Respiratory symptom relief related to reduction in cigarette use

Randomised pilot trial of cash incentives for reducing paediatric asthmatic tobacco smoke exposures from maternal caregivers and members of their social network

BACKGROUND

The primary aim was to evaluate the efficacy of financial incentives for reducing paediatric tobacco smoke exposures (TSEs) through motivating cigarette usage reduction among low-income maternal caregivers and members of their social network.

DESIGN

Randomised control pilot trial over a 6-month study follow-up time period. The study was undertaken from May 2017 to -May 2018. Once monthly follow-up visits occurred over the 6-month study period.

SETTING

Baltimore City, Maryland, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

We grouped 135 participants into 45 triads (asthmatic child (2-12 years of age), maternal caregiver and social network member). Triads were assigned in a 1:1 allocation ratio. The maternal caregiver and social network members were active smokers and contributed to paediatric TSE.

INTERVENTIONS

Triads were randomised to receive either usual care (TSE education and quitline referrals) or usual care plus financial incentives. Cash incentives up to $1000 were earned by caregivers and designated social network participants. Incentives for either caregivers or social network participants were provided contingent on their individual reduction of tobacco usage measured by biomarkers of tobacco usage. Study visits occurred once a month during the 6-month trial.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measure was mean change in monthly paediatric cotinine levels over 6 months of follow-up interval and was analysed on an intention-to-treat basis.

RESULTS

The mean change in monthly child cotinine values was not significantly different in the intervention cohort over the 6-month follow-up period, compared with the control group (p=0.098, CI -0.16 to 1.89). Trends in child cotinine could not be ascribed to caregivers or social network members. Despite decreasing mean monthly cotinine values, neither the intervention cohort's caregivers (difference in slope (control-intervention)=3.30 ng/mL/month, CI -7.72 to 1.13, p=0.144) or paired social network members (difference in slope (control-intervention)=-1.59 ng/mL/month, CI -3.57 to 6.74, p=0.546) had significantly different cotinine levels than counterparts in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Financial incentives directed at adult contributors to paediatric TSE did not decrease child cotinine levels.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03099811.

Linkage of Maternal Caregiver Smoking Behaviors on Environmental and Clinical Outcomes of Children with Asthma: A Post-Hoc Analysis of a Financial Incentive Trial Targeting Reduction in Pediatric Tobacco Smoke Exposures

(1) Background: Monthly variability in smoking behaviors in caregivers of pediatric asthmatics yields questions of how much and when does smoking reduction result in improved environmental and clinical outcomes. (2) Methods: Post hoc analysis of data from a 6 month pilot randomized-control trial occurring from May 2017 to May 2018 in Baltimore City (MD, USA). The initial trial’s primary intervention explored the utility of financial incentives in modifying caregiver smoking behaviors. Post hoc analyses examined all dyads independent of the initial trial’s randomization status. All caregivers received pediatric tobacco smoke harm reduction education, in addition to monthly encouragement to access the state tobacco quitline for individual phone-based counseling and nicotine replacement therapy. Maternal caregivers who were active cigarette smokers and their linked asthmatic child (aged 2–12 years) were grouped into two classifications (“high” versus “low”) based on the child and caregiver’s cotinine levels. A “low” cotinine level was designated by at least a 25% reduction in cotinine levels during 3 months of the trial period; achieving ≤2 months of low cotinine levels defaulted to the “high” category. Twenty-seven dyads (caregivers and children) (total n = 54) were assigned to the “high” category, and eighteen dyads (caregivers and children) (total n = 36) were allocated to the “low” category. The primary outcome measure was the correlation of caregiver cotinine levels with pediatric cotinine values. Secondary outcomes included asthma control, in addition to caregiver anxiety and depression. (3) Results: Caregivers with 3 months of ≥25% decrease in cotinine levels had a significantly greater mean change in child cotinine levels (p = 0.018). “Low” caregiver cotinine levels did not significantly improve pediatric asthma control (OR 2.12 (95% CI: 0.62–7.25)). Caregiver anxiety and depression outcomes, measured by Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-4 scores, was not significantly different based on cotinine categorization (p = 0.079); (4) Conclusion: Reduced pediatric cotinine levels were seen in caregivers who reduced their smoking for at least 3 months, but clinical outcome measures remained unchanged.

