated through within- and between-study comparisons did not provide any evidence that they enhanced the success of reduction-to-quit interventions. Pre-quit AEs, SAEs and nicotine withdrawal symptoms were measured variably and infrequently across studies. There was some evidence that AEs occurred more frequently in studies that compared reduction using pharmacotherapy versus no pharmacotherapy; however, the AEs reported were mild and usual symptoms associated with NRT use. There was no clear evidence that the number of people reporting SAEs, or changes in withdrawal symptoms, differed between trial arms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that neither reduction-to-quit nor abrupt quitting interventions result in superior long-term quit rates when compared with one another. Evidence comparing the efficacy of reduction-to-quit interventions with no treatment was inconclusive and of low certainty. There is also low-certainty evidence to suggest that reduction-to-quit interventions may be more effective when pharmacotherapy is used as an aid, particularly fast-acting NRT or varenicline (moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence for any adverse effects of reduction-to-quit interventions was sparse, but available data suggested no excess of pre-quit SAEs or withdrawal symptoms. We downgraded the evidence across comparisons due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. Future research should aim to match any additional components of multicomponent reduction-to-quit interventions across study arms, so that the effect of reduction can be isolated. In particular, well-conducted, adequately-powered studies should focus on investigating the most effective features of reduction-to-quit interventions to maximise cessation rates.

Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a directive patient-centred style of counselling, designed to help people to explore and resolve ambivalence about behaviour change. It was developed as a treatment for alcohol abuse, but may help people to a make a successful attempt to stop smoking.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of MI for smoking cessation compared with no treatment, in addition to another form of smoking cessation treatment, and compared with other types of smoking cessation treatment. We also investigated whether more intensive MI is more effective than less intensive MI for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register for studies using the term motivat* NEAR2 (interview* OR enhanc* OR session* OR counsel* OR practi* OR behav*) in the title or abstract, or motivation* as a keyword. We also searched trial registries to identify unpublished studies. Date of the most recent search: August 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which MI or its variants were offered to smokers to assist smoking cessation. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up less than six months, and with additional non-MI intervention components not matched between arms. We excluded trials in pregnant women as these are covered elsewhere.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking cessation was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models. We extracted data on mental health outcomes and quality of life and summarised these narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 37 eligible studies involving over 15,000 participants who smoked tobacco. The majority of studies recruited participants with particular characteristics, often from groups of people who are less likely to seek support to stop smoking than the general population. Although a few studies recruited participants who intended to stop smoking soon or had no intentions to quit, most recruited a population without regard to their intention to quit. MI was conducted in one to 12 sessions, with the total duration of MI ranging from five to 315 minutes across studies. We judged four of the 37 studies to be at low risk of bias, and 11 to be at high risk, but restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk did not significantly alter results, apart from in one case - our analysis comparing higher to lower intensity MI.We found low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, comparing the effect of MI to no treatment for smoking cessation (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.12; I2 = 0%; adjusted N = 684). One study was excluded from this analysis as the participants recruited (incarcerated men) were not comparable to the other participants included in the analysis, resulting in substantial statistical heterogeneity when all studies were pooled (I2 = 87%). Enhancing existing smoking cessation support with additional MI, compared with existing support alone, gave an RR of 1.07 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.36; adjusted N = 4167; I2 = 47%), and MI compared with other forms of smoking cessation support gave an RR of 1.24 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.69; I2 = 54%; N = 5192). We judged both of these estimates to be of low certainty due to heterogeneity and imprecision. Low-certainty evidence detected a benefit of higher intensity MI when compared with lower intensity MI (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; adjusted N = 5620; I2 = 0%). The evidence was limited because three of the five studies in this comparison were at risk of bias. Excluding them gave an RR of 1.00 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I2 = n/a; N = 482), changing the interpretation of the results.Mental health and quality of life outcomes were reported in only one study, providing little evidence on whether MI improves mental well-being.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to show whether or not MI helps people to stop smoking compared with no intervention, as an addition to other types of behavioural support for smoking cessation, or compared with other types of behavioural support for smoking cessation. It is also unclear whether more intensive MI is more effective than less intensive MI. All estimates of treatment effect were of low certainty because of concerns about bias in the trials, imprecision and inconsistency. Consequently, future trials are likely to change these conclusions. There is almost no evidence on whether MI for smoking cessation improves mental well-being.

