A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Optimized Smoking Treatment Delivered in Primary Care

What to do after smoking relapse? A sequential multiple assignment randomized trial of chronic care smoking treatments

AIM

To compare effects of three post-relapse interventions on smoking abstinence.

DESIGN

Sequential three-phase multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART).

SETTING

Eighteen Wisconsin, USA, primary care clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1154 primary care patients (53.6% women, 81.2% White) interested in quitting smoking enrolled from 2015 to 2019; 582 relapsed and were randomized to relapse recovery treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

In phase 1, patients received cessation counseling and 8 weeks nicotine patch. Those who relapsed and agreed were randomized to a phase 2 relapse recovery group: (1) reduction counseling + nicotine mini-lozenges + encouragement to quit starting 1 month post-randomization (preparation); (2) repeated encouragement to quit starting immediately post-randomization (recycling); or (3) advice to call the tobacco quitline (control). The first two groups could opt into phase 3 new quit treatment [8 weeks nicotine patch + mini-lozenges plus randomization to two treatment factors (skill training and supportive counseling) in a 2 × 2 design]. Phase 2 and 3 interventions lasted ≤ 15 months.

MEASUREMENTS

The study was powered to compare each active phase 2 treatment with the control on the primary outcome: biochemically confirmed 7-day point-prevalence abstinence 14 months post initiating phase 2 relapse recovery treatment. Exploratory analyses tested for phase 3 counseling factor effects.

FINDINGS

Neither skill training nor supportive counseling (each on versus off) increased 14-month abstinence rates; skills on versus off 9.3% (14/151) versus 5.2% (8/153), P = 0.19; support on versus off 6.6% (10/152) versus 7.9% (12/152), P = 0.73. Phase 2 preparation did not produce higher 14-month abstinence rates than quitline referral; 3.6% (8/220) versus 2.1% [3/145; risk difference = 1.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.8-5.0%, odds ratio (OR) = 1.8, 95% CI = 0.5-6.9]. Recycling, however, produced higher abstinence rates than quitline referral; 6.9% (15/217) versus 2.1% (three of 145; risk difference, 4.8%, 95% CI = 0.7-8.9%, OR = 3.5, 95% CI = 1.0-12.4). Recycling produced greater entry into new quit treatment than preparation: 83.4% (181/217) versus 55.9% (123/220), P < 0.0001.

CONCLUSIONS

Among people interested in quitting smoking, immediate encouragement post-relapse to enter a new round of smoking cessation treatment ('recycling') produced higher probability of abstinence than tobacco quitline referral. Recycling produced higher rates of cessation treatment re-engagement than did preparation/cutting down using more intensive counseling and pharmacotherapy.

Estimating the Cost of Delivering Tobacco Cessation Intervention Package at Noncommunicable Disease Clinics in Two Districts of North India

INTRODUCTION

Integrated care is likely to improve outcomes in strained healthcare systems while limiting costs. NCD clinics were introduced under the "National Programme for Prevention and Control of Cancer, Diabetes, Cardiovascular Disease, and Stroke" (NPCDCS) in India; however, there is limited literature on the costs of delivering tobacco cessation interventions within NPCDCS. One of the study's objectives was to estimate the cost of delivering a culturally specific patient-centric behavioral intervention package in two district-level NCD clinics in Punjab, India.

METHODS

Costing was undertaken using the health systems perspective. A top-down or financial costing approach and a bottom-up or activity-based approach were employed at each step of development and implementation. The opportunity cost was used to include the cost of human resources, infrastructure, and capital resources used. All infrastructure and capital costs were annualized using a 3% annual discount rate. Four additional scenarios were built up concerning three major components to reduce costs further when rolled out on a large scale.

RESULTS

The cost of intervention package development, human resource training, and unit cost of implementation were estimated to be INR 6,47,827 (USD 8,874); INR 134,002 (USD 1810); and INR 272 (USD 3.67), respectively. Based on our sensitivity analysis results, the service delivery cost varied from INR 184 (USD 2.48) to INR 326 (USD 4.40) per patient.

CONCLUSION

The development costs of the intervention package accounted for the majority proportion of the total cost. Of the total unit cost of implementation, the telephonic follow-up, human resources, and capital resources were the major contributory components.

IMPLICATIONS

The current study aims to fill gaps by estimating the unit-level health systems cost of a culturally sensitive, disease-specific, and patient-centric tobacco cessation intervention package delivered at the outpatient settings of NCD clinics at the secondary level hospital, which represents a major link in the health care system of India. Findings from this study could be used to provide supportive evidence to policymakers and program managers for rolling out such interventions in established NCD clinics through the NPCDCS program of the Indian Government.

Smoking cessation through nicotine replacement therapy for patients visiting the Dental College, Pune - A quasi-experimental study

Background and Aim

Smoking leads to a very unhealthy lifestyle and has many deleterious effects on the body and surroundings. Studies have indicated that aiding contemplating smokers using behavior counseling and nicotine replacement therapy has shown positive results for abstaining from the habit. We aimed to assess and carry out smoking cessation for smokers using behavioral counseling, motivational interviewing, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and assess their carbon monoxide (CO) cutoff level, Fagerstrom nicotine dependence test (FTND) scoring, and transtheoretical model (TTM) of change at baseline and 6 months, along with abstinence from the habit.