Design of a randomized controlled trial of smoking cessation medications for alcohol reduction among HIV-positive heavy drinkers and daily smokers in St. Petersburg, Russia

BACKGROUND

HIV, heavy drinking, and smoking are all pro-inflammatory and increase risk for coronary heart disease (CHD). Interventions that reduce alcohol use, smoking, or both in HIV-positive people could lower inflammation, CHD and death risk. Varenicline and cytisine are proven therapies for smoking cessation and may also reduce alcohol consumption. The comparative efficacy of varenicline and cytisine to reduce alcohol consumption has not been tested, nor has their comparative effectiveness been reported for smoking.

OBJECTIVE

This paper describes the protocol of the Studying Partial agonists for Ethanol and Tobacco Elimination in Russians with HIV (St PETER HIV), a four-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial comparing effects of varenicline, cytisine, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).

METHODS

The study is recruiting four hundred HIV-positive heavy drinking smokers interested in cutting down on alcohol and/or tobacco in St. Petersburg, Russia. Participants are randomly assigned to receive either active varenicline + NRT placebo, varenicline placebo + active NRT, active cytisine + NRT placebo, cytisine placebo + active NRT. All participants receive evidence-based counseling for alcohol and tobacco use, one active medication, and one placebo. Outcomes are: 1) % heavy drinking days in the past month (primary study outcome at three months) and alcohol craving; 2) cigarettes per day (primary smoking outcome at 3 months) and 7-day point prevalence abstinence and; 3) inflammation, CHD risk, and mortality risk.

CONCLUSION

St PETER HIV addresses the paucity of randomized controlled trial data to guide treatment of alcohol consumption and smoking in HIV-positive heavy drinking smokers.

Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a directive patient-centred style of counselling, designed to help people to explore and resolve ambivalence about behaviour change. It was developed as a treatment for alcohol abuse, but may help people to a make a successful attempt to stop smoking.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of MI for smoking cessation compared with no treatment, in addition to another form of smoking cessation treatment, and compared with other types of smoking cessation treatment. We also investigated whether more intensive MI is more effective than less intensive MI for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register for studies using the term motivat* NEAR2 (interview* OR enhanc* OR session* OR counsel* OR practi* OR behav*) in the title or abstract, or motivation* as a keyword. We also searched trial registries to identify unpublished studies. Date of the most recent search: August 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which MI or its variants were offered to smokers to assist smoking cessation. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up less than six months, and with additional non-MI intervention components not matched between arms. We excluded trials in pregnant women as these are covered elsewhere.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking cessation was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models. We extracted data on mental health outcomes and quality of life and summarised these narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 37 eligible studies involving over 15,000 participants who smoked tobacco. The majority of studies recruited participants with particular characteristics, often from groups of people who are less likely to seek support to stop smoking than the general population. Although a few studies recruited participants who intended to stop smoking soon or had no intentions to quit, most recruited a population without regard to their intention to quit. MI was conducted in one to 12 sessions, with the total duration of MI ranging from five to 315 minutes across studies. We judged four of the 37 studies to be at low risk of bias, and 11 to be at high risk, but restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk did not significantly alter results, apart from in one case - our analysis comparing higher to lower intensity MI.We found low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, comparing the effect of MI to no treatment for smoking cessation (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.12; I² = 0%; adjusted N = 684). One study was excluded from this analysis as the participants recruited (incarcerated men) were not comparable to the other participants included in the analysis, resulting in substantial statistical heterogeneity when all studies were pooled (I² = 87%). Enhancing existing smoking cessation support with additional MI, compared with existing support alone, gave an RR of 1.07 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.36; adjusted N = 4167; I² = 47%), and MI compared with other forms of smoking cessation support gave an RR of 1.24 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.69; I² = 54%; N = 5192). We judged both of these estimates to be of low certainty due to heterogeneity and imprecision. Low-certainty evidence detected a benefit of higher intensity MI when compared with lower intensity MI (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; adjusted N = 5620; I² = 0%). The evidence was limited because three of the five studies in this comparison were at risk of bias. Excluding them gave an RR of 1.00 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I² = n/a; N = 482), changing the interpretation of the results.Mental health and quality of life outcomes were reported in only one study, providing little evidence on whether MI improves mental well-being.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to show whether or not MI helps people to stop smoking compared with no intervention, as an addition to other types of behavioural support for smoking cessation, or compared with other types of behavioural support for smoking cessation. It is also unclear whether more intensive MI is more effective than less intensive MI. All estimates of treatment effect were of low certainty because of concerns about bias in the trials, imprecision and inconsistency. Consequently, future trials are likely to change these conclusions. There is almost no evidence on whether MI for smoking cessation improves mental well-being.

