Comparative effectiveness of intervention components for producing long-term abstinence from smoking: a factorial screening experiment

Decision-making in the multiphase optimization strategy: Applying decision analysis for intervention value efficiency to optimize an information leaflet to promote key antecedents of medication adherence

Advances in the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) have suggested a new approach, decision analysis for intervention value efficiency (DAIVE), for selecting an optimized intervention based on the results of a factorial optimization trial. The new approach opens possibilities to select optimized interventions based on multiple valued outcomes. We applied DAIVE to identify an optimized information leaflet intended to support eventual adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy for women with breast cancer. We used empirical performance data for five candidate leaflet components on three hypothesized antecedents of adherence: beliefs about the medication, objective knowledge about AET, and satisfaction with medication information. Using data from a 25 factorial trial (n = 1603), we applied the following steps: (i) We used Bayesian factorial analysis of variance to estimate main and interaction effects for the five factors on the three outcomes. (ii) We used posterior distributions for main and interaction effects to estimate expected outcomes for each leaflet version (32 total). (iii) We scaled and combined outcomes using a linear value function with predetermined weights indicating the relative importance of outcomes. (iv) We identified the leaflet that maximized the value function as the optimized leaflet, and we systematically varied outcome weights to explore robustness. The optimized leaflet included two candidate components, side-effects, and patient input, set to their higher levels. Selection was generally robust to weight variations consistent with the initial preferences for three outcomes. DAIVE enables selection of optimized interventions with the best-expected performance on multiple outcomes.

Evidence-Based Guideline for the Treatment of Smoking Cessation Provided by the National Health Insurance Service in Korea

Although major countries, such as South Korea, have developed and disseminated national smoking cessation guidelines, these efforts have been limited to developing individual societies or specialized institution-based recommendations. Therefore, evidence-based clinical guidelines are essential for developing smoking cessation interventions and promoting effective smoking cessation treatments. This guideline targets frontline clinical practitioners involved in a smoking cessation treatment support program implemented in 2015 with the support of the National Health Insurance Service. The Guideline Development Group of 10 multidisciplinary smoking cessation experts employed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT approach to review recent domestic and international research and guidelines and to determine evidence levels using the GRADE methodology. The guideline panel formulated six strong recommendations and one conditional recommendation regarding pharmacotherapy choices among general and special populations (mental disorders and chronic obstructive lung disease [COPD]). Strong recommendations favor varenicline rather than a nicotine patch or bupropion, using varenicline even if they are not ready to quit, using extended pharmacotherapy (>12 weeks) rather than standard treatment (8-12 weeks), or using pharmacotherapy for individuals with mental disorders or COPD. The conditional recommendation suggests combining varenicline with a nicotine patch instead of using varenicline alone. Aligned with the Korean Society of Medicine's clinical guideline development process, this is South Korea's first domestic smoking cessation treatment guideline that follows standardized guidelines. Primarily focusing on pharmacotherapy, it can serve as a foundation for comprehensive future smoking cessation clinical guidelines, encompassing broader treatment topics beyond medications.

Testing the feasibility of the QuitAid smoking cessation intervention in a randomized factorial design in an independent, rural community pharmacy

BACKGROUND

Adult smoking rates in the USA are highest in economically depressed rural Appalachia. Pharmacist-delivered tobacco cessation support that incorporates medication therapy management (such as the QuitAid intervention) is a promising approach to address this need.

METHODS

Twenty-four adult smokers recruited between September and November 2021 through an independent pharmacy in rural Appalachia were randomized in a non-blinded 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design to (1) pharmacist delivered QuitAid intervention (yes vs. no); (2) combination nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) gum + NRT patch (vs. NRT patch); and/or (3) 8 weeks of NRT (vs. standard 4 weeks). Participants received 4 weeks of NRT patch in addition to the components to which they were assigned. Participants completed baseline and 3-month follow-up assessments. Primary outcomes were feasibility of recruitment and randomization, retention, treatment adherence, and fidelity.

RESULTS

Participants were recruited in 7 weeks primarily through a referral process, commonly referred to as ask-advise-connect (61%). Participants were on average 52.4 years old, 29.2% were male and the majority were white (91.6%) and Non-Hispanic (91.7%). There was a high level of adherence to the interventions, with 85% of QuitAid sessions completed, 83.3% of the patch used, and 54.5% of gum used. Participants reported a high level of satisfaction with the program, and there was a high level of retention (92%).

CONCLUSIONS

This demonstration pilot randomized controlled study indicates that an ask-advise-connect model for connecting rural smokers to smoking cessation support and providing QuitAid for smoking cessation is feasible and acceptable among rural Appalachian smokers and independent pharmacists. Further investigation into the efficacy of a pharmacist-delivered approach for smoking cessation is needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. Trial #: NCT05649241.

Reaching adults who smoke cigarettes in rural Appalachia: Rationale, design & analysis plan for a mixed-methods study disseminating pharmacy-delivered cessation treatment

INTRODUCTION

Unlike other U.S. geographical regions, cigarette smoking prevalence remains stagnant in rural Appalachia. One avenue for reaching rural residents with evidence-based smoking cessation treatments could be utilizing community pharmacists. This paper describes the design, rationale, and analysis plan for a mixed-method study that will determine combinations of cessation treatment components that can be integrated within community pharmacies in rural Appalachia. The aim is to quantify the individual and synergistic effects of five highly disseminable and sustainable cessation components in a factorial experiment.

METHODS

This sequential, mixed-method research design, based on the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework, will use a randomized controlled trial with a 25 fully crossed factorial design (32 treatment combinations) to test, alone and in combination, the most effective evidence-based cessation components: (1) QuitAid (yes vs. no) (2) tobacco quit line (yes vs. no) (3) SmokefreeTXT (yes vs. no) (4) combination NRT lozenge + NRT patch (vs. NRT patch alone), and (5) eight weeks of NRT (vs. standard four weeks).

RESULTS

Logistic regression will model abstinence at six-months, including indicators for the five treatment factors and all two-way interactions between the treatment factors. Demographic and smoking history variables will be considered to assess potential effect modification. Poisson regression will model quit attempts and percent of adherence to treatment components as secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This study will provide foundational evidence on how community pharmacies in medically underserved, rural regions can be leveraged to increase utilization of existing evidence-based tobacco cessation resources for treating tobacco dependence.

CLINICAL TRIALS

NCT05660525.

E-cigarette support for smoking cessation: Identifying the effectiveness of intervention components in an on-line randomized optimization experiment

AIMS, DESIGN AND SETTING

The aim of this study was to determine which combination(s) of five e-cigarette-orientated intervention components, delivered on-line, affect smoking cessation. An on-line (UK) balanced five-factor (2 × 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 = 32 intervention combinations) randomized factorial design guided by the multi-phase optimization strategy (MOST) was used.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1214 eligible participants (61% female; 97% white) were recruited via social media.

INTERVENTIONS

The five on-line intervention components designed to help smokers switch to exclusive e-cigarette use were: (1) tailored device selection advice; (2) tailored e-liquid nicotine strength advice; (3): tailored e-liquid flavour advice; (4) brief information on relative harms; and (5) text message (SMS) support.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was 4-week self-reported complete abstinence at 12 weeks post-randomization. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat (loss to follow-up recorded as smoking). Logistic regressions modelled the three- and two-way interactions and main effects, explored in that order.

FINDINGS

In the adjusted model the only significant interaction was a two-way interaction, advice on flavour combined with text message support, which increased the odds of abstinence (odds ratio = 1.55, 95% confidence interval = 1.13-2.14, P = 0.007, Bayes factor = 7.25). There were no main effects of the intervention components.