Materials and Methods

CO cutoff, FTND scoring, and TTM of change were assessed at baseline and 6 months for smokers. Behavioral counseling with motivational interviewing was provided to the participants on the day of recruitment, and baseline data were recorded. All smokers included in the study were in the precontemplation and contemplation stages to quit smoking. Based on the frequency of smoking, NRT was prescribed to them in the form of a patch (21, 14, or 7 mg), only gums (2 mg), or a combination of both. Counseling was provided telephonically every month for 6 months. Urine cotinine assessment was carried out to verify the self-reported smoking status of the participants at the sixth month.

Results

The CO cutoff, FTND scoring, and TTM of change showed statistically significant difference from baseline to the sixth month. Also, 20% (confidence interval [CI] 0.10-0.33) of participants who abstained from the habit were in the action and maintenance stages of change. Among 20% of participants, 16% (CI 0.10-0.36) of participants self-reported quitting within 6 months using combination therapy. Two percent (CI 0.00-0.40) each abstained by using nicotine gums and combination therapy of patch and gums, which was validated through urine cotinine.

Conclusion

The cotinine test provided negative results, confirming the self-reported abstinence of 20% of participants, who were mostly male students and professionals in the age group of 20-40 years and those who used NRT. Nicotine patches provided the highest point prevalence of abstinence compared to gums and combination therapy.

Cost-Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Approaches in Emergency Departments

INTRODUCTION

Americans of lower SES use tobacco products at disproportionately high rates and are over-represented as patients of emergency departments. Accordingly, emergency department visits are an ideal time to initiate tobacco treatment and aftercare for this vulnerable and understudied population. This research estimates the costs per quit of emergency department smoking-cessation interventions and compares them with those of other approaches.

METHODS

Previously published research described the effectiveness of 2 multicomponent smoking cessation interventions, including brief negotiated interviewing, nicotine replacement therapy, quitline referral, and follow-up communication. Study 1 (collected in 2010-2012) only analyzed the combined interventions. Study 2 (collected in 2017-2019) analyzed the intervention components independently. Costs per participant and per quit were estimated separately, under distinct intervention with dedicated staff and intervention with repurposed staff assumptions. The distinction concerns whether the intervention used dedicated staff for delivery or whether time from existing staff was repurposed for intervention if available.

RESULTS

Data were analyzed in 2021-2022. In the first study, the cost per participant was $860 (2018 dollars), and the cost per quit was $11,814 (95% CI=$7,641, $25,423) (dedicated) and $227 per participant and $3,121 per quit (95% CI=$1,910, $7,012) (repurposed). In Study 2, the combined effect of brief negotiated interviewing, nicotine replacement therapy, and quitline cost $808 per participant and $6,100 per quit (dedicated) (95% CI=$4,043, $12,274) and $221 per participant and $1,669 per quit (95% CI=$1,052, $3,531) (repurposed).

CONCLUSIONS

Costs varied considerably per method used but were comparable with those of other smoking cessation interventions.

Cancer-related Fatigue in Lung Cancer: A Research Agenda: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Background: Fatigue is the most common symptom among cancer survivors. Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) may occur at any point in the cancer care continuum. Multiple factors contribute to CRF development and severity, including cancer type, treatments, presence of other symptoms, comorbidities, and medication side effects. Clinically, increasing physical activity, enhancing sleep quality, and recognizing sleep disorders are integral to managing CRF. Unfortunately, CRF is infrequently recognized, evaluated, or treated in lung cancer survivors despite more frequent and severe symptoms than in other cancers. Therefore, increased awareness and understanding of CRF are needed to improve health-related quality of life in lung cancer survivors. Objectives: 1) To identify and prioritize knowledge and research gaps and 2) to develop and prioritize research questions to evaluate mechanistic, diagnostic, and therapeutic approaches to CRF among lung cancer survivors. Methods: We convened a multidisciplinary panel to review the available literature on CRF, focusing on the impacts of physical activity, rehabilitation, and sleep disturbances in lung cancer. We used a three-round modified Delphi process to prioritize research questions. Results: This statement identifies knowledge gaps in the 1) detection and diagnostic evaluation of CRF in lung cancer survivors; 2) timing, goals, and implementation of physical activity and rehabilitation; and 3) evaluation and treatment of sleep disturbances and disorders to reduce CRF. Finally, we present the panel's initial 32 research questions and seven final prioritized questions. Conclusions: This statement offers a prioritized research agenda to 1) advance clinical and research efforts and 2) increase awareness of CRF in lung cancer survivors.

Outcomes of a Comprehensive Mobile Smoking Cessation Program With Nicotine Replacement Therapy in Adult Smokers: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking remains the leading cause of preventable illness and death, underscoring ongoing need for evidence-based solutions. Pivot, a US Clinical Practice Guideline-based mobile smoking cessation program, comprises a personal carbon monoxide breath sensor; a smartphone app; in-app, text-based human-provided coaching; nicotine replacement therapy; and a moderated web-based community. Promising Pivot cohort studies have established the foundation for comparative assessment.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare engagement, retention, attitudes toward quitting smoking, smoking behavior, and participant feedback between Pivot and QuitGuide, a US Clinical Practice Guideline-based smoking cessation smartphone app from the National Cancer Institute.