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.

A Mixed Method Review of Tobacco Cessation for the Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation Clinician

PURPOSE

To systematically survey the literature, describe the current tobacco science, and perform a mixed method review of randomized control trials of tobacco research in the cardiopulmonary population.

METHODS

Mixed method review was conducted on major resource databases. Inclusion criteria were English language with a minimum follow-up of 6 months, published between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2016; adult smokers ≥18 years of age with cardiovascular and/or pulmonary disease; initiation of subject recruitment from hospital or community; tobacco cessation (TC) as the main aim of the study; biometric validation of smoking status; first-line TC medications; and nonpharmacological treatments.

RESULTS

The pooling of the 10 studies through forest plot analysis revealed the effect of tobacco continuous abstinence rates significant at 3, 6, and 12 months (total OR = 3.73; 95% CI, 2.58-5.38). Also, tobacco point prevalence rates of TC treatments demonstrated overall effects that were significant at the different end points (total OR = 2.63; 95% CI, 1.90-3.64). In both cases, the higher ORs were found in the 3 months end point. Most successful interventions consisted of a combination of pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapy (predominantly counseling).

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence continues to support the recommended first-line TC pharmacotherapy and nonpharmacological practices published in the 2008 national guidelines. Implications for cardiopulmonary rehabilitation clinicians are discussed.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medication to aid smoking cessation, compared to a minimal intervention or usual care, and to identify whether there are different effects depending on characteristics of the treatment setting, intervention, population treated, or take-up of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support for smoking cessation, compared to a control receiving usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by two authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by another.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 Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three studies with a total of more than 25,000 participants met the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of studies recruited people in healthcare settings or with specific health needs. Most studies provided NRT. Behavioural support was typically provided by specialists in cessation counselling, who offered between four and eight contact sessions. The planned maximum duration of contact was typically more than 30 minutes but less than 300 minutes. Overall, studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, and findings were not sensitive to the exclusion of any of the six studies rated at high risk of bias in one domain. One large study (the Lung Health Study) contributed heterogeneity due to a substantially larger treatment effect than seen in other studies (RR 3.88, 95% CI 3.35 to 4.50). Since this study used a particularly intensive intervention which included extended availability of nicotine gum, multiple group sessions and long term maintenance and recycling contacts, the results may not be comparable with the interventions used in other studies, and hence it was not pooled in other analyses. Based on the remaining 52 studies (19,488 participants) there was high quality evidence (using GRADE) for a benefit of combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care, brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.68 to 1.98) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 36%).The pooled estimate for 43 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.18) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Compared to the first version of the review, previous weak evidence of differences in other subgroup analyses has disappeared. We did not detect differences between subgroups defined by motivation to quit, treatment provider, number or duration of support sessions, or take-up of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Updating this review with an additional 12 studies (5,000 participants) did not materially change the effect estimate. Although trials differed in the details of their populations and interventions, we did not detect any factors that modified treatment effects apart from the recruitment setting. We did not find evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Effective pharmacotherapies are available to help people who are trying to stop smoking, but quitting can still be difficult and providing higher levels of behavioural support may increase success rates further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of 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.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in May 2015 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