CONCLUSIONS

Text-message support with tailored advice on flavour is a promising intervention combination for smokers using an e-cigarette in a quit attempt.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Multiple Pharmacotherapy Adaptations for Smoking Cessation Based on Treatment Response in Black Adults Who Smoke: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Adapting to different smoking cessation medications when an individual has not stopped smoking has shown promise, but efficacy has not been tested in racial and ethnic minority individuals who smoke and tend to have less success in quitting and bear a disproportionate share of tobacco-related morbidity and mortality.

Objective

To evaluate efficacy of multiple smoking cessation pharmacotherapy adaptations based on treatment response in Black adults who smoke daily.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This randomized clinical trial of adapted therapy (ADT) or enhanced usual care (UC) included non-Hispanic Black adults who smoke and was conducted from May 2019 to January 2022 at a federally qualified health center in Kansas City, Missouri. Data analysis took place from March 2022 to January 2023.

Interventions

Both groups received 18 weeks of pharmacotherapy with long-term follow-up through week 26. The ADT group consisted of 196 individuals who received a nicotine patch (NP) and up to 2 pharmacotherapy adaptations, with a first switch to varenicline at week 2 and, if needed, a second switch to bupropion plus NP (bupropion + NP) based on carbon monoxide (CO)-verified smoking status (CO ≥6 ppm) at week 6. The UC group consisted of 196 individuals who received NP throughout the duration of treatment.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Anabasine-verified and anatabine-verified point-prevalence abstinence at week 12 (primary end point) and weeks 18 and 26 (secondary end points). The χ2 test was used to compare verified abstinence at week 12 (primary end point) and weeks 18 and 26 (secondary end points) between ADT and UC. A post hoc sensitivity analysis of smoking abstinence at week 12 was performed with multiple imputation using a monotone logistic regression with treatment and gender as covariates to impute the missing data.

Results

Among 392 participants who were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 53 [11.6] years; 224 [57%] female; 186 [47%] ≤ 100% federal poverty level; mean [SD] 13 [12.4] cigarettes per day), 324 (83%) completed the trial. Overall, 196 individuals were randomized to each study group. Using intent-to-treat and imputing missing data as participants who smoke, verified 7-day abstinence was not significantly different by treatment group at 12 weeks (ADT: 34 of 196 [17.4%]; UC: 23 of 196 [11.7%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.58; 95% CI, 0.89-2.80; P = .12), 18 weeks (ADT: 32 of 196 [16.3%]; UC: 31 of 196 [15.8%]; OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.61-1.78; P = .89), and 26 weeks (ADT: 24 of 196 [12.2%]; UC: 26 of 196 [13.3%]; OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.50-1.65; P = .76). Of the ADT participants who received pharmacotherapy adaptations (135/188 [71.8%]), 11 of 135 (8.1%) were abstinent at week 12. Controlling for treatment, individuals who responded to treatment and had CO-verified abstinence at week 2 had 4.6 times greater odds of being abstinent at week 12 (37 of 129 [28.7%] abstinence) than those who did not respond to treatment (19 of 245 [7.8%] abstinence; OR; 4.6; 95% CI, 2.5-8.6; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of adapted vs standard of care pharmacotherapy, adaptation to varenicline and/or bupropion + NP after failure of NP monotherapy did not significantly improve abstinence rates for Black adults who smoke relative to those who continued treatment with NP. Those who achieved abstinence in the first 2 weeks of the study were significantly more likely to achieve later abstinence, highlighting early treatment response as an important area for preemptive intervention.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03897439.

Medication Adherence in Tobacco Cessation Clinical Trials

Adherence is a critical mediator of treatment outcome across health conditions and low rates of adherence undermine success in smoking cessation treatment. This narrative review provides an overview of different techniques that can be used to measure adherence to smoking cessation treatments and outlines strategies to address treatment adherence. Techniques to measure adherence include conducting pill counts, collecting self-reports of adherence, directly observed therapy, biochemical verification methods, and electronic data collection via medication events monitoring systems. Techniques examined for increasing tobacco cessation treatment adherence include counseling, automated adherence calls, feedback from electronic monitors, contingency management and directly observed therapy. Adherence monitoring and optimization should be a standard component of smoking cessation treatment research.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural support for prolonged abstinence for smokers wishing to reduce but not quit: Randomised controlled trial of physical activity assisted reduction of smoking (TARS)

AIMS

For smokers unmotivated to quit, we assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural support to reduce smoking and increase physical activity on prolonged abstinence and related outcomes.

DESIGN

A multi-centred pragmatic two-arm parallel randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Primary care and the community across four United Kingdom sites.

PARTICIPANTS

Nine hundred and fifteen adult smokers (55% female, 85% White), recruited via primary and secondary care and the community, who wished to reduce their smoking but not quit.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised to support as usual (SAU) (n = 458) versus multi-component community-based behavioural support (n = 457), involving up to eight weekly person-centred face-to-face or phone sessions with additional 6-week support for those wishing to quit.

MEASUREMENTS

Ideally, cessation follows smoking reduction so the primary pre-defined outcome was biochemically verified 6-month prolonged abstinence (from 3-9 months, with a secondary endpoint also considering abstinence between 9 and 15 months). Secondary outcomes included biochemically verified 12-month prolonged abstinence and point prevalent biochemically verified and self-reported abstinence, quit attempts, number of cigarettes smoked, pharmacological aids used, SF12, EQ-5D and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) at 3 and 9 months. Intervention costs were assessed for a cost-effectiveness analysis.

FINDINGS

Assuming missing data at follow-up implied continued smoking, nine (2.0%) intervention participants and four (0.9%) SAU participants achieved the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio, 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70-7.56, P = 0.169). At 3 and 9 months, the proportions self-reporting reducing cigarettes smoked from baseline by ≥50%, for intervention versus SAU, were 18.9% versus 10.5% (P = 0.009) and 14.4% versus 10% (P = 0.044), respectively. Mean difference in weekly MVPA at 3 months was 81.6 minutes in favour of the intervention group (95% CI = 28.75, 134.47: P = 0.003), but there was no significant difference at 9 months (23.70, 95% CI = -33.07, 80.47: P = 0.143). Changes in MVPA did not mediate changes in smoking outcomes. The intervention cost was £239.18 per person, with no evidence of cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

For United Kingdom smokers wanting to reduce but not quit smoking, behavioural support to reduce smoking and increase physical activity improved some short-term smoking cessation and reduction outcomes and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, but had no long-term effects on smoking cessation or physical activity.

Successful Optimization of Tobacco Dependence Treatment in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Trial Using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Tobacco dependence treatment initiated in the hospital emergency department (ED) is effective. However, trials typically use multicomponent interventions, making it difficult to distinguish specific components that are effective. In addition, interactions between components cannot be assessed. The Multiphase Optimization Strategy allows investigators to identify these effects.

METHODS

We conducted a full-factorial, 24 or 16-condition optimization trial in a busy hospital ED to examine the performance of 4 tobacco dependence interventions: a brief negotiation interview; 6 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy with the first dose delivered in the ED; active referral to a telephone quitline; and enrollment in SmokefreeTXT, a free short-messaging service program. Study data were analyzed with a novel mixed methods approach to assess clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and qualitative participant feedback. The primary endpoint was tobacco abstinence at 3 months, verified by exhaled carbon monoxide using a Bedfont Micro+ Smokerlyzer.

RESULTS

Between February 2017 and May 2019, we enrolled 1,056 adult smokers visiting the ED. Odd ratios (95% confidence intervals) from the primary analysis of biochemically confirmed abstinence rates at 3 months for each intervention, versus control, were: brief negotiation interview, 1.8 (1.1, 2.8); nicotine replacement therapy, 2.1 (1.3, 3.2); quitline, 1.4 (0.9, 2.2); SmokefreeTXT, 1.1 (0.7, 1.7). There were no statistically significant interactions among components. Economic and qualitative analyses are in progress.