METHODS

In this remote pilot randomized controlled trial, cigarette smokers in the United States were recruited on the web and randomized to Pivot or QuitGuide. Participants were offered 12 weeks of free nicotine replacement therapy. Data were self-reported via weekly web-based questionnaires for 12 weeks and at 26 weeks. Outcomes included engagement and retention, attitudes toward quitting smoking, smoking behavior, and participant feedback. The primary outcome was self-reported app openings at 12 weeks. Cessation outcomes included self-reported 7- and 30-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA), abstinence from all tobacco products, and continuous abstinence at 12 and 26 weeks. PPA and continuous abstinence were biovalidated via breath carbon monoxide samples.

RESULTS

Participants comprised 188 smokers (94 Pivot and 94 QuitGuide): mean age 46.4 (SD 9.2) years, 104 (55.3%) women, 128 (68.1%) White individuals, and mean cigarettes per day 17.6 (SD 9.0). Engagement via mean "total app openings through 12 weeks" (primary outcome) was Pivot, 157.9 (SD 210.6) versus QuitGuide, 86.5 (SD 66.3; P<.001). Self-reported 7-day PPA at 12 and 26 weeks was Pivot, 35% (33/94) versus QuitGuide, 28% (26/94; intention to treat [ITT]: P=.28) and Pivot, 36% (34/94) versus QuitGuide, 27% (25/94; ITT: P=.12), respectively. Self-reported 30-day PPA at 12 and 26 weeks was Pivot, 29% (27/94) versus QuitGuide, 22% (21/94; ITT: P=.32) and Pivot, 32% (30/94) versus QuitGuide, 22% (21/94; ITT: P=.12), respectively. The biovalidated abstinence rate at 12 weeks was Pivot, 29% (27/94) versus QuitGuide, 13% (12/94; ITT: P=.008). Biovalidated continuous abstinence at 26 weeks was Pivot, 21% (20/94) versus QuitGuide, 10% (9/94; ITT: P=.03). Participant feedback, including ease of setup, impact on smoking, and likelihood of program recommendation were favorable for Pivot.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized controlled trial comparing the app-based smoking cessation programs Pivot and QuitGuide, Pivot participants had higher engagement and biovalidated cessation rates and more favorable user feedback at 12 and 26 weeks. These findings support Pivot as an effective, durable mobile smoking cessation program.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04955639; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04955639.

Mobile Chat Messaging for Preventing Smoking Relapse Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic had reduced access to traditional, in-person smoking cessation treatment. We examined the feasibility, acceptability, and potential effectiveness of mobile chat messaging in preventing smoking relapse in smokers who have recently quit smoking.

METHODS

In this assessor-blinded, pilot randomized controlled trial in five cessation clinics, we recruited adult daily smokers who had been receiving cessation treatments and abstained for 3 to 30 days. The intervention group received real-time, personalized chat messaging on relapse prevention via WhatsApp for 3 months. The control group received generic text messaging on the harms of smoking and benefits of quitting for 3 months. The primary outcome was carbon monoxide-validated abstinence at 6 months post-treatment initiation. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04409496).

RESULTS

From June to July 2020, 108 of 130 (83%) eligible subjects were randomized to the intervention (N = 54) or control (N = 54) groups. The retention rate was 93% at 3 months (end of treatment) and 85% at 6 months. In the intervention group, 80% of participants responded to the chat messages at least once; 43% continuously engaged with the intervention over the 3-month intervention period. By intention-to-treat, validated abstinence at 6 months was higher in the intervention than control group (31% vs. 22%), with a relative risk of 1.72 (95% CI = 0.91% to 3.23%; p = .09) after adjusting for pre-quit nicotine dependence, duration of abstinence, and cessation treatment at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot trial showed the feasibility and acceptability of mobile chat messaging for relapse prevention with preliminary evidence on its effectiveness in increasing validated abstinence.

IMPLICATIONS

Smoking relapse is the most likely outcome of smoking cessation attempts and an undertreated problem. This pilot trial showed the feasibility and acceptability of personalized chat messaging via WhatsApp for relapse prevention in recent abstainers amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The higher carbon monoxide-validated abstinence rate in participants who received chat messaging than controls showed preliminary evidence on the effectiveness of the intervention. Fully powered trials are warranted to test the intervention.

Examining the effect of exercise on the relationship between affect and cravings among smokers engaged in cessation treatment

Cigarette smoking is associated with multiple adverse health outcomes. When smokers attempt to quit smoking, one of the leading predictors of relapse are cravings. Recent research shows a relationship between positive and negative affect, exercise, and cravings, but the exact nature of this relationship has yet to be understood. This study explored the relationships between positive and negative affect and cravings in a sample of participants with elevated levels of depressive symptoms (N = 202; 68.8% female; mean age = 46.1 years) who were enrolled in a smoking cessation trial to test the efficacy of a 12-week exercise intervention relative to a health education control on smoking outcomes. Data on affect and craving were gathered before weekly study intervention sessions, and data on cravings were gathered again after each session. The results showed that negative affect had a significant and positive association with cravings before an exercise or health education session. After the session, positive and negative affect were not significant predictors of changes in cravings from pre-session. However, regardless of level of positive or negative affect participants in the exercise condition showed greater reductions in craving pre- to post-class than those in the control condition. These findings suggest that negative affect is associated with cravings, but cravings can be mitigated by exercise.

Human-centered design methods to achieve preparation phase goals in the multiphase optimization strategy framework

Background

The public health impact of behavioral and biobehavioral interventions to prevent and treat mental health and substance use problems hinges on developing methods to strategically maximize their effectiveness, affordability, scalability, and efficiency.