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact. The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, or just written information. We did not include studies that used a contact-matched control to evaluate differences between types or components of support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author prescreened search results and two authors agreed inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials. One author extracted data and another checked them.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 Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria with over 18,000 participants in the relevant arms. There was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 18%) so we pooled all studies in the main analysis. There was evidence of a small but statistically significant benefit from more intensive support (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.24) for abstinence at longest follow-up. All but four of the included studies provided four or more sessions of support to the intervention group. Most trials used NRT. We did not detect significant effects for studies where the pharmacotherapy was nortriptyline (two trials) or varenicline (one trial), but this reflects the absence of evidence.In subgroup analyses, studies that provided at least four sessions of personal contact for the intervention and no personal contact for the control had slightly larger estimated effects (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45; 6 trials, 3762 participants), although a formal test for subgroup differences was not significant. Studies where all intervention counselling was via telephone (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41; 6 trials, 5311 participants) also had slightly larger effects, and the test for subgroup differences was significant, but this subgroup analysis was not prespecified. In this update, the benefit of providing additional behavioural support was similar for the subgroup of trials in which all participants, including controls, had at least 30 minutes of personal contact (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.32; 21 trials, 5166 participants); previously the evidence of benefit in this subgroup had been weaker. This subgroup was not prespecified and a test for subgroup differences was not significant. We judged the quality of the evidence to be high, using the GRADE approach. We judged a small number of trials to be at high risk of bias on one or more domains, but findings were not sensitive to their exclusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking has a small but important effect. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 25%, based on a pooled estimate from 47 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support.

Predictors of perceived asthma control among patients managed in primary care clinics

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the extent to which symptom status, physical activity, beliefs about medications, self-efficacy, emotional status, and healthcare utilization predict perceived asthma control over a period of 16 months among a primary care population.

METHODS

The current study is a secondary analysis of data from a longitudinal study that examined health outcomes of asthma among participants recruited from primary care clinics. Path analysis, based on the Wilson and Cleary and International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health frameworks, was used to estimate the predictors of perceived asthma control.

RESULTS

The path analysis identified initial perceived asthma control asthma (β = 0.43, p < 0.0001), symptoms (β = 0.35, p < 0.0001), physical activity (β = 0.27, p < 0.0001), and self-efficacy (β = 0.29, p < 0.0001) as significant predictors of perceived asthma control (total effects, i.e., direct and indirect), while emotional status (β = 0.08, p = 0.03) was a significant indirect predictor through physical activity. The model explained 24 % of the variance of perceived asthma control. Overall, the model fits the data well (χ (2) = 6.65, df = 6, p value = 0.35, root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.02, Comparative Fit Index = 0.999, and weighted root-mean-square residual = 0.27).

CONCLUSION

Initial perceived asthma control, current symptoms status, physical activity, and self-efficacy can be used to identify individuals likely to have good perceived asthma control in the future. Emotional status also has an impact on perceived asthma control mediated through physical activity and should be considered when planning patient management. Identifying these predictors is important to help the care team tailor interventions that will allow individuals to optimally manage their asthma, to prevent exacerbations, to prevent other respiratory-related chronic disease, and to maximize quality of life.