CONCLUSION

The brief negotiation interview and nicotine replacement therapy were efficacious. This study is the first to identify components of ED-initiated tobacco dependence treatment that are individually effective. Future work will address the scalability of the brief negotiation interview and nicotine replacement therapy by offering provider-delivered brief negotiation interviews and nicotine replacement therapy prescriptions.

Components of smartphone cognitive-behavioural therapy for subthreshold depression among 1093 university students: a factorial trial

BACKGROUND

Internet-based cognitive-behavioural therapy (iCBT) is effective for subthreshold depression. However, which skills provided in iCBT packages are more effective than others is unclear. Such knowledge can inform construction of more effective and efficient iCBT programmes.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy of five components of iCBT for subthreshold depression.

METHODS

We conducted an factorial trial using a smartphone app, randomly allocating presence or absence of five iCBT skills including self-monitoring, behavioural activation (BA), cognitive restructuring (CR), assertiveness training (AT) and problem-solving. Participants were university students with subthreshold depression. The primary outcome was the change on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) from baseline to week 8. Secondary outcomes included changes in CBT skills.

FINDINGS

We randomised a total of 1093 participants. In all groups, participants had a significant PHQ-9 reduction from baseline to week 8. Depression reduction was not significantly different between presence or absence of any component, with corresponding standardised mean differences (negative values indicate specific efficacy in favour of the component) ranging between -0.04 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.08) for BA and 0.06 (95% CI -0.06 to 0.18) for AT. Specific CBT skill improvements were noted for CR and AT but not for the others.

CONCLUSIONS

There was significant reduction in depression for all participants regardless of the presence and absence of the examined iCBT components.

CLINICAL IMPLICATION

We cannot yet make evidence-based recommendations for specific iCBT components. We suggest that future iCBT optimisation research should scrutinise the amount and structure of components to examine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMINCTR-000031307.

Extended Duration Treatment of Tobacco Dependence: A Systematic Review

Rationale The American Thoracic Society (ATS) developed a clinical practice guideline on initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults. Controller pharmacotherapies treat tobacco dependence effectively when taken as prescribed. But relapse after pharmacologic discontinuation is common. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of initiating controller for an extended (>12 week) versus a standard duration (6 - 12 weeks) in tobacco-dependent adults. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL from database inception to December 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing extended versus standard duration of controllers for tobacco dependent adults. We conducted meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method with random effects model. Outcomes of interest include point prevalent abstinence at 1-year follow up or longer, relapse, adverse events, quality of life, and withdrawal symptoms. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to types of treatment, and duration of extended therapy when feasible. We assessed the certainty of the estimate following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results We included 13 randomized controlled trials including 8,695 participants that directly compared extended (>12 week) versus standard-duration controller therapy with varenicline, bupropion, or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Compared with standard-duration controller therapy, extended-duration controller therapy probably increased abstinence at 1-year follow-up, measured as 7-day point-prevalence abstinence, (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.33, moderate certainty). Extended-duration controller therapy probably reduced relapse compared to standard-duration controller therapy, assessed at 12 to 18 months after initiation of therapy (HR 0.43; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.64; moderate certainty). Moderate certainty evidence also suggested that extended-duration controller therapy probably did not increase risk of serious adverse events (RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.79 to 2.36). Conclusion This systematic review supported the recommendation for extended-duration therapy with controllers. Further studies on optimal extended duration are warranted.

Perceived stress and willingness to quit smoking among patients with depressive and anxiety disorders seeking treatment

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Little are known about nicotine dependence (ND), perceived stress, and willingness to quit smoking at different treatment stages in patient with affective disorders (AD). This study aimed to evaluate the association between ND and perceived stress among patients with AD presenting with psychiatric treatment at different clinical stages (first visit or follow-up), and in different nicotine type users (cigarette and waterpipe smokers). We also aimed to evaluate the willingness to quit smoking and its association with barriers to quitting.

METHODS

This cross-sectional mixed-method study collected quantitative and qualitative data from patients (n = 57) presenting for treatment with AD and ND at different sites in Saudi Arabia. Quantitative validated scales were used to assess the 70 of depression symptoms, anxiety symptoms, perceived stress, and ND. Qualitative questions assessed barriers to quit smoking. We used a linear regression modeling to estimate the association between ND and perceived stress as well as to estimate the association between barrier to quit and willingness to quit.

RESULTS

ND had a statistically significant association with perceived stress (odds ratio [OR]: 2.09; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20-3.63). Participants in the follow-up group had a higher ND score than those in the first-visit group. One of the most commonly reported barriers to quitting was using nicotine as a stress management (33.3%), which predicted positive willingness to quit (OR: 2.23; 95% CI: 1.48-3.37; P < .01). Boredom was reported as a barrier in the waterpipe group more than cigarette group.

CONCLUSION

ND has a significant association with perceived stress regardless of treatment status in patients with AD, indicating the need to evaluate smoking cessation during the early stages of treatment for patients with AD and ND. It will be critical for clinicians to offer patients with AD alternative coping mechanisms to manage stress and boredom.

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.

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.

Evaluating four motivation-phase intervention components for use with primary care patients unwilling to quit smoking: a randomized factorial experiment

AIMS

To assess the effectiveness of intervention components designed to increase quit attempts and promote abstinence in patients initially unwilling to quit smoking.

DESIGN

A four-factor, randomized factorial experiment.

SETTING

Sixteen primary care clinics in southern Wisconsin.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 577 adults who smoke (60% women, 80% White) recruited during primary care visits who were currently willing to reduce their smoking but unwilling to try to quit. Interventions Four factors contrasted intervention components administered over a 1-year period: (i) nicotine mini-lozenge versus none; (ii) reduction counseling versus none; (iii) behavioral activation (BA) counseling versus none; and (iv) motivational 5Rs counseling versus none. Participants could request cessation treatment at any time.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 52 weeks post enrollment; secondary outcomes were point-prevalence abstinence at 26 weeks and making a quit attempt by weeks 26 and 52.

FINDINGS

No abstinence main effects were found but a mini-lozenge × reduction counseling × BA interaction was found at 52 weeks; P = 0.03. Unpacking this interaction showed that the mini-lozenge alone produced the highest abstinence rate (16.7%); combining it with reduction counseling produced an especially low abstinence rate (4.1%). Reduction counseling decreased the likelihood of making a quit attempt by 52 weeks relative to no reduction counseling (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Nicotine mini-lozenges may increase smoking abstinence in people initially unwilling to quit smoking, but their effectiveness declines when used with smoking reduction counseling or other behavioral interventions. Reduction counseling decreases the likelihood of making a quit attempt in people initially unwilling to quit smoking.

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.

Effects of Combined Varenicline With Nicotine Patch and of Extended Treatment Duration on Smoking Cessation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Smoking cessation medications are routinely used in health care. Research suggests that combining varenicline with the nicotine patch, extending the duration of varenicline treatment, or both, may increase cessation effectiveness.

Objective

To compare combinations of varenicline plus the nicotine or placebo patch vs combinations used for either 12 weeks (standard duration) or 24 weeks (extended duration).

Design, Settings, and Participants

Double-blind, 2 × 2 factorial randomized clinical trial conducted from November 11, 2017, to July 9, 2020, at 1 research clinic in Madison, Wisconsin, and at 1 clinic in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Of the 5836 adults asked to participate in the study, 1251 who smoked 5 cigarettes/d or more were randomized.

Interventions

All participants received cessation counseling and were randomized to 1 of 4 medication groups: varenicline monotherapy for 12 weeks (n = 315), varenicline plus nicotine patch for 12 weeks (n = 314), varenicline monotherapy for 24 weeks (n = 311), or varenicline plus nicotine patch for 24 weeks (n = 311).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was carbon monoxide-confirmed self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 52 weeks.

