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

Time-Varying Mediation of Pharmacological Smoking Cessation Treatments on Smoking Lapse via Craving, Cessation Fatigue, and Negative Mood

INTRODUCTION

The addictive nature of nicotine makes smoking cessation an extremely challenging process. With prolonged exposure, tobacco smoking transforms from being a positive reinforcer to a negative one, as smoking is used to mitigate aversive withdrawal symptoms. Studying the variations in withdrawal symptoms, especially during their peak in the first week of a quit attempt, could help improve cessation treatment for the future. The time-varying mediation model effectively studies whether altering withdrawal symptoms act as mediators in the pathway between treatment and cessation.

AIMS AND METHODS

This secondary data analysis of a randomized clinical smoking cessation trial of three pharmacotherapy regimens (nicotine patch, varenicline, and nicotine patch + mini-lozenge) analyzes ecological momentary assessment (EMA) data from the first 4 weeks post-target quit day (TQD). We assess whether withdrawal symptoms (eg, negative mood, cessation fatigue, and craving) mediate the pathway between pharmacotherapy and daily smoking status and whether this effect varies over time.

RESULTS

We found a statistically significant time-varying mediation effect of varenicline on smoking status through craving, which shows decreasing risk of lapse via reduction in craving. We did not find significant time-varying mediation effects through negative mood and cessation fatigue.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the importance of craving suppression in the smoking cessation process. It also helped identify specific timepoints when withdrawal symptoms increased that would likely benefit from targeted cessation intervention strategies.

IMPLICATIONS

This study aimed to understand the underlying dynamic mechanisms of the smoking cessation process using a new analytical approach that capitalizes on the intensive longitudinal data collected via EMAs. The findings from this study further elucidate the smoking cessation process and provide insight into behavioral intervention targets and the timing of such interventions through the estimation of time-varying mediation effects.

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.

Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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