Behavioural interventions as adjuncts to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Effective pharmacotherapies are available to help people who are trying to stop smoking, but quitting can still be difficult and providing higher levels of behavioural support may increase success rates further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of 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.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2012 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount of behavioural support. Controls could receive less intensive personal contact, or just written information. We did not include studies that used a contact matched control to evaluate differences between types or components of support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by both authors. Data were extracted by one author and checked by the other.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 Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria with over 15,000 participants in the relevant arms. There was very little evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 3%) so all studies were pooled in the main analysis. There was evidence of a small but statistically significant benefit from more intensive support (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.24) for abstinence at longest follow-up. All but two of the included studies provided four or more sessions of support. Most trials used nicotine replacement therapy. Significant effects were not detected for studies where the pharmacotherapy was nortriptyline (two trials) or varenicline (one trial), but this reflects the absence of evidence. In subgroup analyses, studies that provided at least four sessions of personal contact for the intervention and no personal contact for the control had slightly larger effects (six trials, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45), as did studies where all intervention counselling was via telephone (six trials, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41). Weaker evidence for a benefit of providing additional behavioural support was seen in the trials where all participants, including those in the control condition, had at least 30 minutes of personal contact (18 trials, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.25). None of the differences between subgroups were significant, and the last two subgroup analyses were not prespecified. No trials were judged at high risk of bias on any domain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking has a small but important effect. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10 to 25%, based on a pooled estimate from 38 trials. A subgroup analysis of a small number of trials suggests the benefit could be a little greater when the contrast is between a no contact control and a behavioural intervention that provides at least four sessions of contact. Subgroup analysis also suggests that there may be a smaller incremental benefit from providing even more intensive support via more or longer sessions over and above some personal contact.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medication to aid smoking cessation, compared to a minimal intervention or usual care, and to identify whether there are different effects depending on characteristics of the treatment setting, intervention, population treated, or take-up of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2012 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support for smoking cessation, compared to a control receiving usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by both authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by the other.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 Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one studies with a total of more than 20,000 participants met the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of studies recruited people in healthcare settings or with specific health needs. Most studies provided NRT. Behavioural support was typically provided by specialists in cessation counselling, who offered between four and eight contact sessions. The planned maximum duration of contact was typically more than 30 minutes but less than 300 minutes. Overall, studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, and findings were not sensitive to the exclusion of any of the three studies rated at high risk of bias in one domain. One large study (the Lung Health Study) contributed heterogeneity due to a substantially larger treatment effect than seen in other studies (RR 3.88, 95% CI 3.35 to 4.50). Since this study used a particularly intensive intervention which included extended availability of nicotine gum, multiple group sessions and long term maintenance and recycling contacts, the results may not be comparable with the interventions used in other studies, and hence it was not pooled in other analyses. Based on the remaining 40 studies (15,021 participants) there was good evidence for a benefit of combination pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.00) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 40%). The pooled estimate for 31 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.81 to 2.34) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Pooled estimates were lower in a subgroup of trials where the behavioural intervention was provided by specialist counsellors versus trials where counselling was linked to usual care (specialist: RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.55 to 1.93, 28 trials; usual provider: RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.91 to 3.02, 8 trials) but this was largely attributable to the small effect size in two trials using specialist counsellors where the take-up of the planned intervention was low, and one usual provider trial with alarge effect. There was little indirect evidence that the relative effect of an intervention differed according to whether participants in a trial were required to be motivated to make a quit attempt or not. There was only weak evidence that studies offering more sessions had larger effects and there was not clear evidence that increasing the duration of contact increased the effect, but there was more evidence of a dose-response relationship when analyses were limited to trials where the take-up of treatment was high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Further trials would be unlikely to change this conclusion. We did not find strong evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects but this could be because intensive interventions are less likely to be delivered in full.

Impact of self-initiated pre-quit smoking reduction on cessation rates: results of a clinical trial of smoking cessation among female prisoners

OBJECTIVES

This study examined differences in cessation success based on smokers' self-initiated pre-quit reductions in cigarettes per day (cpd).

METHODS

The study utilized data from a nicotine replacement+behavioral therapy smoking cessation intervention conducted in a female prison facility with 179 participants who were wait-listed for 6 months prior to intervention. We compared two groups of smokers based on whether they self-selected to reduce smoking prior to their cessation attempt (n=77) or whether they increased smoking or did not reduce (n=102). General Estimating Equations (GEE) were used to model smoking cessation through 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Examination of pre-cessation cpd showed that those who reduced were heavier smokers at baseline, relative to those who did not reduce (p<0.001). By the week prior to the quit attempt (week 3) heavier smokers at baseline smoked significantly fewer cigarettes (p<0.001) and had lower CO levels (p<0.05) compared to baseline lighter smokers. GEE analyses showed that individuals who reduced prior to their quit attempt had significantly higher quit rates during early treatment but these gains were not sustained by follow-up points.