Methods

The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) is an innovative, principled framework that guides the development of multicomponent interventions. Each phase of MOST (Preparation, Optimization, Evaluation) has explicit goals and a range of appropriate research methods to achieve them. Methods for attaining Optimization and Evaluation phase goals are well-developed. However, methods used in the Preparation phase are often highly researcher-specific, and concrete ways to achieve Preparation phase goals are a priority area for further development.

Results

We propose that the discover, design, build, and test (DDBT) framework provides a theory-driven and methods-rich roadmap for achieving the goals of the Preparation phase of MOST, including specifying the conceptual model, identifying and testing candidate intervention components, and defining the optimization objective. The DDBT framework capitalizes on strategies from the field of human-centered design and implementation science to drive its data collection methods.

Conclusions

MOST and DDBT share many conceptual features, including an explicit focus on implementation determinants, being iterative and flexible, and designing interventions for the greatest public health impact. The proposed synthesized DDBT/MOST approach integrates DDBT into the Preparation phase of MOST thereby providing a framework for rigorous and efficient intervention development research to bolster the success of intervention optimization.

Plain Language Summary

1. What is already known about the topic? Optimizing behavioral interventions to balance effectiveness with affordability, scalability, and efficiency requires a significant investment in intervention development.2. What does this paper add? This paper provides a structured approach to integrating human-centered design principles into the Preparation phase of the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST).3. What are the implications for practice, research, or policy? The proposed synthesized model provides a framework for rigorous and efficient intervention development research in the Preparation phase of MOST that will ensure the success of intervention optimization and contribute to improving public health impact of mental health and substance use interventions.

Daily use of nicotine replacement medications is related to daily smoking status: An ecological momentary assessment study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined how daily adherence to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) impacts daily smoking abstinence.

METHODS

Data from a pilot randomized controlled trial of a smartphone-based smoking cessation intervention were used. Separate, generalized linear mixed models examined the association between ecological momentary assessments of NRT use and same-day and next day smoking status. Separate models examined the relationship between daily smoking status and (1) any use of NRT, (2) quantity of nicotine gum used, and (3) nicotine patch wear time. Reasons for medication non-adherence were also examined.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 77) were predominantly White (66.2%) and female (50.6%), 50.4 years old (SD=11.6) on average, and they smoked an average of 21.8 cigarettes per day (SD=11.0) at baseline. Daily NRT use was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of smoking both within that same day and the following day. While using the gum and patch together, and using the patch alone were associated with reduced odds of same-day and next-day smoking, using the gum alone was not significantly associated with reduced odds of smoking. The most commonly cited reasons for not using the patch or gum was "other" (43.3%), followed by "side effects" (27.1%), and "forgot" (18.9%).

CONCLUSION

Daily use of the patch or both the patch and gum was associated with a lower risk of daily smoking. Low levels of nicotine gum use alone may not be an effective cessation strategy. Future studies should further explore reasons for NRT non-compliance, and ways to increase NRT adherence.

One view of the next decade of research on behavioral and biobehavioral approaches to cancer prevention and control: intervention optimization

As a new decade begins, we propose that the time is right to reexamine current methods and procedures and look for opportunities to accelerate progress in cancer prevention and control. In this article we offer our view of the next decade of research on behavioral and biobehavioral interventions for cancer prevention and control. We begin by discussing and questioning several implicit conventions. We then briefly introduce an alternative research framework: the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST). MOST, a principled framework for intervention development, optimization, and evaluation, stresses not only intervention effectiveness, but also intervention affordability, scalability, and efficiency. We review some current limitations of MOST along with future directions for methodological work in this area, and suggest some changes in the scientific environment we believe would permit wider adoption of intervention optimization. We propose that wider adoption of intervention optimization would have a positive impact on development and successful implementation of interventions for cancer prevention and control and on intervention science more broadly, including accumulation of a coherent base of knowledge about what works and what does not; establishment of an empirical basis for adaptation of interventions to different settings with different levels and types of resources; and, in the long run, acceleration of progress from Stage 0 to Stage V in the National Institutes of Health Model of Stages of Intervention Development.

The preparation phase in the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST): a systematic review and introduction of a reporting checklist

Multicomponent behavioral interventions developed using the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) framework offer important advantages over alternative intervention development models by focusing on outcomes within constraints relevant for effective dissemination. MOST consists of three phases: preparation, optimization, and evaluation. The preparation phase is critical to establishing the foundation for the optimization and evaluation phases; thus, detailed reporting is critical to enhancing rigor and reproducibility. A systematic review of published research using the MOST framework was conducted. A structured framework was used to describe and summarize the use of MOST terminology (i.e., preparation phase and optimization objective) and the presentation of preparation work, the conceptual model, and the optimization. Fifty-eight articles were reviewed and the majority focused on either describing the methodology or presenting results of an optimization trial (n = 38, 66%). Although almost all articles identified intervention components (96%), there was considerable variability in the degree to which authors fully described other elements of MOST. In particular, there was less consistency in use of MOST terminology. Reporting on the MOST preparation phase is varied, and there is a need for increased focus on explicit articulation of key design elements and rationale of the preparation phase. The proposed checklist for reporting MOST studies would significantly advance the use of this emerging methodology and improve implementation and dissemination of MOST. Accurate reporting is essential to reproducibility and rigor of scientific trials as it ensures future research fully understands not only the methodology, but the rationale for intervention and optimization decisions.

