Integrating smoking cessation into routine care in hospitals--a randomized controlled trial

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Smoking cessation intervention in Australian general practice: a secondary analysis of a cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

GPs have limited capacity to routinely provide smoking cessation support. New strategies are needed to reach all smokers within this setting.

AIM

To evaluate the effect of a pharmacist-coordinated interdisciplinary smoking cessation intervention delivered in Australian general practice.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Secondary analysis of a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) conducted in 41 Australian general practices.

METHOD

In all, 690 current smokers were included in this study: 373 from intervention clinics (n = 21) and 317 from control clinics (n = 18). A total of 166 current smokers had spirometry-confirmed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In the intervention clinics, trained pharmacists provided smoking cessation support plus Quitline referral. Control clinics provided usual care plus Quitline referral. Those with COPD in the intervention group (n = 84) were referred for home medicines review (HMR) and home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (HomeBase), which included further smoking cessation support. Outcomes included carbon monoxide (CO)-validated smoking abstinence, self-reported use of smoking cessation aids, and differences between groups in readiness-to-quit score at 6 months.

RESULTS

Intention-to-treat analysis showed similar CO-validated abstinence rates at 6 months in the intervention (4.0%) and control clinics (3.5%). No differences were observed in readiness-to-quit scores between groups at 6 months. CO-validated abstinence rates were similar in those who completed HMR and at least six sessions of HomeBase to those with COPD in usual care.

CONCLUSION

A pharmacist-coordinated interdisciplinary smoking cessation intervention when integrated in a general practice setting had no advantages over usual care. Further research is needed to evaluate the effect of HMR and home-based pulmonary rehabilitation on smoking abstinence in smokers with COPD.

The efficacy and safety of varenicline alone versus in combination with nicotine lozenges for smoking cessation among hospitalised smokers (VANISH): study protocol for a randomised, placebo-controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Smoking is a leading cause of premature deaths globally. The health benefits of smoking cessation are many. However, majority of quit attempts are unsuccessful. One way to potentially improve success rates is to evaluate new combinations of existing smoking cessation therapies that may work synergistically to decrease the intensity of withdrawal symptoms and cravings.

AIMS

To evaluate the feasibility, efficacy and safety of the combination of varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) lozenges versus varenicline alone in assisting hospitalised smokers to quit.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Adults with a history of smoking ≥10 cigarettes per day on average in the 4 weeks prior to their hospitalisation will be recruited. Participants will be randomly assigned to either the intervention group and will receive varenicline and NRT lozenges, or the control group and will receive varenicline and placebo lozenges. All participants will be actively referred to behavioural support from telephone Quitline. Participants are followed up at 1 and 3 weeks and 3, 6 and 12 months from the start of treatment. The primary outcome is carbon monoxide validated prolonged abstinence from 2 weeks to 6 months after treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes include self-reported and biochemically validated prolonged and point prevalence abstinence at 3, 6 and 12 months, self-reported adverse events, withdrawal symptoms and cravings, adherence to treatment, Quitline sessions attended and others. According to the Russell Standard, all randomised participants will be accounted for in the primary intention-to-treat analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial will be conducted in compliance with the protocol, the principles of Good Clinical Practice, the National Health and Medical Research Council National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (updated 2015) and the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2018). Approval will be sought from the Human Ethics Committees of all the participating hospitals and the university. Written informed consent will be obtained from each participant at the time of recruitment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001792213).

Promoting cessation in hospitalized smoking patients: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES The objective of this review was to evaluate high intensity post-discharge follow-up strategies to promote smoking cessation in hospitalized patients. METHODS A systematic review was performed, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA - P) protocol. The databases used for research were: PubMed, LILACS/BIREME, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane and Scielo. The included articles were randomized clinical trials, published from 1990 to 2018, which evaluated in-hospital and post-discharge intervention, and provided a minimum of 30-day care post discharge. The studies aimed to evaluate tobacco cessation. RESULTS Fourteen studies were selected for analysis. Across studies, pharmacotherapy was consistently effective for smoking cessation. Communication technologies likewise were consistently effective for cessation and post-discharge access. CONCLUSION Effective strategies exist. The challenge for future trials is to determine the best approaches for different clinical contexts, to promote cessation.