Results

Among 1251 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 49.1 [11.9] years; 675 [54.0%] women), 751 (60.0%) completed treatment and 881 (70.4%) provided final follow-up. For the primary outcome, there was no significant interaction between the 2 treatment factors of medication type and medication duration (odds ratio [OR], 1.03 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.17]; P = .66). For patients randomized to 24-week vs 12-week treatment duration, the primary outcome occurred in 24.8% (154/622) vs 24.3% (153/629), respectively (risk difference, -0.4% [95% CI, -5.2% to 4.3%]; OR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.89 to 1.15]). For patients randomized to varenicline combination therapy vs varenicline monotherapy, the primary outcome occurred in 24.3% (152/625) vs 24.8% (155/626), respectively (risk difference, 0.4% [95% CI, -4.3% to 5.2%]; OR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.12]). Nausea occurrence ranged from 24.0% to 30.9% and insomnia occurrence ranged from 24.4% to 30.5% across the 4 groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among adults smoking 5 cigarettes/d or more, there were no significant differences in 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 52 weeks among those treated with combined varenicline plus nicotine patch therapy vs varenicline monotherapy, or among those treated for 24 weeks vs 12 weeks. These findings do not support the use of combined therapy or of extended treatment duration.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03176784.

Smoking Treatment: A Report Card on Progress and Challenges

The impact of tobacco smoking treatment is determined by its reach into the smoking population and the effectiveness of its interventions. This review evaluates the reach and effectiveness of pharmacotherapy and psychosocial interventions for smoking. Historically, the reach of smoking treatment has been low, and therefore its impact has been limited, but new reach strategies such as digital interventions and health care system changes offer great promise. Pharmacotherapy tends to be more effective than psychosocial intervention when used clinically, and newer pharmacotherapy strategies hold great promise of further enhancing effectiveness. However, new approaches are needed to advance psychosocial interventions; progress has stagnated because research and dissemination efforts have focused too narrowly on skill training despite evidence that its core content may be inconsequential and the fact that its mechanisms are either unknown or inconsistent with supporting theory. Identifying effective psychosocial content and its mechanisms of action could greatly enhance the effectiveness of counseling, digital, and web interventions.

A comparison of quit outcomes for men and women in a smoking cessation program offering personalized nicotine replacement therapy and counselling in primary care clinics

INTRODUCTION

Women may have greater difficulty achieving long-term abstinence following a quit attempt compared to men. We sought to determine whether there were differences in treatment characteristics or outcome between female and male primary care patients enrolled in a smoking cessation program providing personalized nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) with counselling support.

METHODS

The sample included 27,601 Ontarians (53% female, 47% male) who enrolled in the Smoking Treatment for Ontario Patients program between 2016 and 2018. Dose, type, and duration of NRT supplied was personalized to need. Thirty-day point prevalence tobacco smoking abstinence was self-reported via online or telephone survey at 6 months post-enrollment.

RESULTS

Both female and male participants received a median of 8 weeks of NRT. Types of NRT received were similar, with 80% of both female and male participants receiving patch and short-acting NRT. Total cumulative dose was somewhat higher for men (1373 mg vs. 1265 mg, p<0.001); but when calculated as dose per day, per cigarette smoked at baseline, dose was slightly higher among women (1.6 mg vs. 1.5 mg, p<0.001). Quit rates at 6 months were lower for women versus men (24% vs. 27%; AOR = 0.84 [95% CI = 0.78-0.90], p<0.001). There were no significant interactions between gender and dose, type or duration of NRT supplied.

CONCLUSIONS

Women were slightly less likely to quit than men, despite receiving similar treatment. There was no evidence that women benefitted more or less from variations in dose, type or duration of NRT supply.

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.

Revision of the Wisconsin Smoking Withdrawal Scale: Development of brief and long forms

The assessment of tobacco withdrawal is important for both research and clinical purposes. This study describes the psychometric development of a revised version of the 28-item Wisconsin Smoking Withdrawal Scale (WSWS; Welsch et al., Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 1999, 7, p. 354). Because the different contexts of use sometimes permit only brief assessment, this revision has produced both a brief and longer form using an updated pool of candidate items. For the revised Wisconsin Smoking Withdrawal Scale 2 (WSWS2), a candidate pool of 37 items was developed to measure nine putative withdrawal constructs. The stem and wording of items were revised as was the response scale. Data for psychometric analyses were derived from three smoking cessation randomized clinical trials conducted at the University of Wisconsin Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention. Dimensionality, internal consistency, and item characteristic analyses of the candidate items were conducted in a derivation sample to ascertain the factor structure and to identify items that could be used in the WSWS2 scales. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) of reduced item sets and factor structure were conducted in two validation samples along with reliability and validity analyses. Derivation and validation sample analyses yielded a longer version of the WSWS2 (WSWS2-L) with 19 items and six subscales (Craving, Negative Affect, Hunger, Sleep, Restlessness, and Concentration) and a brief 6-item version (WSWS2-B). In validation sample analyses, both the WSWS2-L and the WSWS2-B demonstrated good reliability and validity as well as good fit in CFAs. The WSWS2-L and WSWS2-B possess improved construct coverage, fewer items, and other enhancements relative to the WSWS. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

A 5-Factor Framework for Assessing Tobacco Use Disorder

Cigarette use is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Despite the well documented dangers of smoking, nearly 20% of adults report regular use of tobacco. A majority desire to discontinue but the long-term cessation success rate remains near 4%. One challenge to reducing the prevalence of tobacco use is an incomplete understanding of the individual correlates that reinforce continued use. Evidence from research on nicotine and tobacco suggests that Tobacco Use Disorder is a complex, and multifactorial condition. Personality traits, comorbidities, habits and lifestyle, genetics, socioeconomic status, and mental and physical health all contribute to the risk for dependence and to the likelihood of quitting. This perspective review provides an overview of some common factors that contribute to liability risk for Tobacco Use Disorder and a framework for assessing individual tobacco users. The framework includes 5 areas that research suggests contribute to continued tobacco use: nicotine addiction, psychological influences, behavioral dependencies, neurobiological factors, and social reinforcement. Nicotine addiction includes drug-seeking behavior and the role of withdrawal avoidance. Psychological and emotional states contribute to a perceived reliance on tobacco. Behavioral dependence is reinforced by associative and non-associative learning mechanisms. Neurobiological factors include genetic variables, variations in neurotransmitters and receptors, pharmacogenetics, and interaction between psychiatric illnesses and nicotine use and dependence. Finally, social reinforcement of smoking behavior is explained by a network phenomenon and consistent visual cues to smoke. A comprehensive assessment of individual tobacco users will help better determine appropriate treatment options to achieve improved efficacy and outcomes.

Electronically Monitored Nicotine Gum Use Before and After Smoking Lapses: Relationship With Lapse and Relapse

INTRODUCTION

Greater use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is related to smoking cessation success, but the causal direction is unclear. This study characterized the relationship between NRT use and smoking lapse and relapse.

METHODS

Participants (N = 416 smokers; 57% female, 85% White) were recruited from primary care for a smoking cessation factorial experiment and analyzed if abstaining ≥1 day in the first 2 weeks post-target quit day (TQD). Participants were randomized to counseling and 8 versus 26 weeks of nicotine patch plus nicotine gum post-TQD. Participants carried electronic dispensers that timestamped each gum use. Participants who lapsed (smoked after abstaining) within 6 weeks post-TQD were matched with nonlapsers (n = 146 pairs) on multiple variables. We compared lapsers' versus matched nonlapsers' gum use in the 5 days before and after the lapsers' first lapse.