Barriers to Building More Effective Treatments: Negative Interactions Amongst Smoking Intervention Components

Meaningfully improved mental and behavioral health treatment is an unrealized dream. Across three factorial experiments, inferential tests in prior studies showed a pattern of negative interactions suggesting that better clinical outcomes are obtained when participants receive fewer rather than more intervention components. Further, relatively few significant main effects were found in these experiments. Modeling suggested that negative interactions amongst components may account for these patterns. This paper evaluates factors that may contribute to such declining benefit: increased attentional or effort burden; components that produce their effects via the same capacity limited mechanisms, making their effects subadditive; and a tipping point phenomenon in which those near a hypothesized "tipping point" for change will benefit markedly from weak intervention while those far from the tipping point will benefit little from even strong intervention. New research should explore factors that cause negative interactions amongst components and constrain the development of more effective treatments.

Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes.

DESIGN

Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results.

SETTING

Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events.

DATA SOURCES

Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model.

RESULTS

Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard.

LIMITATIONS

Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK.

FUTURE WORK

Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care

BACKGROUND

Primary care is an important setting in which to treat tobacco addiction. However, the rates at which providers address smoking cessation and the success of that support vary. Strategies can be implemented to improve and increase the delivery of smoking cessation support (e.g. through provider training), and to increase the amount and breadth of support given to people who smoke (e.g. through additional counseling or tailored printed materials).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of strategies intended to increase the success of smoking cessation interventions in primary care settings. To assess whether any effect that these interventions have on smoking cessation may be due to increased implementation by healthcare providers.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries to 10 September 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs (cRCTs) carried out in primary care, including non-pregnant adults. Studies investigated a strategy or strategies to improve the implementation or success of smoking cessation treatment in primary care. These strategies could include interventions designed to increase or enhance the quality of existing support, or smoking cessation interventions offered in addition to standard care (adjunctive interventions). Intervention strategies had to be tested in addition to and in comparison with standard care, or in addition to other active intervention strategies if the effect of an individual strategy could be isolated. Standard care typically incorporates physician-delivered brief behavioral support, and an offer of smoking cessation medication, but differs across studies. Studies had to measure smoking abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome - smoking abstinence - was measured using the most rigorous intention-to-treat definition available. We also extracted outcome data for quit attempts, and the following markers of healthcare provider performance: asking about smoking status; advising on cessation; assessment of participant readiness to quit; assisting with cessation; arranging follow-up for smoking participants. Where more than one study investigated the same strategy or set of strategies, and measured the same outcome, we conducted meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects methods to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 81 RCTs and cRCTs, involving 112,159 participants. Fourteen were rated at low risk of bias, 44 at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. We identified moderate-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that the provision of adjunctive counseling by a health professional other than the physician (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.55; I2 = 44%; 22 studies, 18,150 participants), and provision of cost-free medications (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.76; I2 = 63%; 10 studies,7560 participants) increased smoking quit rates in primary care. There was also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that the addition of tailored print materials to standard smoking cessation treatment increased the number of people who had successfully stopped smoking at six months' follow-up or more (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.59; I2 = 37%; 6 studies, 15,978 participants). There was no clear evidence that providing participants who smoked with biomedical risk feedback increased their likelihood of quitting (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.41; I2 = 40%; 7 studies, 3491 participants), or that provider smoking cessation training (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.41; I2 = 66%; 7 studies, 13,685 participants) or provider incentives (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 2454 participants) increased smoking abstinence rates. However, in assessing the former two strategies we judged the evidence to be of low certainty and in assessing the latter strategies it was of very low certainty. We downgraded the evidence due to imprecision, inconsistency and risk of bias across these comparisons. There was some indication that provider training increased the delivery of smoking cessation support, along with the provision of adjunctive counseling and cost-free medications. However, our secondary outcomes were not measured consistently, and in many cases analyses were subject to substantial statistical heterogeneity, imprecision, or both, making it difficult to draw conclusions. Thirty-four studies investigated multicomponent interventions to improve smoking cessation rates. There was substantial variation in the combinations of strategies tested, and the resulting individual study effect estimates, precluding meta-analyses in most cases. Meta-analyses provided some evidence that adjunctive counseling combined with either cost-free medications or provider training enhanced quit rates when compared with standard care alone. However, analyses were limited by small numbers of events, high statistical heterogeneity, and studies at high risk of bias. Analyses looking at the effects of combining provider training with flow sheets to aid physician decision-making, and with outreach facilitation, found no clear evidence that these combinations increased quit rates; however, analyses were limited by imprecision, and there was some indication that these approaches did improve some forms of provider implementation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that providing adjunctive counseling by an allied health professional, cost-free smoking cessation medications, and tailored printed materials as part of smoking cessation support in primary care can increase the number of people who achieve smoking cessation. There is no clear evidence that providing participants with biomedical risk feedback, or primary care providers with training or incentives to provide smoking cessation support enhance quit rates. However, we rated this evidence as of low or very low certainty, and so conclusions are likely to change as further evidence becomes available. Most of the studies in this review evaluated smoking cessation interventions that had already been extensively tested in the general population. Further studies should assess strategies designed to optimize the delivery of those interventions already known to be effective within the primary care setting. Such studies should be cluster-randomized to account for the implications of implementation in this particular setting. Due to substantial variation between studies in this review, identifying optimal characteristics of multicomponent interventions to improve the delivery of smoking cessation treatment was challenging. Future research could use component network meta-analysis to investigate this further.