Do randomised controlled trials relevant to pharmacy meet best practice standards for quality conduct and reporting? A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Evidence-based pharmacy practice requires a dependable evidence base. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard of high-quality primary research, and tools exist to assist researchers in conducting and reporting high-quality RCTs. This review aimed to explore whether RCTs relevant to pharmacy are conducted and reported in line with Cochrane risk of bias and CONSORT standards, respectively.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search identified potential papers. After screening of titles, abstracts and full texts, the 50 most recent papers were reviewed and assessment of bias according to Cochrane domains and compliance with CONSORT checklist items was recorded. Each domain of the Cochrane tool and CONSORT checklist item and each article were given a percentage score, reported as median and interquartile range (IQR). Correlation between quality of conduct, quality of reporting, continent of origin, and journal impact factor was conducted using the R² statistic. The median domain score for risk of bias by paper according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool was 53.0% (IQR 38.5-68.5), while the median compliance score by paper for the CONSORT checklist was 64.0% (IQR 36.0-94.0%).

KEY FINDINGS

The median Cochrane domain and median CONSORT item completion scores, respectively, were 50.0% (IQR 33.3-66.7%) and 59.5% (IQR 52.0-70.3%). The highest risk of bias was associated with allocation concealment and blinding, and the least well-reported items were randomisation details, sequence generation and allocation concealment. A positive relationship between conduct and reporting of RCTs was found (R²  = 0.75), while no correlation was found between quality of conduct or quality of reporting and journal impact factor, correlation coefficients (R²  = 0.06 and R²  = 0.05, respectively).

SUMMARY

This review identified that issues related to randomisation and blinding are often inadequately conducted or not comprehensively reported by researchers conducting pharmacy relevant RCTs, providing useful information for education and future research.

Models for pharmacist-delivered tobacco cessation services: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To summarize delivery models of pharmacist-led tobacco cessation services.

DATA SOURCES

Studies published from July 1, 2003, to April 1, 2019, describing pharmacist-led tobacco cessation services in the United States were identified via PubMed/MEDLINE and EBSCO searches.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were considered for inclusion if they met the following criteria: population, patients 18 years of age and older using tobacco products; intervention, pharmacist-led tobacco cessation services; comparator, not required; and outcome, tobacco cessation. We used a web-based tool, Rayyan QCRI, to assist with study selection.

DATA EXTRACTION

We used a data extraction tool to collect article reference, study design, primary and secondary objectives, brief description of intervention, pharmacologic interventions, service model, business model, method to measure tobacco cessation, tobacco cessation rates, and other comments.

RESULTS

A total of 16 articles were incorporated into this review. Most studies included were observational (87.5%). The pharmacy settings included ambulatory care (68.8%), community (25%), and managed care (6.3%). Service models described most frequently followed an appointment-based, individual, face-to-face session between the patient and pharmacist. Business models included grant funding (12.5%), fee-for-service (6.3%), value-based (6.3%), and free services (6.3%), but most studies (56.3%) did not address reimbursement. Cessation rates ranged from 3.98% to 77.14% and were predominantly measured through self-report (62.5%). The timing of follow-up varied from 1 to 6 months after program completion, but in some articles was not reported (37.5%).

CONCLUSION

Pharmacists currently manage tobacco cessation services via an assortment of methods and can successfully assist patients in achieving abstinence. Gaps in the literature necessitate further guidance on consistent outcomes reporting, impact of service model on tobacco cessation, and economic data of business models. The profession will benefit from such information to further expand the pharmacists' role within tobacco cessation services.

Evaluation of smoking cessation treatment initiated during hospitalization in patients with heart disease or respiratory disease

Objective:

To evaluate the effectiveness of a smoking cessation program, delivered by trained health care professionals, in patients hospitalized for acute respiratory disease (RD) or heart disease (HD).