RESULTS

By week 6 post-TQD, 63% of participants lapsed. Compared with nonlapsers, lapsers used less gum 1 and 2 days pre-"lapse" and on the 5 days post-lapse. Lapsers used less gum during the 5 days post-lapse than the 5 days pre-lapse. Univariate survival analyses with lapsers showed greater gum use during both pre- and post-lapse periods predicted longer latency to relapse in the first 6 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

In a smoking cessation attempt using nicotine patch plus gum, lapsers versus matched nonlapsers used less gum immediately preceding and following their first lapse. Lower mean gum use before and after lapses predicted a more rapid escalation to relapse. Decreased nicotine gum use both precedes and follows returns to smoking during cessation attempts.

IMPLICATIONS

This research examined electronically monitored nicotine gum use collected in real time and found that among smokers engaged in a quit attempt, lapsers (vs. matched nonlapsers) tended to decrease their gum use 1-2 days prior to lapsing and to further decrease their gum use from pre- to post-lapse. Decreased gum use pre-lapse may signal heightened lapse risk in 1-2 days, with lower level of gum use predicting a more precipitous course of relapse. These results encourage further exploration of objective measures of smoking medication use patterns to examine their signaling properties and to inform understanding of cessation failure.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01120704.

Initiating Pharmacologic Treatment in Tobacco-Dependent Adults. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Background: Current tobacco treatment guidelines have established the efficacy of available interventions, but they do not provide detailed guidance for common implementation questions frequently faced in the clinic. An evidence-based guideline was created that addresses several pharmacotherapy-initiation questions that routinely confront treatment teams.Methods: Individuals with diverse expertise related to smoking cessation were empaneled to prioritize questions and outcomes important to clinicians. An evidence-synthesis team conducted systematic reviews, which informed recommendations to answer the questions. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to rate the certainty in the estimated effects and the strength of recommendations.Results: The guideline panel formulated five strong recommendations and two conditional recommendations regarding pharmacotherapy choices. Strong recommendations include using varenicline rather than a nicotine patch, using varenicline rather than bupropion, using varenicline rather than a nicotine patch in adults with a comorbid psychiatric condition, initiating varenicline in adults even if they are unready to quit, and using controller therapy for an extended treatment duration greater than 12 weeks. Conditional recommendations include combining a nicotine patch with varenicline rather than using varenicline alone and using varenicline rather than electronic cigarettes.Conclusions: Seven recommendations are provided, which represent simple practice changes that are likely to increase the effectiveness of tobacco-dependence pharmacotherapy.

Connecting veterans with smoking cessation services in less than 3 minutes

ABSTRACT

Veterans smoke disproportionately higher (nearly 1.3 times greater) than the general population and puts them at greater risk for tobacco-related illnesses. Annual screenings by the primary care providers are conducted at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) primary care clinics, but this practice may be inadequate to overcome the chronicity of smoking. The Ask, Advise, Refer strategy for smoking cessation was integrated in the workflow and implemented by the nursing staff at a VHA outpatient surgery clinic. Nurses established smoking status, advised smokers to quit, and for those interested, provided the smoker a list of resources Department of Veterans Affairs' approved smoking cessation options (telephone, text, and web-based interventions). All the smokers took a referral card containing a list of resources to help them quit smoking. During the follow-up phone calls after the clinic visit, 19% of patients reported using at least one of the resources listed on the card. Each clinical encounter should be viewed by health care providers as a window of opportunity to promote smoking cessation. The simplicity of the AAR strategy is effective in promoting smoking cessation especially in busy outpatient settings.

Achieving Smoking Cessation Among Persons with Opioid Use Disorder

While prevalence of tobacco use in the US general population is declining, prevalence among those with opioid use disorder (OUD) remains high and results in excessive tobacco-related disease and premature mortality. Among smokers with OUD, tobacco cessation rates are negligible without treatment. However, both low-intensity behavioral interventions and more intensive motivational interventions yield negligible cessation rates. While contingency management has potent short-term cessation effects, effects are not maintained at post-intervention follow-up. Evidence-based smoking cessation pharmacotherapies, such as nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, and varenicline, result in very modest cessation rates among smokers with OUD. Intensification of pharmacotherapy, such as high-dose and combination nicotine replacement therapy or extended medication treatment, has failed to improve cessation outcomes compared with standard treatment regimens. Targeting the unique challenges faced by smokers with OUD, including nicotine-opioid interactions and poor medication adherence, has potential to improve cessation outcomes, but further research is needed to optimize intervention efficacy among smokers with OUD.

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.

Developing more efficient, effective, and disseminable treatments for eating disorders: an overview of the multiphase optimization strategy

The present manuscript describes the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) and its potential applications to treatments for eating disorders (EDs). The manuscript describes the three phases of MOST, discusses a hypothetical case example of how MOST could be applied to developing a disseminable ED treatment, and reviews the pros and cons of the MOST approach. Outcomes from treatments for EDs leave room for improvement. However, traditional methods of treatment development and evaluation (i.e., the treatment package approach) make it challenging to determine how best to improve ED treatments. For example, testing full treatment packages in open trials and RCTs without systematic testing of each component is inefficient (as it is unknown which components are effective), and often does not provide concrete future directions for optimization of the treatment. Much stands to be gained by optimizing treatments in the early stages before testing them in open trials or RCTs. MOST is an alternative, engineering-inspired research framework that is well-suited to address the issues of inefficiency associated with the treatment package approach. MOST entails identifying the most promising treatment components for inclusion in interventions, then eliminating or deemphasizing less efficacious/inert components. This strategy results in a treatment comprised of only effective components that can then be tested via RCT. Though the MOST approach has limitations, it has the potential to greatly benefit ED treatment research and is worthy of application in the field.

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.

Randomization procedures for multicomponent behavioral intervention factorial trials in the multiphase optimization strategy framework: challenges and recommendations

The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) is an increasingly popular framework to prepare, optimize, and evaluate multicomponent behavioral health interventions. Within this framework, it is common to use a factorial trial to assemble an optimized multicomponent intervention by simultaneously testing several intervention components. With the possibility of a large number of conditions (unique combinations of components) and a goal to balance conditions on both sample size (for statistical efficiency) and baseline covariates (for internal validity), such trials face additional randomization challenges compared to the standard two-arm trial. The purpose of the current paper is to compare and contrast potential randomization methods for factorial trials in the context of MOST and to provide guidance for the reporting of those methods. We describe the principles, advantages, and disadvantages of several randomization methods in the context of factorial trials. We then provide examples to examine current practice in the MOST-related literature and provide recommendations for reporting of randomization. We identify two key randomization decisions for MOST-related factorial trials: (i) whether to randomize to components or conditions and (ii) whether to use restricted randomization techniques, such as stratification, permuted blocks, and minimization. We also provide a checklist to assist researchers in ensuring complete reporting of randomization methods used. As more investigators use factorial trials within the MOST framework for assembling optimized multicomponent behavioral interventions, appropriate implementation and rigorous reporting of randomization procedures will be essential for ensuring the efficiency and validity of the results.

Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A number of treatments can help smokers make a successful quit attempt, but many initially successful quitters relapse over time. Several interventions have been proposed to help prevent relapse.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether specific interventions for relapse prevention reduce the proportion of recent quitters who return to smoking.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in May 2019 for studies mentioning relapse prevention or maintenance in their title, abstracts, or keywords.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of relapse prevention interventions with a minimum follow-up of six months. We included smokers who quit on their own, were undergoing enforced abstinence, or were participating in treatment programmes. We included studies that compared relapse prevention interventions with a no intervention control, or that compared a cessation programme with additional relapse prevention components with a cessation programme alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 81 studies (69,094 participants), five of which are new to this update. We judged 22 studies to be at high risk of bias, 53 to be at unclear risk of bias, and six studies to be at low risk of bias. Fifty studies included abstainers, and 30 studies helped people to quit and then tested treatments to prevent relapse. Twenty-eight studies focused on special populations who were abstinent because of pregnancy (19 studies), hospital admission (six studies), or military service (three studies). Most studies used behavioural interventions that tried to teach people skills to cope with the urge to smoke, or followed up with additional support. Some studies tested extended pharmacotherapy. We focused on results from those studies that randomised abstainers, as these are the best test of relapse prevention interventions. Of the 12 analyses we conducted in abstainers, three pharmacotherapy analyses showed benefits of the intervention: extended varenicline in assisted abstainers (2 studies, n = 1297, risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.41, I2 = 82%; moderate-certainty evidence), rimonabant in assisted abstainers (1 study, RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.55), and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in unaided abstainers (2 studies, n = 2261, RR 1.24, 95% Cl 1.04 to 1.47, I2 = 56%). The remainder of analyses of pharmacotherapies in abstainers had wide confidence intervals consistent with both no effect and a statistically significant effect in favour of the intervention. These included NRT in hospital inpatients (2 studies, n = 1078, RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.60, I2 = 0%), NRT in assisted abstainers (2 studies, n = 553, RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.40, I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence), extended bupropion in assisted abstainers (6 studies, n = 1697, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.35, I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence), and bupropion plus NRT (2 studies, n = 243, RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.87, I2 = 66%; low-certainty evidence). Analyses of behavioural interventions in abstainers did not detect an effect. These included studies in abstinent pregnant and postpartum women at the end of pregnancy (8 studies, n = 1523, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11, I2 = 0%) and at postpartum follow-up (15 studies, n = 4606, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09, I2 = 3%), studies in hospital inpatients (5 studies, n = 1385, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.47, I2 = 58%), and studies in assisted abstainers (11 studies, n = 5523, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.11, I2 = 52%; moderate-certainty evidence) and unaided abstainers (5 studies, n = 3561, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16, I2 = 1%) from the general population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural interventions that teach people to recognise situations that are high risk for relapse along with strategies to cope with them provided no worthwhile benefit in preventing relapse in assisted abstainers, although unexplained statistical heterogeneity means we are only moderately certain of this. In people who have successfully quit smoking using pharmacotherapy, there were mixed results regarding extending pharmacotherapy for longer than is standard. Extended treatment with varenicline helped to prevent relapse; evidence for the effect estimate was of moderate certainty, limited by unexplained statistical heterogeneity. Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, did not detect a benefit from extended treatment with bupropion, though confidence intervals mean we could not rule out a clinically important benefit at this stage. Low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, did not show a benefit of extended treatment with nicotine replacement therapy in preventing relapse in assisted abstainers. More research is needed in this area, especially as the evidence for extended nicotine replacement therapy in unassisted abstainers did suggest a benefit.

Interventions to increase adherence to medications for tobacco dependence

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological treatments for tobacco dependence, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), have been shown to be safe and effective interventions for smoking cessation. Higher levels of adherence to these medications increase the likelihood of sustained smoking cessation, but many smokers use them at a lower dose and for less time than is optimal. It is important to determine the effectiveness of interventions designed specifically to increase medication adherence. Such interventions may address motivation to use medication, such as influencing beliefs about the value of taking medications, or provide support to overcome problems with maintaining adherence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions aiming to increase adherence to medications for smoking cessation on medication adherence and smoking abstinence compared with a control group typically receiving standard care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, and clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to the 3 September 2018. We also conducted forward and backward citation searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised studies in which adults using active pharmacological treatment for smoking cessation were allocated to an intervention arm where there was a principal focus on increasing adherence to medications for tobacco dependence, or a control arm providing standard care. Dependent on setting, standard care may have comprised minimal support or varying degrees of behavioural support. Included studies used a measure that allowed assessment of the degree of medication adherence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data for included studies and assessed risk of bias. For continuous outcome measures, we calculated effect sizes as standardised mean differences (SMDs). For dichotomous outcome measures, we calculated effect sizes as risk ratios (RRs). In meta-analyses for adherence outcomes, we combined dichotomous and continuous data using the generic inverse variance method and reported pooled effect sizes as SMDs; for abstinence outcomes, we reported and pooled dichotomous outcomes. We obtained pooled effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. We conducted subgroup analyses to assess whether the primary focus of the adherence treatment ('practicalities' versus 'perceptions' versus both), the delivery approach (participant versus clinician-centred) or the medication type were associated with effectiveness.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two new studies, giving a total of 10 studies, involving 3655 participants. The medication adherence interventions studied were all provided in addition to standard behavioural support.They typically provided further information on the rationale for, and emphasised the importance of, adherence to medication or supported the development of strategies to overcome problems with maintaining adherence (or both). Seven studies targeted adherence to NRT, two to bupropion and one to varenicline. Most studies were judged to be at high or unclear risk of bias, with four of these studies judged at high risk of attrition or detection bias. Only one study was judged to be at low risk of bias.Meta-analysis of all 10 included studies (12 comparisons) provided moderate-certainty evidence that adherence interventions led to small improvements in adherence (i.e. the mean amount of medication consumed; SMD 0.10, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.18; I² = 6%; n = 3655), limited by risk of bias. Subgroup analyses for the primary outcome identified no significant subgroup effects, with effect sizes for subgroups imprecisely estimated. However, there was a very weak indication that interventions focused on the 'practicalities' of adhering to treatment (i.e. capabilities, resources, levels of support or skills) may be effective (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.38; I² = 39%; n = 1752), whereas interventions focused on treatment 'perceptions' (i.e. beliefs, cognitions, concerns and preferences; SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.24; I² = 0%; n = 839) or on both (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.16; I² = 0%; n = 1064), may not be effective. Participant-centred interventions may be effective (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.23; I² = 20%; n = 2791), whereas those that are clinician-centred may not (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.23; I² = 0%; n = 864).Five studies assessed short-term smoking abstinence (five comparisons), while an overlapping set of five studies (seven comparisons) assessed long-term smoking abstinence of six months or more. Meta-analyses resulted in low-certainty evidence that adherence interventions may slightly increase short-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.21; I² = 0%; n = 1795) and long-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.40; I² = 48%; n = 3593). In both cases, the evidence was limited by risk of bias and imprecision, with CIs encompassing minimal harm as well as moderate benefit, and a high likelihood that further evidence will change the estimate of the effect. There was no evidence that interventions to increase adherence to medication led to any adverse events. Studies did not report on factors plausibly associated with increases in adherence, such as self-efficacy, understanding of and attitudes toward treatment, and motivation and intentions to quit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people who are stopping smoking and receiving behavioural support, there is moderate-certainty evidence that enhanced behavioural support focusing on adherence to smoking cessation medications can modestly improve adherence. There is only low-certainty evidence that this may slightly improve the likelihood of cessation in the shorter or longer-term. Interventions to increase adherence can aim to address the practicalities of taking medication, change perceptions about medication, such as reasons to take it or concerns about doing so, or both. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to confirm which approach is more effective. There is no evidence on whether such interventions are effective for people who are stopping smoking without standard behavioural support.

Effectiveness of oral counselling for smoke cessation in Graves orbitopathy patients

OBJECTIVE

Smoking is an important risk factor for Graves orbitopathy (GO) and it is modifiable. The advice to stop smoking has been included in all the clinical practice guidelines of GO. However, the effectiveness of this practice remains unknown. The purpose of this study is to assess the change in the smoking habit in patients affected with GO after an oral counselling for smoking cessation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort of GO patients was studied. The patients received a significant oral counsel during the first consultation with the ophthalmologist. 33 GO patients were explored in the ophthalmology clinic during 2013 and 2014 and the study was done throughout a telephone questionnaire in 2015. The main outcome was the number of cigarettes smoked daily before and after consultation with the endocrinologist and the ophthalmologist. Other medical and socioeconomic factors were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean number of cigarettes that were smoked was 13.6 (SD 9.66) and 6.3 (SD 7.73) before and after the consultation done at the ophthalmology office (T-test paired, P=0.0006). 42.42% achieved smoking cessation and 30.3% decreased their smoking habit. Patients who stopped smoking suffered usually from active and severe GO, had more stable jobs and received greater support from their relatives and friends.