Cost evaluation of tobacco control interventions in clinical settings: A systematic review

Elucidating the cost implications of tobacco control interventions is a prerequisite to their adoption in clinical settings. This review fills a knowledge gap in characterizing the extent to which cost is measured in tobacco control studies. A search of English literature was conducted in the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, EconLit, PsychINFO, and CINAHL using MeSH terms from 2009 to 2018. Studies were reviewed by two independent reviewers and included if they were conducted in U.S. inpatient or outpatient facilities and reported costs associated with a tobacco control intervention. They were categorized according to evaluation type, clinical setting, target population, cost measures, and stakeholder perspective. Bias risk was evaluated for RCTs. Seventeen publications were included, representing counseling interventions (n = 8) and combination (i.e., counseling and pharmacotherapy) interventions (n = 9). Studies were categorized by evaluation type: cost-effectiveness analysis (n = 10), cost utility analysis (n = 3) and cost identification (n = 4). The selected studies targeted the following populations: general adults (n = 6), hospitalized/inpatient (n = 4), military/veterans (n = 4), individuals with low socioeconomic status (n = 4), mental health or medical comorbidities (n = 2), and pregnant women (n = 2). Intervention costs included personnel, medication, education material, technology, and overhead costs. Stakeholder perspectives included: healthcare organization (n = 10), payer (n = 8), patient (n = 2), and societal (n = 1). Few studies have reported the cost of tobacco control interventions in clinical settings. Cost is a critical outcome that should be consistently measured in evaluations of tobacco control interventions to promote their uptake in clinical settings.

Cessation classification likelihood increases with higher expired-air carbon monoxide cutoffs: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Expired-air carbon monoxide (CO) is commonly used to biochemically verify smoking status. The CO cutoff and CO monitor brand may affect the probability of classifying smokers as abstinent, thus influencing conclusions about the efficacy of cessation trials. No systematic reviews have tested this hypothesis. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis examining whether the likelihood of smoking cessation classification varied due to CO cutoff and monitor brand.

METHODS

Eligible studies (k = 122) longitudinally assessed CO-verified cessation in adult smokers in randomized trials. Primary meta-regressions separately assessed differences in quit classification likelihood due to continuous and categorical CO cutoffs (Low, 3-4 parts per million [ppm]; [SRNT] Recommended, 5-6 ppm; Moderate, 7-8 ppm; and High, 9-10 ppm); exploratory analyses compared likelihood outcomes between monitor brands: Bedfont and Vitalograph.

RESULTS

The likelihood of quit classification increased 18% with each 1 ppm increase above the lowest cutoff (3 ppm). Odds of classification as quit significantly increased between each cutoff category and High: 261% increase from Low; 162% increase from Recommended; and 150% increase from Moderate. There were no differences in cessation classification between monitor brands.

CONCLUSIONS

As expected, higher CO cutoffs were associated with greater likelihood of cessation classification. The lack of CO monitor brand differences may have been due to model-level variance not able to be followed up in the present dataset. Researchers are advised to report outcomes using a range of cutoffs-including the recommended range (5-6 ppm)-and the CO monitor brand/model used. Using higher CO cutoffs significantly increases likelihood of quit classification, possibly artificially elevating treatment strategies.

Time-varying effects of 'optimized smoking treatment' on craving, negative affect and anhedonia

AIMS

To identify when smoking cessation treatments affect craving, negative affect and anhedonia, and how these symptoms relate to abstinence, to help evaluate the effects of particular intervention components in multi-component treatments and accelerate treatment refinement.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of data from a two-arm randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Seven primary care clinics in Wisconsin, United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult primary care patients who smoked daily (n = 574).

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

Intervention was abstinence-optimized treatment (A-OT, n = 276) comprising 3 weeks of nicotine mini-lozenges pre-target quit day (TQD), 26 weeks of combination nicotine patch and mini-lozenges post-TQD and extensive psychosocial support. The comparator was recommended usual care (RUC, n = 298), comprising brief counseling and 8 weeks of nicotine patch post-TQD.

MEASUREMENTS

Time-varying effect models examined dynamic effects of A-OT (versus RUC) on the primary outcomes of nightly cigarette craving, negative affect and anhedonia from 1 week pre- to 2 weeks post-TQD. Exploratory models examined within-person relations between nicotine medication use and same-day symptom ratings. Secondary logistic regression analyses examined associations between post-TQD craving, negative affect and anhedonia and 1-month post-TQD abstinence.

FINDINGS

A-OT significantly suppressed pre- and post-TQD craving (β = -0.27 to -0.46 across days) and post-TQD anhedonia (β = -0.24 to -0.38 across days), relative to RUC. Within individuals, using patches was associated with lower negative affect in RUC (β = -0.42 to -0.52), but not in A-OT. Using more mini-lozenges was associated with greater craving (β = 0.04-0.07) and negative affect (β = 0.03-0.05) early, and with lower anhedonia (β = -0.06 to -0.12) later. Greater post-TQD craving (OR = 0.68) and anhedonia (OR = 0.85) predicted lower odds of abstinence 1 month post-TQD.