Relapse to smoking following release from smoke-free correctional facilities in Queensland, Australia

BACKGROUND

Smoke-free prison policies are increasingly common, but few studies have investigated relapse to smoking after release from prison. This study investigated return to tobacco smoking and correlates of smoking at reduced levels after release among adults recently released from smoke-free prisons in Queensland, Australia.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of 114 people at parole offices within two months of release from prison was used. The survey measured health, social, and criminological factors related to tobacco smoking. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with reduced post-release smoking levels compared to pre-incarceration levels.

RESULTS

94% of participants relapsed to smoking within two months of release; 72% relapsed on the day of release. 62% of participants smoked significantly less per day after compared with before incarceration. Living with a partner (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.77, 95%CI 1.02-7.52), expressing support for smoke-free prison policies (OR 2.44, 95%CI 1.12-5.32), intending to remain abstinent post-release (OR 4.29, 95%CI 1.88-9.82), and intending to quit in the future (OR 3.88, 95%CI 1.66-9.07) were associated with reduced smoking post-release. Use of illicit drugs post-release was negatively associated with reduced smoking post-release (OR 0.27, 95%CI 0.09-0.79). In multivariate analyses, pre-release intention to remain smoke-free was associated with reduced smoking post-release (AOR 2.69, 95%CI 1.01-7.14).

DISCUSSION

Relapse to smoking after release from smoke-free prisons is common, but many who relapse smoke less than before incarceration, suggesting that smoke-free prison policies may reduce post-release tobacco smoking. There is a need for tailored, evidence-based tobacco cessation interventions for people recently released from prison.

Maintaining abstinence from smoking after a period of enforced abstinence - systematic review, meta-analysis and analysis of behaviour change techniques with a focus on mental health

BACKGROUND

Smoking prevalence is doubled among people with mental health problems and reaches 80% in inpatient, substance misuse and prison settings, widening inequalities in morbidity and mortality. As more institutions become smoke-free but most smokers relapse immediately post-discharge, we aimed to review interventions to maintain abstinence post-discharge.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched from inception to May 2016 and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies conducted with adult smokers in prison, inpatient mental health or substance use treatment included. Risk of bias (study quality) was rated using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Tool. Behaviour change techniques (BCTs) were coded from published papers and manuals using a published taxonomy. Mantel-Haenszel random effects meta-analyses of RCTs used biochemically verified point-prevalence smoking abstinence at (a) longest and (b) 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Five RCTs (n = 416 intervention, n = 415 control) and five cohort studies (n = 471) included. Regarding study quality, four RCTs were rated strong, one moderate; one cohort study was rated strong, one moderate and three weak. Most common BCTs were pharmacotherapy (n = 8 nicotine replacement therapy, n = 1 clonidine), problem solving, social support, and elicitation of pros and cons (each n = 6); papers reported fewer techniques than manuals. Meta-analyses found effects in favour of intervention [(a) risk ratio (RR) = 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30-3.27; (b) RR = 1.86, 95% CI 1.04-3.31].

CONCLUSION

Medication and/or behavioural support can help maintain smoking abstinence beyond discharge from smoke-free institutions with high mental health comorbidity. However, the small evidence base tested few different interventions and reporting of behavioural interventions is often imprecise.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Impact of group motivational interviewing on enhancing treatment engagement for homeless Veterans with nicotine dependence and other substance use disorders: A pilot investigation

BACKGROUND

Prior studies have shown that Group Motivational Interviewing (GMI) for dually diagnosed patients holds promise for increasing treatment engagement.

OBJECTIVES

The current study evaluated the impact of a novel GMI protocol that included tobacco-specific components (referred to as "Tobacco GMI or T-GMI") targeting enhanced engagement in smoking cessation treatment.

METHODS

Thirty-seven primary alcohol and nicotine-dependent cigarette smoking homeless Veterans with co-morbid psychiatric conditions were recruited to receive four GMI sessions over 4 consecutive days. The first 16 participants received standard GMI, aimed at enhancing engagement in substance abuse treatment and for reducing substance use, while the remaining 21 participants received a modified "tobacco-specific" GMI protocol (T-GMI) that included additional content specific to cessation of tobacco use and enhancing smoking cessation treatment, in addition to the standard substance abuse content of GMI.