CONCLUSIONS

Participant-initiated pre-cessation smoking reduction may be initially helpful in preparing to quit smoking, or may serve as a marker for participant motivation to quit smoking, but these differences do not sustain over time. More intensive interventions are still needed for successful cessation.

Smoking reduction and cessation reduce chronic cough in a general population: the Inter99 study

BACKGROUND

Chronic cough can be the first sign of chronic obstructive disease. A few, and mostly selected, studies exploring the effect of reduced daily tobacco consumption have shown a small effect on pulmonary symptoms.

AIM

The aim of this study was to examine if smoking reduction (SR) (> or =50% of daily tobacco consumption) or smoking cessation (SC) had an effect on chronic cough and phlegm.

METHODS

A total of 2408 daily smokers were included in a Danish population-based intervention study, Inter99. In the analyses, we included smokers with self-reported chronic cough or phlegm at baseline who also attended the 1-year follow-up. We investigated if SR or SC had improved the self-reported pulmonary symptoms, using logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Almost 34% of the smokers had chronic cough at baseline and 24.5% had chronic phlegm. Thirty-seven persons with cough at baseline and 24 with phlegm at baseline achieved substantial SR at 1-year follow-up. The corresponding numbers for SC were 63 and 39, respectively. In adjusted analyses, quitting or reducing smoking was associated with less reporting of cough [odds ratio (OR): 14.2; 95% confidence interval (CI): 5.9-34.4] and (OR: 3.7; 95% CI: 1.7-8.0), respectively, compared with unchanged smoking habits. It was also significantly more likely not to report phlegm at 1-year follow-up for those who had quit (OR: 7.1; 95% CI: 2.8-18.0), whereas SR was not significantly associated with termination of phlegm (OR: 2.5; 95% CI: 0.9-6.4) when compared with continuous smoking.

CONCLUSION

SC significantly improved self-reported chronic cough and phlegm as expected. Substantial SR was achieved by few smokers but had a significantly positive effect on chronic cough.

Treatment of mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an epidemic in many parts of the world. Most patients with COPD demonstrate mild disease. The cornerstone of management of mild disease is smoking cessation, which is the only proven intervention to relieve symptoms, modify its natural history and reduce mortality. For asymptomatic patients, it is the only required therapy. Short-acting bronchodilators can be added on an as needed basis for those with intermittent symptoms and regularly for those with persistent symptoms. Long-acting bronchodilators can be substituted for those who remain symptomatic despite regular use of short-acting bronchodilators. Inhaled corticosteroids do not modify the natural history of COPD and as such cannot be recommended as standalone therapy for mild COPD. However, for patients with refractory and intractable symptoms, they may be used in combination with long-acting beta-2 agonists. Influenza and pneumococcal vaccination and pulmonary rehabilitation are other therapies that may be considered for select patients with mild disease. In this paper, we summarize the current standard of care for patients with mild COPD.

Respiratory, cardiovascular and other physiological consequences of smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation is associated with substantial reductions in tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. Based on the current literature, the beneficial effects of quitting are particularly evident on pulmonary and cardiovascular function, but the negative physiological effects of cessation are less well documented.

SCOPE

The objective of this article was to review systematically data on the physiological effects of smoking cessation. Articles based upon clinical trials, randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses were selected from titles and abstracts obtained via a MEDLINE search (May 2003-May 2008). Additional studies were identified from the bibliographies of reviewed literature.

