A clinical trial comparing smoking cessation interventions at two levels of intensity in stroke patients, stratified by the presence of insular cortex lesions

Sex-Related Differences in Post-Stroke Anxiety, Depression and Quality of Life in a Cohort of Smokers

BACKGROUND

We aimed to study anxiety, depression and quality of life in smokers after stroke by sex.

METHODS

A longitudinal prospective study with a 24-month follow-up of acute stroke patients who were previously active smokers. Anxiety and depression were evaluated with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, and quality of life was evaluated with the EQ-5D questionnaire.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty patients participated (79.4% men); their mean age was 57.6 years. Anxiety was most prevalent at 3 months (18.9% in men and 40.5% in women) and depression at 12 months (17.9% in men and 27% in women). The worst perceived health occurred at 24 months (EQ-VAS 67.5 in men and 65.1 in women), which was associated with depression (p < 0.001) and Rankin Scale was worse in men (p < 0.001) and depression in women (p < 0.001). Continued tobacco use was associated with worse perceived health at 3 months in men (p = 0.034) and at 12 months in both sexes. Predictor variables of worse perceived health at 24 months remaining at 3 and 12 months were tobacco use in men and neurological damage in women.

CONCLUSION

Differences by sex are observed in the prevalence of anxiety and depression and associated factors and in the predictive factors of perceived health.

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

In 2020, 32.6% of the world's population used tobacco. Smoking contributes to many illnesses that require hospitalisation. A hospital admission may prompt a quit attempt. Initiating smoking cessation treatment, such as pharmacotherapy and/or counselling, in hospitals may be an effective preventive health strategy. Pharmacotherapies work to reduce withdrawal/craving and counselling provides behavioural skills for quitting smoking. This review updates the evidence on interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, to understand the most effective smoking cessation treatment methods for hospitalised smokers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of any type of smoking cessation programme for patients admitted to an acute care hospital.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 7 September 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised studies of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients admitted to hospital quit. Interventions had to start in the hospital (including at discharge), and people had to have smoked within the last month. We excluded studies in psychiatric, substance and rehabilitation centres, as well as studies that did not measure abstinence at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from smoking assessed at least six months after discharge or the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically-validated rates where reported. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 82 studies (74 RCTs) that included 42,273 participants in the review (71 studies, 37,237 participants included in the meta-analyses); 36 studies are new to this update. We rated 10 studies as being at low risk of bias overall (low risk in all domains assessed), 48 at high risk of bias overall (high risk in at least one domain), and the remaining 24 at unclear risk. Cessation counselling versus no counselling, grouped by intensity of intervention Hospitalised patients who received smoking cessation counselling that began in the hospital and continued for more than a month after discharge had higher quit rates than patients who received no counselling in the hospital or following hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.49; 28 studies, 8234 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might account for an additional 76 quitters in every 1000 participants (95% CI 51 to 103). The evidence was uncertain (very low-certainty) about the effects of counselling interventions of less intensity or shorter duration (in-hospital only counselling ≤ 15 minutes: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1417 participants; and in-hospital contact plus follow-up counselling support for ≤ 1 month: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 7 studies, 4627 participants) versus no counselling. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that smoking cessation counselling for at least 15 minutes in the hospital without post-discharge support led to higher quit rates than no counselling in the hospital (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.58; 12 studies, 4432 participants). Pharmacotherapy versus placebo or no pharmacotherapy Nicotine replacement therapy helped more patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.67; 8 studies, 3838 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 62 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 9 to 126). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision (as CI encompassed the possibility of no difference), that varenicline helped more hospitalised patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 4 studies, 829 participants). Evidence for bupropion was low-certainty; the point estimate indicated a modest benefit at best, but CIs were wide and incorporated clinically significant harm and clinically significant benefit (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43, 4 studies, 872 participants). Hospital-only intervention versus intervention that continues after hospital discharge Patients offered both smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge had higher quit rates than patients offered counselling in hospital but not offered post-discharge support (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.38; 7 studies, 5610 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 34 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 to 55). Post-discharge interventions offering real-time counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.60, 8 studies, 2299 participants; low certainty-evidence) and those offering unscheduled counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 2 studies, 1598 participants; very low-certainty evidence) may have little to no effect on quit rates compared to control. Telephone quitlines versus control To provide post-discharge support, hospitals may refer patients to community-based telephone quitlines. Both comparisons relating to these interventions had wide CIs encompassing both possible harm and possible benefit, and were judged to be of very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias (post-discharge telephone counselling versus quitline referral: RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.51; 3 studies, 3260 participants; quitline referral versus control: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.96; 2 studies, 1870 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Offering hospitalised patients smoking cessation counselling beginning in hospital and continuing for over one month after discharge increases quit rates, compared to no hospital intervention. Counselling provided only in hospital, without post-discharge support, may have a modest impact on quit rates, but evidence is less certain. When all patients receive counselling in the hospital, high-certainty evidence indicates that providing both counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge increases quit rates compared to no post-discharge intervention. Starting nicotine replacement or varenicline in hospitalised patients helps more patients to quit smoking than a placebo or no medication, though evidence for varenicline is only moderate-certainty due to imprecision. There is less evidence of benefit for bupropion in this setting. Some of our evidence was limited by imprecision (bupropion versus placebo and varenicline versus placebo), risk of bias, and inconsistency related to heterogeneity. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies to implement, disseminate, and sustain interventions, and to ensure cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy initiated in the hospital is sustained after discharge.

Driving innovation in addiction treatment: role of transcranial magnetic stimulation

Addictions comprises heterogenous psychiatric conditions caused by the complex interaction of genetic, neurobiological, psychological, and environmental factors with a chronic relapsing-remitting pattern. Despite the long-standing efforts of preclinical and clinical research studies, addiction field has seen relatively slow progress when it comes to the development of new therapeutic interventions, most of which failed to demonstrate a significant efficacy. This is likely due to the very complex interplay of many factors that contribute to both the development and expression of addictions. The imbalance between the salience and the reward brain network circuitry has been proposed as the neurobiological mechanisms explaining the pathognomonic symptoms of addictions.Non-invasive neuromodulation techniques have been proposed as a promising therapeutic intervention to restore these brain circuits dysfunctions. Here, we propose a multi-level strategy to innovate the diagnosis and the treatment of addictive disorders.

Practice Current: Variability in Smoking Cessation Intervention Practice Patterns After Ischemic Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack

People who continue to smoke after ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) are at increased risk for subsequent stroke and cardiovascular events. Although effective smoking cessation strategies exist, smoking rates after stroke remain high. Through case-based discussions with 3 international vascular neurology panelists, this article seeks to explore practice patterns and barriers to smoking cessation for patients with stroke/TIA. We sought to answer these questions: What are the barriers to using smoking cessation interventions for patients with stroke/TIA? Which interventions are most used for hospitalized patients with stroke/TIA? Which interventions are most used for patients who continue smoking during follow-up? Our synthesis of panelists' commentaries is complemented by the preliminary results of an online survey posed to global readership. Together, the interviews and survey results identify practice variability and barriers to smoking cessation after stroke/TIA, suggesting that there is substantial need for research and standardization.