RESULTS

Participants in T-GMI were more likely to attend tobacco cessation programming (p = .05), as well as to attend combined tobacco cessation programming with prescribed nicotine replacement therapy (p = .03), compared to those in standard GMI. Differences between treatment conditions with respect to alcohol and illicit drug use outcomes were not significant, although overall substance use declined over time in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

Results suggest that inclusion of tobacco-specific components in the context of GMI for substance abuse may enhance treatment engagement for tobacco cessation behaviors among dually diagnosed nicotine dependent homeless patients, a highly vulnerable population for which interventional resources targeting engagement in smoking cessation treatment has historically been lacking. (Am J Addict 2016;25:533-541).

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Tobacco dependence diagnosis and treatment in Veterans Health Administration residential substance use disorder treatment programs

AIMS

To explore tobacco dependence (TD) diagnosis and treatment utilization, and identify predictors of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) among veterans with substance use disorders (SUDs) enrolled in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) SUD residential treatment programs (SRTPs).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

VHA SRTPs, which treat veterans with SUD and multiple severe psychosocial deficits, from 1 October 2009 to 31 September 2010.

PARTICIPANTS

Identified tobacco users among veterans with SUD treated in SRTPs during fiscal year 2010 (FY10).

MEASUREMENTS

Rates of documented TD diagnosis and pharmacotherapy were assessed nationally, regionally and by facility. Patient-level predictors of NRT were examined using a mixed-effects logistic regression model with facility as a random effect.

FINDINGS

A total of 12 097 of the 15 320 veterans in SRTPs in FY10 (79%) were identified as probable tobacco users. Among these, 33% had a documented TD diagnosis, 34% were treated with pharmacotherapy and only 11% were both diagnosed and treated for TD while in SRTP. NRT was more common among patients with a current documented TD diagnosis, recent history of TD treatment, comorbid mental health disorder, age 55 years or younger and identified as white.

CONCLUSIONS

Most veterans in Veterans Health Administration substance use disorders residential treatment programs appear to use tobacco, yet only one in 10 receives a documented ICD-9 TD diagnosis and pharmacotherapy while in a substance use disorders residential treatment program.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs: the relationship with illicit drugs in the treatment of substance users

Alcohol, tobacco, prescription drug, and illicit drug use frequently co-occur. This paper reviews the extent of this co-occurrence in both general population samples and clinical samples, and its impact on treatment outcome. We argue that the research base for understanding comorbidity among tobacco, alcohol, prescription, and illicit drugs needs to be broadened. We specifically advocate for: (1) more epidemiological studies of relationships among alcohol, tobacco, and other illicit drug use; and (2) increased research on treatment options that address the problematic use of all of these drugs.

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

Smoking contributes to reasons for hospitalisation, and the period of hospitalisation may be a good time to provide help with quitting.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for smoking cessation that are initiated for hospitalised patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register which includes papers identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO in December 2011 for studies of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, using terms including (hospital and patient*) or hospitali* or inpatient* or admission* or admitted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized trials of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients stop smoking, conducted with hospitalised patients who were current smokers or recent quitters (defined as having quit more than one month before hospital admission). The intervention had to start in the hospital but could continue after hospital discharge. We excluded studies of patients admitted to facilities that primarily treat psychiatric disorders or substance abuse, studies that did not report abstinence rates and studies with follow-up of less than six months. Both acute care hospitals and rehabilitation hospitals were included in this update, with separate analyses done for each type of hospital.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data independently for each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty trials met the inclusion criteria. Intensive counselling interventions that began during the hospital stay and continued with supportive contacts for at least one month after discharge increased smoking cessation rates after discharge (risk ratio (RR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.48; 25 trials). A specific benefit for post-discharge contact compared with usual care was found in a subset of trials in which all participants received a counselling intervention in the hospital and were randomly assigned to post-discharge contact or usual care. No statistically significant benefit was found for less intensive counselling interventions. Adding nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to an intensive counselling intervention increased smoking cessation rates compared with intensive counselling alone (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.79, six trials). Adding varenicline to intensive counselling had a non-significant effect in two trials (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.74). Adding bupropion did not produce a statistically significant increase in cessation over intensive counselling alone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.45, three trials). A similar pattern of results was observed in a subgroup of smokers admitted to hospital because of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this subgroup, intensive intervention with follow-up support increased the rate of smoking cessation (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.56), but less intensive interventions did not. One trial of intensive intervention including counselling and pharmacotherapy for smokers admitted with CVD assessed clinical and health care utilization endpoints, and found significant reductions in all-cause mortality and hospital readmission rates over a two-year follow-up period. These trials were all conducted in acute care hospitals. A comparable increase in smoking cessation rates was observed in a separate pooled analysis of intensive counselling interventions in rehabilitation hospitals (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.14, three trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High intensity behavioural interventions that begin during a hospital stay and include at least one month of supportive contact after discharge promote smoking cessation among hospitalised patients. The effect of these interventions was independent of the patient's admitting diagnosis and was found in rehabilitation settings as well as acute care hospitals. There was no evidence of effect for interventions of lower intensity or shorter duration. This update found that adding NRT to intensive counselling significantly increases cessation rates over counselling alone. There is insufficient direct evidence to conclude that adding bupropion or varenicline to intensive counselling increases cessation rates over what is achieved by counselling alone.