CONCLUSION

A firm and strong oral counsel held for smoke cessation was effective in GO patients. This disease deeply affects patients' quality of life, making them more prone to change their habits.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation increase the likelihood of achieving abstinence in a quit attempt. It is plausible that providing support, or, if support is offered, offering more intensive support or support including particular components may increase abstinence further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of adding or increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition. We also looked at studies which directly compare behavioural interventions matched for contact time, where pharmacotherapy is provided to both groups (e.g. tests of different components or approaches to behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in June 2018 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline, that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount or type of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact (defined as face-to-face or telephone). The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, a different type of personal contact, written information, or no behavioural support at all. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women and trials which did not set out to assess smoking cessation at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates, if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-three studies, 36 of which were new to this update, met the inclusion criteria, representing 29,536 participants. Overall, we judged 16 studies to be at low risk of bias and 21 studies to be at high risk of bias. All other studies were judged to be at unclear risk of bias. Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of studies at high risk of bias. We pooled all studies comparing more versus less support in the main analysis. Findings demonstrated a benefit of behavioural support in addition to pharmacotherapy. When all studies of additional behavioural therapy were pooled, there was evidence of a statistically significant benefit from additional support (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.22, I² = 8%, 65 studies, n = 23,331) for abstinence at longest follow-up, and this effect was not different when we compared subgroups by type of pharmacotherapy or intensity of contact. This effect was similar in the subgroup of eight studies in which the control group received no behavioural support (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43, I² = 20%, n = 4,018). Seventeen studies compared interventions matched for contact time but that differed in terms of the behavioural components or approaches employed. Of the 15 comparisons, all had small numbers of participants and events. Only one detected a statistically significant effect, favouring a health education approach (which the authors described as standard counselling containing information and advice) over motivational interviewing approach (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.94, n = 378).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking increases quit rates. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 20%, based on a pooled estimate from 65 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of specific components that comprise behavioural support.

The digital revolution and its impact on mental health care

The digital revolution is evolving at an unstoppable pace. Alongside the unprecedented explosion of digital technology facilities and systems, mental health care is under greater pressure than ever before. With its emphasis on big data, computing power, mobile technology, and network information, digital technology is set to transform health care delivery. This article reviews the field of digital health technology assessment and intervention primarily in secondary service mental health care, including the barriers and facilitators to adopting and implementing digitally mediated interventions in service delivery. We consider the impact of digitally mediated communication on human interaction and its potential impact on various mental states such as those linked to mood, anxiety but also well-being. These developments point to a need for both theory- and data-driven approaches to digital health care. We argue that, as developments in digital technology are outpacing the evaluation of rigorous digital health interventions, more advanced methodologies are needed to keep up with the pace of digital technology development. The need for co-production of digital tools with and for people with chronic and mental health difficulties, and implications of digital technology for psychotherapy practice, will be central to this development. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Mental health problems are one of the main causes of global and societal burden and are a growing public health. People with mental health problems around the world have limited, if any, chance of accessing psychological help at all. Technological innovations and solutions are being considered in an attempt to address the size and scale of the mental health crisis worldwide. Digital platforms allow people to self-monitor and self-manage in a way that face-to-face/paper-based methods of assessment have up until now not allowed. We provide examples of digital tools that are being developed and used in the secondary setting and identify a number of challenges in the digital health field that require careful consideration.

Telephone counselling for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Telephone services can provide information and support for smokers. Counselling may be provided proactively or offered reactively to callers to smoking cessation helplines.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of telephone support to help smokers quit, including proactive or reactive counselling, or the provision of other information to smokers calling a helpline.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP for studies of telephone counselling, using search terms including 'hotlines' or 'quitline' or 'helpline'. Date of the most recent search: May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials which offered proactive or reactive telephone counselling to smokers to assist smoking cessation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We pooled studies using a random-effects model and assessed statistical heterogeneity amongst subgroups of clinically comparable studies using the I2 statistic. In trials including smokers who did not call a quitline, we used meta-regression to investigate moderation of the effect of telephone counselling by the planned number of calls in the intervention, trial selection of participants that were motivated to quit, and the baseline support provided together with telephone counselling (either self-help only, brief face-to-face intervention, pharmacotherapy, or financial incentives).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 104 trials including 111,653 participants that met the inclusion criteria. Participants were mostly adult smokers from the general population, but some studies included teenagers, pregnant women, and people with long-term or mental health conditions. Most trials (58.7%) were at high risk of bias, while 30.8% were at unclear risk, and only 11.5% were at low risk of bias for all domains assessed. Most studies (100/104) assessed proactive telephone counselling, as opposed to reactive forms.Among trials including smokers who contacted helplines (32,484 participants), quit rates were higher for smokers receiving multiple sessions of proactive counselling (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.61; 14 trials, 32,484 participants; I2 = 72%) compared with a control condition providing self-help materials or brief counselling in a single call. Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate.In studies that recruited smokers who did not call a helpline, the provision of telephone counselling increased quit rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.35; 65 trials, 41,233 participants; I2 = 52%). Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate. In subgroup analysis, we found no evidence that the effect of telephone counselling depended upon whether or not other interventions were provided (P = 0.21), no evidence that more intensive support was more effective than less intensive (P = 0.43), or that the effect of telephone support depended upon whether or not people were actively trying to quit smoking (P = 0.32). However, in meta-regression, telephone counselling was associated with greater effectiveness when provided as an adjunct to self-help written support (P < 0.01), or to a brief intervention from a health professional (P = 0.02); telephone counselling was less effective when provided as an adjunct to more intensive counselling. Further, telephone support was more effective for people who were motivated to try to quit smoking (P = 0.02). The findings from three additional trials of smokers who had not proactively called a helpline but were offered telephone counselling, found quit rates were higher in those offered three to five telephone calls compared to those offered just one call (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.44; 2602 participants; I2 = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling aids smokers who seek help from quitlines, and moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling increases quit rates in smokers in other settings. There is currently insufficient evidence to assess potential variations in effect from differences in the number of contacts, type or timing of telephone counselling, or when telephone counselling is provided as an adjunct to other smoking cessation therapies. Evidence was inconclusive on the effect of reactive telephone counselling, due to a limited number studies, which reflects the difficulty of studying this intervention.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Educational attainment & quitting smoking: A structural equation model approach

In the United States, disparities in smoking prevalence and cessation by socioeconomic status are well documented, but there is limited research on reasons why and none conducted in a national sample assessing multiple potential mechanisms. We identified smoking and cessation-related behavioral and environmental variables associated with both educational attainment and quitting success. We used a structural equation model of cross-sectional data from respondents ≥25 years from the United States 2010-2011 Tobacco Use Supplement-Current Population Survey. Quitting success was defined as former (n = 2607) versus continuing smokers (n = 7636); categories of educational attainment were ≤high school degree, some college/college degree, and advanced degree. Results indicated that using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) >1 month and having a home smoking restriction were associated with both educational attainment and quitting success. Those with lower educational attainment versus those with an advanced degree were less likely to report using NRT >1 month (≤high school: β = -0.50, p < 0.001; college: β = -0.24, p = 0.019). Use of NRT >1 month, in turn, was positively associated with quitting success (β = 0.25, p < 0.001). Those with lower educational attainment were also less likely to report a home smoking restriction (≤high school: β = -0.42, p < 0.001; college: β = -0.21, p = 0.009). Having a home smoking restriction was positively associated with quitting success (β = 0.50, p < 0.001). Results were similar with income substituted for education. Using NRT >1 month and having a home smoking restriction are two strategies that may explain the association between low education and lower cessation success; these strategies should be further tested for their potential ability to mitigate this association.