CONCLUSION

Time-varying effect models showed that a multi-component treatment intervention for smoking cessation suppressed significant withdrawal symptoms more effectively than recommended usual care among daily adult smokers motivated to quit. The intervention reduced craving pre- and post-target quit day (TQD) and anhedonia post-TQD.

Predictors of Smoking Cessation Attempts and Success Following Motivation-Phase Interventions Among People Initially Unwilling to Quit Smoking

INTRODUCTION

Most people who smoke cigarettes are not willing (ie, not ready) to make a quit attempt (QA) at any given time. Unfortunately, interventions intended to increase QAs and the success of QAs are only modestly effective. Identifying processes leading to QAs and quitting success could guide intervention development.

AIMS AND METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of a randomized factorial trial of 6 weeks of motivation-phase interventions among primary care patients (N = 517) who were initially unwilling to quit but were willing to reduce their smoking. Using logistic regression, we controlled for treatment condition and tested whether baseline or change in smoking-related constructs after 6 weeks of treatment predicted (1) making an at least 24 h QA between weeks 6 and 26 and (2) quitting success at week 26 (7-day point-prevalence abstinence among those who made a QA). Predictors included cigarettes/day, time to first cigarette, motivation to quit, quitting self-efficacy, anticipated urges to smoke if quit, positive affect, negative affect, and time spent around others who smoke.

RESULTS

In multivariable models that included all smoking-related constructs, changes in the following variables predicted initiating a QA above and beyond other variables: greater baseline time to first cigarette (odds ratio [OR] = 1.60), increases in time to first cigarette (OR = 1.27), and increases in quitting self-efficacy (OR = 1.14). Increased motivation to quit predicted conversion of a QA into quitting success at 26 weeks (OR = 1.36).

CONCLUSION

Predictors of making a QA differed from predictors of quitting success. Predictors of QAs and success could each serve as important treatment targets of motivation-phase interventions.

IMPLICATIONS

Motivation-phase interventions for people initially unwilling to quit smoking cigarettes may be improved by striving to increase their (1) time to first cigarette and quitting self-efficacy to promote QAs and (2) motivation to quit to promote quit success. Future experimental tests of such interventions are needed to identify causal determinants of QAs and quitting success.

Biochemical Verification of Tobacco Use and Abstinence: 2019 Update

BACKGROUND

The changing prevalence and patterns of tobacco use, the advent of novel nicotine delivery devices, and the development of new biomarkers prompted an update of the 2002 Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) report on whether and how to apply biomarker verification for tobacco use and abstinence.

METHODS

The SRNT Treatment Research Network convened a group of investigators with expertise in tobacco biomarkers to update the recommendations of the 2002 SNRT Biochemical Verification Report.

RESULTS

Biochemical verification of tobacco use and abstinence increases scientific rigor and is recommended in clinical trials of smoking cessation, when feasible. Sources, appropriate biospecimens, cutpoints, time of detection windows and analytic methods for carbon monoxide, cotinine (including over the counter tests), total nicotine equivalents, minor tobacco alkaloids, and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol are reviewed, as well as biochemical approaches to distinguishing cigarette smoking from use of electronic nicotine delivery devices (ENDS).

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations are provided for whether and how to use biochemical verification of tobacco use and abstinence. Guidelines are provided on which biomarkers to use, which biospecimens to use, optimal cutpoints, time windows to detection, and methodology for biochemical verifications. Use of combinations of biomarkers is recommended for assessment of ENDS use.

IMPLICATIONS

Biochemical verification increases scientific rigor, but there are drawbacks that need to be assessed to determine whether the benefits of biochemical verification outweigh the costs, including the cost of the assays, the feasibility of sample collection, the ability to draw clear conclusions based on the duration of abstinence, and the variability of the assay within the study population. This paper provides updated recommendations from the 2002 SRNT report on whether and how to use biochemical markers in determining tobacco use and abstinence.

Nicotine replacement therapy sampling for smoking cessation within primary care: results from a pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Within the context of busy clinical settings, health-care providers need practical, evidence-based options to engage smokers in quitting. Sampling of nicotine replacement therapy [i.e. provision of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT starter kits)] is a brief, pragmatic strategy to address this need. We aimed to compare the effects of NRT sampling plus standard care (SC), relative to SC alone, provided by primary care providers during routine clinic visits.

DESIGN

Cluster-randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Twenty-two primary care clinics in South Carolina, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult smokers [n = 1245; 61% female, mean age = 50.7, standard deviation (SD) = 13.5] both motivated and unmotivated to quit, seen during routine clinical visit. Interventions were provider-delivered SC (n = 652, 12 clinics) cessation advice or SC + a 2-week supply of both nicotine patch and lozenge, with minimal instructions on use (n = 593; 10 clinics).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at 6-month follow-up, using intent-to-treat. Additional outcomes included NRT use and quit attempts, assessed at 1, 3 and 6 months following baseline.

FINDINGS

Seven-day point prevalence abstinence rates were significantly higher in the NRT sampling group throughout follow-up, including at 6 months [12 versus 8%, odds ratio (OR) = 1.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.0-2.4]. NRT sampling increased prevalence of any use of NRT (65 versus 25%, OR = 5.8, 95% CI = 4.3-7.7), with higher prevalence of use at 6 months (25 versus 14%, OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.5-2.7). NRT sampling increased the rate of quit attempts in the initial month (24 versus 18%, OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.0-2.3) but had no significant effect on overall rate of quit attempts (48 versus 45%, OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.8-1.7).