Cigarette smoking, illicit drug use, and routes of administration among heroin and cocaine users

Cigarette smoking is ubiquitous among illicit drug users. Some have speculated that this may be partially due to similarities in the route of administration. However, research examining the relationship between cigarette smoking and routes of administration of illicit drugs is limited. To address this gap, we investigated sociodemographic and drug use factors associated with cigarette smoking among cocaine and heroin users in the Baltimore, Maryland community (N=576). Regular and heavy cigarette smokers were more likely to be White, have a history of a prior marriage, and have a lower education level. Regular smoking of marijuana and crack was associated with cigarette smoking, but not heavy cigarette smoking. Injection use was more common among heavy cigarette smokers. In particular, regular cigarette smokers were more likely to have a lifetime history of regularly injecting heroin. Optimal prevention and treatment outcomes can only occur through a comprehensive understanding of the interrelations between different substances of abuse.

Availability of nicotine replacement therapy in substance use disorder treatment: longitudinal patterns of adoption, sustainability, and discontinuation

BACKGROUND

There is growing recognition regarding the clinical importance of integrating smoking cessation services, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), within programs that treat substance use disorders (SUDs) since the majority of individuals receiving treatment also smoke. Previous research has not examined the organizational characteristics associated with NRT availability over time in SUD treatment programs.

METHOD

Using longitudinal data collected from administrators of 868 SUD treatment programs over a four-year period, the availability of NRT in the forms of the nicotine patch or nicotine gum was measured. Associations between organizational covariates and NRT adoption were estimated using multinomial logistic regression.

RESULTS

The rate of NRT availability significantly decreased over time from 38.0% of SUD programs at baseline to 33.8% at follow-up. The multinomial logistic regression model indicated programs that sustained adoption of NRT over time were more medically oriented, as measured by location in a hospital setting and access to physicians, and were less likely to offer outpatient services. Sustained and recent adopters of NRT were more likely to offer other smoking cessation interventions at follow- up than NRT discontinuers or NRT non-adopters.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that patients' access to NRT varies across different types of treatment organizations. Future research should continue to measure the availability of NRT and other smoking cessation interventions in SUD treatment since these services may help patients to quit smoking and reduce the likelihood of SUD relapse.

Efficacy of motivational interviewing for smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of interventions incorporating motivational interviewing for smoking cessation and identify correlates of treatment effects.

DATA SOURCES

Medline/PubMed, PsycInfo and other sources including grey literature.

STUDY SELECTION

Title/abstract search terms were motivational interview* OR motivational enhancement AND smok*, cigarette*, tobacco, OR nicotine. Randomised trials reporting number of smokers abstinent at follow up were eligible.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were independently coded by the first and third authors. We coded for a variety of study, participant, and intervention related variables.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A random effects logistic regression with both a random intercept and a random slope for the treatment effect.

RESULTS

31 smoking cessation research trials were selected for the study: eight comprised adolescent samples, eight comprised adults with chronic physical or mental illness, five comprised pregnant/postpartum women and 10 comprised other adult samples. Analysis of the trials (9485 individual participants) showed an overall OR comparing likelihood of abstinence in the motivational interviewing (MI) versus control condition of OR 1.45 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.83). Additional potential correlates of treatment effects such as study, sample, and intervention characteristics were examined.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the most comprehensive review of MI for smoking cessation conducted to date. These findings suggest that current MI smoking cessation approaches can be effective for adolescents and adults. However, comparative efficacy trials could be useful.