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

Background

The effectiveness of smoking cessation treatment is limited in real-world use, perhaps because we have not selected the components of such treatments optimally nor have treatments typically been developed for and evaluated in real-world clinical settings.

Purpose

To validate an optimized smoking cessation treatment package that comprises intervention components identified as effective in factorial screening experiments conducted as per the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST).

Methods

Adult smokers motivated to quit were recruited from primary care clinics (N = 623). Participants were randomized to receive either recommended usual care (R-UC; 10 min of in-person counseling, 8 weeks of nicotine patch, and referral to quitline services) or abstinence-optimized treatment (A-OT; 3 weeks of prequit mini-lozenges, 26 weeks of nicotine patch + mini-lozenges, three in-person and eight phone counseling sessions, and 7-11 automated calls to prompt medication use). The key outcomes were self-reported and biochemically confirmed (carbon monoxide, CO <6 ppm) 7-day point-prevalence abstinence.

Results

A-OT participants had significantly higher self-reported abstinence rates than R-UC participants at 4, 8, 16, and 26 weeks (ORs: 1.91-3.05; p <. 001). The biochemically confirmed 26-week abstinence rates were lower than the self-reported 26-week rates, but revealed a similar treatment effect size (OR = 2.94, p < .001). There was no moderation of treatment effects on 26-week abstinence by demographic, psychiatric, or nicotine dependence variables. A-OT had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for 26-week CO-confirmed abstinence of $7,800.

Conclusions

A smoking cessation treatment that is optimized via MOST development meaningfully enhances cessation rates beyond R-UC smoking treatment in smokers seen in primary care.

Clinical Trial Registration

NCT02301403.

Identifying Differences in Rates of Invitation to Participate in Tobacco Treatment in Primary Care

INTRODUCTION

The progress achieved in reducing tobacco use has not been consistent across groups of smokers, and health systems are inconsistently implementing best practice guidelines. Guideline implementation could be associated with improved treatment invitation rates.

AIMS

To evaluate differences in tobacco treatment invitation rates based on patient characteristics in primary care clinics implementing best practice guidelines.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of patients presenting to 11 primary care clinics from 2 Wisconsin health systems from June 2010 to February 2013. The main outcome was whether patients received an invitation to participate in tobacco treatment. Invitation rates were examined by sex, age group (≤ 24 years, 25-44, 45-64, ≥ 64), race (white, black, other), insurance status (private, Medicare, Medicaid, none), and visit diagnosis ("high-risk" [cardiovascular and pulmonary disease, malignancy, pregnancy] vs "low-risk" [all other ICD-9 categories]). Moderation effects of health systems also were examined.

RESULTS

Of the 95,471 patients seen, 84,668 (89%) were screened for smoking. Among the 15,193 smokers, 10,242 (67%) were invited to participate. Invited patients were older, white or black, and carried low-risk diagnoses. Invitation rates and patient-level differences varied between the health systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Variable treatment invitation rates and health system differences remain evident in the primary care setting employing robust clinical practice guideline recommendations.

Can we increase smokers' adherence to nicotine replacement therapy and does this help them quit?

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effects of five intervention components on smokers' adherence to combined nicotine patch and nicotine gum during a quit attempt and assess whether adherence is related to cessation.

METHOD

Smokers interested in quitting (N = 513; 59% female; 87% White) received nicotine patch plus nicotine gum and participated in a 2x2x2x2x2 randomized factorial experiment (i.e., 32 treatment conditions) evaluating five intervention components: (1) medication adherence counseling versus none; (2) automated medication adherence calls versus none; (3) electronic medication monitoring with feedback and counseling versus e-monitoring alone; (4) 26 versus 8 weeks of nicotine patch plus nicotine gum; and (5) maintenance counseling versus none. Adherence was assessed over the first 6 weeks post-target quit day via timeline follow-back (nicotine patch) and electronic medication dispenser (gum).

RESULTS

In the first 6 weeks post-quit day, 12% of participants used no patches or gum, and 40% used the patch every day. Only 1.4% used both patch and gum adherently every day in the 6 weeks post-target quit day. E-monitoring counseling increased gum use (from 1.9 to 2.6 pieces/day; p < .001) but did not increase abstinence. More adherent patch and gum use in the first 6 weeks were each associated with higher point-prevalence abstinence rates through 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

This large experiment with electronic monitoring of nicotine gum adherence showed that e-monitoring counseling increased gum use but not abstinence. Adherence to nicotine patch and to gum were each strongly related to abstinence, but it is unclear whether adherence increases abstinence, or relapse causes medication discontinuation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01120704.

Nicotine replacement therapy versus control for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), including gum, transdermal patch, intranasal spray and inhaled and oral preparations, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to placebo or 'no NRT' interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search is July 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in people motivated to quit which compared NRT to placebo or to no treatment. We excluded trials that did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months, except for those in pregnancy (where less than six months, these were excluded from the main analysis). We recorded adverse events from included and excluded studies that compared NRT with placebo. Studies comparing different types, durations, and doses of NRT, and studies comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered in separate reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 136 studies; 133 with 64,640 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The majority of studies were conducted in adults and had similar numbers of men and women. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day at the start of the studies. We judged the evidence to be of high quality; we judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias but restricting the analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the result. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.61). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 56 trials, 22,581 participants) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.75, 51 trials, 25,754 participants) for nicotine patch; 1.52 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.74, 8 trials, 4439 participants) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials, 976 participants) for nicotine inhalator; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials, 887 participants) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the definition of abstinence, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. A subset of six trials conducted in pregnant women found a statistically significant benefit of NRT on abstinence close to the time of delivery (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.69; 2129 participants); in the four trials that followed up participants post-partum the result was no longer statistically significant (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.86; 1675 participants). Adverse events from using NRT were related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. Attempts to quantitatively synthesize the incidence of various adverse effects were hindered by extensive variation in reporting the nature, timing and duration of symptoms. The odds ratio (OR) of chest pains or palpitations for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.88 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.57, 15 included and excluded trials, 11,074 participants). However, chest pains and palpitations were rare in both groups and serious adverse events were extremely rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that all of the licensed forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhalator and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50% to 60%, regardless of setting, and further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect. The relative effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT. NRT often causes minor irritation of the site through which it is administered, and in rare cases can cause non-ischaemic chest pain and palpitations.

Motivational Benefits of Social Support and Behavioural Interventions for Smoking Cessation

This study examined the role of social support and behavioral interventions used during the last unsuccessful quit attempt for smokers' intentions to quit smoking within the next 6 months, and identified smokers' attributes associated with use of social support and behavioral interventions. The analytic sample included 7,195 adult daily smokers who responded to the 2010-2011 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey, conducted in the US, and indicated having a serious quit attempt in the past 12 months. Smokers who relied on social support from friends and family had higher odds of intending to quit than those who did not (OR= 1.39, 95% CI= 1.22:1.58), and smokers who used interventions had higher odds of intending to quit than those who did not (OR= 1.36, 95% CI= 1.07:1.74). These associations were similar for both sexes, all age groups, and nicotine dependence levels. Both, relying on social support and use of behavioral interventions were more common among smokers who were female, higher educated, residing in the Western US region, and those who used pharmacological aids for smoking cessation. Social support and behavioral interventions are associated with higher intentions to quit among attempters who relapsed and thus, may aid future smoking cessation.