Methods:

Of a total of 393 patients evaluated, we included 227 (146 and 81 active smokers hospitalized for HD and RD, respectively). All participants received smoking cessation treatment during hospitalization and were followed in a cognitive-behavioral smoking cessation program for six months after hospital discharge.

Results:

There were significant differences between the HD group and the RD group regarding participation in the cognitive-behavioral program after hospital discharge (13.0% vs. 35.8%; p = 0.003); smoking cessation at the end of follow-up (29% vs. 31%; p < 0.001); and the use of nicotine replacement therapy (3.4% vs. 33.3%; p < 0.001). No differences were found between the HD group and the RD group regarding the use of bupropion (11.0% vs. 12.3%; p = 0.92). Varenicline was used by only 0.7% of the patients in the HD group.

Conclusions:

In our sample, smoking cessation rates at six months after hospital discharge were higher among the patients with RD than among those with HD, as were treatment adherence rates. The implementation of smoking cessation programs for hospitalized patients with different diseases, delivered by the health care teams that treat these patients, is necessary for greater effectiveness in smoking cessation.

Use of electronic cigarettes in the perioperative period: A mixed-method study exploring perceptions of cardiothoracic patients in Australia

INTRODUCTION

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) may reduce tobacco use and achieve tobacco abstinence in the perioperative period of cardiothoracic surgery for patients who smoke. However, research on patients' views on the role of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation tool is lacking. This mixed-methods study explored perceptions on the use of e-cigarettes among current smokers and ex-smokers awaiting cardiothoracic surgery in Australia.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 62 patients who were diagnosed with coronary artery disease or lung cancer and were scheduled for elective cardiothoracic surgery at six metropolitan hospitals in Sydney. Data were collected on demographic characteristics, smoking history, surgical risk index, self-efficacy, interest in, perceived benefits of, and barriers to using e-cigarettes in the perioperative period.

RESULTS

Current smokers reported significantly higher interest in the use of e-cigarettes (p=0.008), and perceived fewer barriers (p=0.048) and more health benefits (p=0.079), compared to ex-smokers. Current smokers considered e-cigarettes to be either a safer alternative to tobacco or a novel method for quitting. Recent ex-smokers, defined as those who quit 2-8 weeks, were a distinct group with high nicotine dependency, a long history of smoking, and multiple failed quit attempts. Compared to longer-term ex-smokers (8-52 weeks quit), recent ex-smokers were more interested in e-cigarettes (p=0.029) and considered e-cigarettes a useful aid to prevent relapse in the lead up to surgery and to manage their nicotine cravings.

CONCLUSIONS

E-cigarettes may be considered a short-term novel aid and a bridge to evidence-based methods to reduce harm from continued tobacco use for some patients awaiting cardiothoracic surgery for coronary artery disease or lung cancer. This study presents reasons why patients awaiting cardiothoracic surgery may enquire about or use e-cigarettes, which will help clinicians identify those who need more consistent, sustained cessation support.

Implementation of a Pharmacist-Led Inpatient Tobacco Cessation Intervention in a Rehabilitation Hospital: A Before-and-After Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Inpatient rehabilitation presents a unique opportunity for smoking interventions, given the typical lengths of stay, the relevance of smoking to the admission diagnosis of many patients, and the occurrence of nicotine withdrawal during the hospital stay.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility of implementing a pharmacist-led version of the Ottawa Model for Smoking Cessation (OMSC) program at a rehabilitation hospital, using the indicators of reach, effectiveness, adoption, and implementation.

METHODS

A before-and-after pilot study was conducted. Smoking cessation data were collected from 2 cohorts of eligible smokers identified during 4-month periods before (control) and after (intervention) implementation of the OMSC program. Control participants received usual care (i.e., no cessation intervention). Intervention participants received initial in-hospital smoking cessation support (counselling and nicotine replacement therapy), inpatient follow-up during the hospital stay, and 3 months of postdischarge follow-up calls, with all aspects led by hospital pharmacists.