CONCLUSION

Providing smokers with a free 2-week starter kit of nicotine replacement therapy increased quit attempts, use of stop smoking medications and smoking abstinence compared with standard care in a primary care setting.

Optimizing the development and evaluation of complex interventions: lessons learned from the BetterBirth Program and associated trial

BACKGROUND

Despite extensive efforts to develop and refine intervention packages, complex interventions often fail to produce the desired health impacts in full-scale evaluations. A recent example of this phenomenon is BetterBirth, a complex intervention designed to implement the World Health Organization's Safe Childbirth Checklist and improve maternal and neonatal health. Using data from the BetterBirth Program and its associated trial as a case study, we identified lessons to assist in the development and evaluation of future complex interventions.

METHODS

BetterBirth was refined across three sequential development phases prior to being tested in a matched-pair, cluster randomized trial in Uttar Pradesh, India. We reviewed published and internal materials from all three development phases to identify barriers hindering the identification of an optimal intervention package and identified corresponding lessons learned. For each lesson, we describe its importance and provide an example motivated by the BetterBirth Program's development to illustrate how it could be applied to future studies.

RESULTS

We identified three lessons: (1) develop a robust theory of change (TOC); (2) define optimization outcomes, which are used to assess the effectiveness of the intervention across development phases, and corresponding criteria for success, which determine whether the intervention has been sufficiently optimized to warrant full-scale evaluation; and (3) create and capture variation in the implementation intensity of components. When applying these lessons to the BetterBirth intervention, we demonstrate how a TOC could have promoted more complete data collection. We propose an optimization outcome and related criteria for success and illustrate how they could have resulted in additional development phases prior to the full-scale trial. Finally, we show how variation in components' implementation intensities could have been used to identify effective intervention components.

CONCLUSION

These lessons learned can be applied during both early and advanced stages of complex intervention development and evaluation. By using examples from a real-world study to demonstrate the relevance of these lessons and illustrating how they can be applied in practice, we hope to encourage future researchers to collect and analyze data in a way that promotes more effective complex intervention development and evaluation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02148952; registered on May 29, 2014.

Factorial Designs Help to Understand How Psychological Therapy Works

A large amount of research time and resources are spent trying to develop or improve psychological therapies. However, treatment development is challenging and time-consuming, and the typical research process followed-a series of standard randomized controlled trials-is inefficient and sub-optimal for answering many important clinical research questions. In other areas of health research, recognition of these challenges has led to the development of sophisticated designs tailored to increase research efficiency and answer more targeted research questions about treatment mechanisms or optimal delivery. However, these innovations have largely not permeated into psychological treatment development research. There is a recognition of the need to understand how treatments work and what their active ingredients might be, and a call for the use of innovative trial designs to support such discovery. One approach to unpack the active ingredients and mechanisms of therapy is the factorial design as exemplified in the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) approach. The MOST design allows identification of the active components of a complex multi-component intervention (such as CBT) using a sophisticated factorial design, allowing the development of more efficient interventions and elucidating their mechanisms of action. The rationale, design, and potential advantages of this approach will be illustrated with reference to the IMPROVE-2 study, which conducts a fractional factorial design to investigate which elements (e.g., thought challenging, activity scheduling, compassion, relaxation, concreteness, functional analysis) within therapist-supported internet-delivered CBT are most effective at reducing symptoms of depression in 767 adults with major depression. By using this innovative approach, we can first begin to work out what components within the overall treatment package are most efficacious on average allowing us to build an overall more streamlined and potent therapy. This approach also has potential to distinguish the role of specific versus non-specific common treatment components within treatment.

Predictors of adherence to nicotine replacement therapy: Machine learning evidence that perceived need predicts medication use

BACKGROUND

Nonadherence to smoking cessation medication is a frequent problem. Identifying pre-quit predictors of nonadherence may help explain nonadherence and suggest tailored interventions to address it.

AIMS

Identify and characterize subgroups of smokers based on adherence to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).

METHOD

Secondary classification tree analyses of data from a 2-arm randomized controlled trial of Recommended Usual Care (R-UC, n = 315) versus Abstinence-Optimized Treatment (A-OT, n = 308) were conducted. R-UC comprised 8 weeks of nicotine patch plus brief counseling whereas A-OT comprised 3 weeks of pre-quit mini-lozenges, 26 weeks of nicotine patch plus mini-lozenges, 11 counseling contacts, and 7-11 automated reminders to use medication. Analyses identified subgroups of smokers highly adherent to nicotine patch use in both treatment conditions, and identified subgroups of A-OT participants highly adherent to mini-lozenges.

RESULTS

Varied facets of nicotine dependence predicted adherence across treatment conditions 4 weeks post-quit and between 4- and 16-weeks post-quit in A-OT, with greater baseline dependence and greater smoking trigger exposure and reactivity predicting greater medication use. Greater quitting motivation and confidence, and believing that stop smoking medication was safe and easy to use were associated with greater adherence.

CONCLUSION

Adherence was especially high in those who were more dependent and more exposed to smoking triggers. Quitting motivation and confidence predicted greater adherence, while negative beliefs about medication safety and acceptability predicted worse adherence. Results suggest that adherent use of medication may reflect a rational appraisal of the likelihood that one will need medication and will benefit from it.