Treatment of tobacco dependence in mental health and addictive disorders

People with mental health and addictive (MHA) disorders smoke at high rates and require tobacco treatment as a part of their comprehensive psychiatric care. Psychiatric care providers often do not address tobacco use among people with mental illness, possibly owing to the belief that their patients will not be able to quit successfully or that even short-term abstinence will adversely influence psychiatric status. Progress in the development of treatments has been slow in part because smokers with current MHA disorders have been excluded from most smoking cessation trials. There are several smoking cessation treatment options, including psychological and pharmacological interventions, that should be offered to people with an MHA disorder who smoke. Building motivation and readiness to quit smoking is a major challenge, and therefore motivational interventions are essential. We review the treatment options for people with tobacco dependence and MHA disorders, offer recommendations on tobacco assessment and tailored treatment strategies, and provide suggestions for future research. Treatment efficacy could be enhanced through promoting smoking reduction as an initial treatment goal, extending duration of treatment, and delivering it within an integrated care model that also aims to reduce the availability of tobacco in MHA treatment settings and in the community.

Where there's smoke, there's fire: high prevalence of smoking among some sub-populations and recommendations for intervention

In Australia, the prevalence of smoking is higher among certain sub-populations compared to the general population. These sub-populations include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, as well as people with mental and substance use disorders and prisoners. The aims of this paper are to: describe the high prevalence of smoking among these particular sub-populations and harms associated with smoking; explore possible reasons for such high prevalence of smoking; review the evidence regarding the efficacy of existing smoking cessation interventions; and make recommendations for smoking interventions and further research among these groups. In addition to low socio-economic status, limited education and other factors, there are social, systems and psychobiological features associated with the high prevalence of smoking in these sub-groups. General population-based approaches to reducing smoking prevalence have been pursued for decades with great success and should be continued with further developments that aim specifically to affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and some cultural groups. However, increasing attention, more specific targeting and flexible goals and interventions are also required for these and other distinct sub-populations with high smoking prevalence. Recommendations include: more funding and increased resources to examine the most appropriate education and treatment strategies to promote smoking cessation among people from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and some culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds; larger and better-designed studies evaluating smoking cessation/reduction interventions among distinct sub-groups; and system-wide interventions requiring strong leadership among clients and staff within mental health, drug and alcohol and prison settings.

Smoking cessation interventions in Australian drug treatment agencies: a national survey of attitudes and practices

A cross-sectional survey was mailed to all Australian drug and alcohol treatment agencies to assess their smoking cessation policies and practices and related staff attitudes. Barriers to smoking cessation interventions were also examined. Completed questionnaires were returned by 213 managers and 204 other staff representing 260 agencies (59.8% consent rate). Approximately one-quarter of agencies have smoking cessation intervention policies and one-third of clients receive adequate smoking advice. Of 12 intervention strategies, only the recording of smoking status on file occurs in a majority of cases. Concerns about the potential negative impact of smoking interventions and lack of client interest were endorsed as very important barriers by the highest percentage of respondents. 12.6% of managers and 16.5% of other staff agreed that it is occasionally useful for staff to smoke with a client. Smoking cessation receives little systematic attention from drug and alcohol agencies. Training and policy initiatives are needed urgently to address negative staff attitudes impeding progress in this area.

Smoking cessation treatment in community-based substance abuse rehabilitation programs