RESULTS

Among all patients admitted to participating inpatient rehabilitation units during the 2 study periods, smoking prevalence was 7.8% (127/1626). After exclusions, deaths, and withdrawals, 111 patients were retained for analysis: 55 in the control group and 56 in the intervention group. The overall mean age of participants was 64.9 (standard deviation [SD] 14.3) years, with a mean smoking history of 35.0 (SD 24.8) pack-years. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of baseline characteristics. Self-reported abstinence rates (determined 3 months after discharge) were higher after compared with before implementation of the OMSC program: for continuous abstinence, 16/56 (28.6%) versus 9/55 (16.4%), χ² = 4.462, p = 0.035; for 7-day point prevalence abstinence, 21/56 (37.5%) versus 10/55 (18.2%), χ² = 6.807, p = 0.009.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of the OMSC program at a large rehabilitation hospital was feasible and led to an increase in 3-month smoking abstinence. This study provides preliminary evidence to support inclusion of smoking interventions as part of inpatient rehabilitation care.

Effectiveness of a pharmacist-delivered smoking cessation program in the State of Qatar: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Cigarette smoking is one of the major preventable causes of death and diseases in Qatar. The study objective was to test the effect of a structured smoking cessation program delivered by trained pharmacists on smoking cessation rates in Qatar.

Methods

A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted in eight ambulatory pharmacies in Qatar. Eligible participants were smokers 18 years and older who smoked one or more cigarettes daily for 7 days, were motivated to quit, able to communicate in Arabic or English, and attend the program sessions. Intervention group participants met with the pharmacists four times at 2 to 4 week intervals. Participants in the control group received unstructured brief smoking cessation counseling. The primary study outcome was self-reported continuous abstinence at 12 months. Analysis was made utilizing data from only those who responded and also using intent-to-treat principle. A multinomial logistic regression model was fitted to assess the predictors of smoking at 12 months. Analysis was conducted using IBM-SPSS® version 23 and STATA® version 12.

Results

A total of 314 smokers were randomized into two groups: intervention (n = 167) and control (n = 147). Smoking cessation rates were higher in the intervention group at 12 months; however this difference was not statistically significant (23.9% vs. 16.9% p = 0.257). Similar results were observed but with smaller differences in the intent to treat analysis (12.6% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.391). Nevertheless, the daily number of cigarettes smoked for those who relapsed was significantly lower (by 4.7 and 5.6 cigarettes at 3 and 6 months respectively) in the intervention group as compared to the control group (p = 0.041 and p = 0.018 respectively). At 12 months, the difference was 3.2 cigarettes in favor of the intervention group but was not statistically significant (p = 0.246). Years of smoking and daily number of cigarettes were the only predictors of smoking as opposed to quitting at 12 months (p = 0.005; p = 0.027 respectively).

Conclusions

There was no statistically significant difference in the smoking cessation rate at 12 months between the groups. However, the smoking cessation program led to higher (albeit non-significant) smoking cessation rates compared with usual care. More research should be conducted to identify factors that might improve abstinence.

Trial registration

Clinical Trials NCT02123329. Registration date 20 April 2014

System change interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

System change interventions for smoking cessation are policies and practices designed by organizations to integrate the identification of smokers and the subsequent offering of evidence-based nicotine dependence treatments into usual care. Such strategies have the potential to improve the provision of smoking cessation support in healthcare settings, and cessation outcomes among those who use them.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of system change interventions within healthcare settings, for increasing smoking cessation or the provision of smoking cessation care, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched databases including the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO in February 2016. We also searched clinical trial registries: WHO clinical trial registry, US National Institute of Health (NIH) clinical trial registry. We checked 'grey' literature, and handsearched bibliographies of relevant papers and publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, quasi-RCTs and interrupted time series studies that evaluated a system change intervention, which included identification of all smokers and subsequent offering of evidence-based nicotine dependence treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form, we extracted data from eligible studies on study settings, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest (both cessation and system-level outcomes). For cessation outcomes, we used the strictest available criteria to define abstinence. System-level outcomes included assessment and documentation of smoking status, provision of advice to quit or cessation counselling, referral and enrolment in quitline services, and prescribing of cessation medications. We assessed risks of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook and categorized each study as being at high, low or unclear risk of bias. We used a narrative synthesis to describe the effectiveness of the interventions on various outcomes, because of significant heterogeneity among studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven cluster-randomized controlled studies in this review. We rated the quality of evidence as very low or low, depending on the outcome, according to the GRADE standard. Evidence of efficacy was equivocal for abstinence from smoking at the longest follow-up (four studies), and for the secondary outcome 'prescribing of smoking cessation medications' (two studies). Four studies evaluated changes in provision of smoking cessation counselling and three favoured the intervention. There were significant improvements in documentation of smoking status (one study), quitline referral (two studies) and quitline enrolment (two studies). Other secondary endpoints, such as asking about tobacco use (three studies) and advising to quit (three studies), also indicated some positive effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that system change interventions for smoking cessation may not be effective in achieving increased cessation rates, but have been shown to improve process outcomes, such as documentation of smoking status, provision of cessation counselling and referral to smoking cessation services. However, as the available research is limited we are not able to draw strong conclusions. There is a need for additional high-quality research to explore the impact of system change interventions on both cessation and system-level outcomes.

Referring Hospitalized Smokers to Outpatient Quit Services: A Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION

Linking outpatient cessation services to bedside counseling for hospitalized smokers can improve long-run quit rates. Adding an assisted referral (AR) offer to a tobacco treatment specialist consult service fits the team approach to care in U.S. hospitals.

DESIGN

A two-arm patient-randomized trial tested the effectiveness of adding an AR offer to outpatient smoking-cessation services and interactive voice recognition (AR+IVR) follow-up to a usual care (UC) tobacco-cessation consult for hospitalized smokers.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Over 24 months (November 2011-November 2013), 898 hospitalized adult smokers interested in quitting smoking were recruited from three large hospitals in the Portland, Oregon, area: an integrated group model HMO (n=622), a community hospital (n=195), and an academic health center (n=81).

INTERVENTION

Tobacco treatment specialists identified smokers and provided an intensive bedside tobacco use assessment and cessation consultation (UC). AR+IVR recipients also received proactive ARs to available outpatient counseling programs and medications, and linked patients to a tailored IVR telephone follow-up system.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was self-reported 30-day abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included self-reported and continuous abstinence and biochemically confirmed 7-day abstinence at 6 months. Follow-up was completed in September 2014; data were analyzed in 2015.

RESULTS

A total of 597 and 301 hospitalized smokers were randomized to AR+IVR and UC, respectively. AR+IVR and UC recipients received 19.3 and 17.0 minutes of bedside counseling (p=0.372), respectively. Most (58%) AR+IVR patients accepted referrals for counseling, 43% accepted medications, and 28% accepted both. Self-reported 30-day abstinence for AR+IVR (17.9%) and UC (17.3%) were not statistically significant (p=0.569). Differences in 7-day, continuous, and biochemically confirmed abstinence by treatment group also were insignificant, overall and adjusting for site.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding an AR to outpatient counseling and medications did not increase cigarette abstinence at 6 months compared to UC alone.

Smoking cessation strategies for patients with asthma: improving patient outcomes

Smoking is common in adults with asthma, yet a paucity of literature exists on smoking cessation strategies specifically targeting this subgroup. Adverse respiratory effects from personal smoking include worse asthma control and a predisposition to lower lung function and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Some data suggest that individuals with asthma are more likely than their non-asthmatic peers to smoke regularly at an earlier age. While quit attempts can be more frequent in smokers with asthma, they are also of shorter duration than in non-asthmatics. Considering these asthma-specific characteristics is important in order to individualize smoking cessation strategies. In particular, asthma-specific information such as "lung age" should be provided and longer-term follow-up is advised. Promising emerging strategies include reminders by cellular phone and web-based interventions using consumer health informatics. For adolescents, training older peers to deliver asthma education is another promising strategy. For smokers who are hospitalized for asthma, inpatient nicotine replacement therapy and counseling are a priority. Overall, improving smoking cessation rates in smokers with asthma may rely on a more personalized approach, with the potential for substantial health benefits to individuals and the population at large.