Nicotine dependence is highly prevalent among drug- and alcohol-dependent patients. A multisite clinical trial of smoking cessation (SC) treatment was performed at outpatient community-based substance abuse rehabilitation programs affiliated with the National Drug Abuse Treatment, Clinical Trials Network. Cigarette smokers (N=225) from five methadone maintenance programs and two drug and alcohol dependence treatment programs were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either (1) SC treatment as an adjunct to substance abuse treatment-as-usual (TAU) or (2) substance abuse TAU. Smoking cessation treatment consisted of 1 week of group counseling before the target quit date and 8 weeks of group counseling plus transdermal nicotine patch treatment (21 mg/day for Weeks 1-6 and 14 mg/day for Weeks 7 and 8) after the target quit date. Smoking abstinence rates in SC, 10%-11% during treatment and 5%-6% at the 13- and 26-week follow-up visits, were significantly better than those in TAU during treatment (p< .01). In addition, SC was associated with significantly greater reductions as compared with TAU in cigarettes smoked per day (75% reduction, p< .001), exhaled carbon monoxide levels (p< .001), cigarette craving (p< .05), and nicotine withdrawal (p< .05). Smoking cessation did not differ from TAU on rates of retention in substance abuse treatment, abstinence from primary substance of abuse, and craving for primary substance of abuse. Compliance with SC treatment, moderate at best, was positively associated with smoking abstinence rates. Smoking cessation treatment resulted in significant reductions in daily smoking and modest smoking abstinence rates without having an adverse impact on substance abuse rehabilitation when given concurrently with outpatient substance abuse treatment. Substance abuse treatment programs should not hesitate to implement SC for established patients.

Bupropion and nicotine patch as smoking cessation aids in alcoholics

This is a double-blind placebo-controlled study of sustained-release bupropion as a smoking cessation aid in alcoholics undergoing treatment for their alcoholism. Participants (N=58) were enrolled within 1 week of entry into alcohol treatment from community and Veterans Affairs Substance Use Disorder programs. All participants received nicotine patch and were invited to attend a smoking cessation lecture and group. Cigarette smoking and alcohol outcomes were measured at 6 months. Bupropion when added to nicotine patch did not improve smoking outcomes. One third of participants on bupropion reported discontinuing the drug during weeks 1-4. Participants reported cigarette outcomes with nicotine patch that are similar to those seen in the general population. All study participants significantly reduced cigarette use. Comorbid affective disorder or antipersonality disorder did not affect outcomes. Alcohol outcomes were improved in those who discontinued cigarettes.

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

An admission to hospital provides an opportunity to help people stop smoking. Individuals may be more open to help at a time of perceived vulnerability, and may find it easier to quit in an environment where smoking is restricted or prohibited. Initiating smoking cessation services during hospitalisation may help more people to make and sustain a quit attempt.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for smoking cessation that are initiated for hospitalised patients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register which includes papers identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PSYCINFO in January 2007, and CINAHL in August 2006 for studies of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, using terms including (hospital and patient*) or hospitali* or inpatient* or admission* or admitted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized trials of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients stop smoking, conducted with hospitalised patients who were current smokers or recent quitters (defined as having quit more than one month before hospital admission). The intervention had to start in the hospital but could continue after hospital discharge. We excluded studies of patients admitted for psychiatric disorders or substance abuse, studies that did not report abstinence rates and studies with follow up of less than six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data independently for each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-three trials met the inclusion criteria. Intensive counselling interventions that began during the hospital stay and continued with supportive contacts for at least one month after discharge increased smoking cessation rates after discharge (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.44 to 1.90; 17 trials). No statistically significant benefit was found for less intensive counselling interventions. The one study that tested a single brief (<=15 minutes) in-hospital intervention did not find it to be effective (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.67). Counselling of longer duration during the hospital stay was not associated with a higher quit rate (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.29, eight trials). Even counselling that began in the hospital but had less than one month of supportive contact after discharge did not show significant benefit (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.31, six trials). Adding nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) did not produce a statistically significant increase in cessation over what was achieved by intensive counselling alone (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.35, five studies). The one study that tested the effect of adding bupropion to intensive counselling had a similar nonsignificant effect (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.06). A similar pattern of results was observed in smokers admitted to hospital because of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this subgroup, intensive intervention with follow-up support increased the odds of smoking cessation (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.15, 11 trials), but less intensive interventions did not. One trial of intensive intervention including counselling and pharmacotherapy for smokers admitted with CVD assessed clinical and health care utilization endpoints, and found significant reductions in all-cause mortality and hospital readmission rates over a two-year follow-up period.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High intensity behavioural interventions that begin during a hospital stay and include at least one month of supportive contact after discharge promote smoking cessation among hospitalised patients. These interventions are effective regardless of the patient's admitting diagnosis. lnterventions of lower intensity or shorter duration have not been shown to be effective in this setting. There is insufficient direct evidence to conclude that adding NRT or bupropion to intensive counselling increases cessation rates over what is achieved by counselling alone, but the evidence of benefit for NRT has strengthened in this update and the point estimates are compatible with research in other settings showing that NRT and bupropion are effective.

A controlled study of a cigarette smoking cessation intervention for adolescents in substance abuse treatment

Tobacco use is prevalent among youth with alcohol and other drug problems, yet this issue has received limited research and clinical attention. This study reports on a controlled evaluation of a cigarette smoking intervention with 54 adolescents in treatment for substance abuse, ages 13-18 (22% female). Participants were assessed at 4 time points. A greater proportion of participants in the treatment condition (n = 26) reported cessation attempts and point abstinence than did control participants (n = 28) at all time points. However, significant differences were found only for point abstinence at a 3-month follow-up. These findings provide initial support for the efficacy of a smoking cessation intervention delivered in the context of adolescent substance abuse treatment.

Unaided smoking cessation among smokers in treatment for alcohol dependence

To investigate the possible impact of treatment of alcohol dependence on smoking, we studied 144 smokers in an alcohol treatment center for whom 6-month data were available. Of those, 18 reported not smoking at 6 months. No significant differences in age, gender, or race were observed between quitters and continuing smokers. Quitters at 6 months were significantly more likely to be low dependent smokers than were continuing smokers and were significantly more likely to report no drinking during the past 28 days at the end of 1 month's treatment (93%) than continuing smokers (62%). These findings suggest that quitting smoking may be associated with low levels of nicotine dependence and favorable alcohol treatment response in alcoholic smokers.

A meta-analysis of smoking cessation interventions with individuals in substance abuse treatment or recovery

This meta-analysis examined outcomes of smoking cessation interventions evaluated in 19 randomized controlled trials with individuals in current addictions treatment or recovery. Smoking and substance use outcomes at posttreatment and long-term follow-up (> or = 6 months) were summarized with random effects models. Intervention effects for smoking cessation were significant at posttreatment and comparable for participants in addictions treatment and recovery; however, intervention effects for smoking cessation were nonsignificant at long-term follow-up. Smoking cessation interventions provided during addictions treatment were associated with a 25% increased likelihood of long-term abstinence from alcohol and illicit drugs. Short-term smoking cessation effects look promising, but innovative strategies are needed for long-term cessation. Contrary to previous concerns, smoking cessation interventions during addictions treatment appeared to enhance rather than compromise long-term sobriety.

Smoking cessation and alcohol consumption in individuals in treatment for alcohol use disorders

Most individuals with alcohol use disorders are dependent on both alcohol and nicotine, and combined use of both substances is more damaging to health than use of either alone. Although research indicates that alcoholics can quit smoking, discrepant results have been reported regarding whether smoking cessation is associated with increased risk of alcohol relapse. The purpose of this paper was to examine the relationship between smoking cessation and alcohol consumption using data from Project MATCH. Of the 1,307 participants who smoked at any point during the study, 160 (12%) quit. Quitters consumed less alcohol than those who continued smoking. In addition, quitters demonstrated a significant reduction in alcohol consumption at the time of smoking cessation, which was sustained for six months post-cessation. These findings suggest that individuals in treatment for alcohol use disorders who are motivated to stop smoking can safely be encouraged to do so without jeopardizing their sobriety.

Adding a nicotine blocking agent to cigarette tapering

A non-pharmacologic nicotine-blocking agent (Accu Drop; AD) was preliminarily tested in combination with cigarette tapering and brief counseling (C) in a random assignment, double-blind, placebo controlled, 6-week smoking cessation study (n = 60). It was hypothesized that the AD&C group would have higher rates of treatment completion and smoking abstinence than the placebo drop group plus counseling (PD&C). The participants were 37 women and 23 men averaging 24 cigarettes per day along with high Fagerstrom nicotine dependence scores (FTQ approximately 7) and high plasma cotinine levels (> 250ng/ml). There were no significant differences between groups for withdrawal scores, treatment completion (55%), or average number of sessions attended. Point prevalence followup evaluations were obtained 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months post projected treatment completion. Biochemically confirmed abstinence rates at followups did not differ between treatment groups (AD&C = 10%, 13%, 10% vs. PD&C = 3%, 10%, 13%). There is not enough evidence to suggest a Stage II trial.