FINDINGS

Smoking cessation is associated with improved lung function and a reduction in the presence and severity of respiratory symptoms. These changes, apparent within months of quitting, are sustained with long-term abstinence. The underlying pathophysiologies of smoking-induced airway inflammation and endothelial dysfunction are partially reversed following cessation in healthy ex-smokers, but not in those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Smoking cessation is also associated with substantially improved cardiovascular function and reduced risk of primary and secondary cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Although the overall long-term health benefits are unquestionable, smoking cessation is also associated with other possible undesirable short-term physiological effects such as weight gain, hypertension, constipation and mouth ulcers; and altered activity of the enzyme cytochrome P450 1A2 (CYP1A2), which metabolises many commonly used drugs.

CONCLUSION

The negative physiological effects of smoking cessation may adversely affect a smoker's attempt to quit, and physicians should provide their smoking patients with motivation and regular encouragement and support when attempting to quit, whilst educating them on the health benefits of abstinence. Additionally, since cigarette smoke is a potent inducer of CYP1A2, patients attempting to quit smoking should have their dosages of drugs metabolised by this enzyme closely monitored.

Influence of current or former smoking on asthma management and control

BACKGROUND

In patients with asthma, smoking has been associated with accelerated decline in pulmonary function, poor disease control and reduced responsiveness to corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the influence of current and former smoking on self-reported asthma control and health care use in a large population of asthma patients.

METHODS

The present analysis was conducted following a telephone survey of adult Canadians aged 18 to 54 years who had physician-diagnosed asthma and a smoking history of less than 20 pack-years.

RESULTS

Of 893 patients, 268 were former smokers and 108 were current smokers. Daytime and nighttime symptoms, absenteeism from work or school, emergency care use for asthma in the past year, and use of a short-acting bronchodilator without controller medication were reported more frequently by current smokers than nonsmokers and former smokers. Former smokers were not significantly different from nonsmokers with respect to most asthma outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Current smokers with asthma show evidence of poorer asthma control and greater acute care needs than lifelong nonsmokers or former smokers. These observations stress the importance of smoking cessation to help achieve asthma control.

Diretrizes para cessação do tabagismo - 2008

Estas diretrizes constituem uma ferramenta atualizada e abrangente para auxiliar o profissional de saúde na abordagem do tabagista, recomendando atitudes baseadas em evidências clínicas como a melhor forma de conduzir cada caso. De forma reduzida e mais objetiva possível, o texto final foi agrupado em dois grandes itens: Avaliação e Tratamento. Os dois itens apresentam comentários e níveis de recomendação das referências utilizadas, bem como algumas propostas de abordagem, como por exemplo, redução de danos, em situações específicas ainda pouco exploradas, como recaídas, tabagismo passivo, tabagismo na categoria médica e uso de tabaco em ambientes específicos.

Persistent impact of cigarette smoking on asthma

OBJECTIVE

In the present study we assessed the impact of former cigarette smoking on asthma control and treatment effectiveness.

METHODS

A total of 104 patients with uncontrolled asthma were included in the study. The group of former smokers consisted of 33 subjects, whereas the never smokers group consisted of 71 subjects of similar age and gender. Spirometry, classification of asthma severity, and control were assessed according to Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines. Quality of life was measured with the use of the Saint George Hospital Respiratory Questionnaire (SGHRQ).

RESULTS

Asthma was more severe in the group of former smokers both before and after treatment; p < 0.001. Severe asthma (OR 7.8 CI 2.8-21.9) and cigarette smoking (OR 3.5 CI 1.3-9.2) were associated with difficulties in asthma control achievement. Total quality of life significantly improved in the group of non-smokers; p = 0.02, whereas in former smokers this effect was not significant; p > 0.05.

CONCLUSION

Cigarette smoking has a persistent, dose-dependent, negative impact on the response to treatment in patients with uncontrolled asthma even after smoking cessation. Smoking cessation should remain the ultimate goal in treatment of asthmatic patients. More efforts should be undertaken to decrease smoking initiation, especially in teenagers.

Does smoking reduction increase future cessation and decrease disease risk? A qualitative review

This review examines whether reduction in smoking among smokers not currently interested in quitting (a) undermines or promotes future smoking cessation or (b) decreases the risks of developing smoking-related diseases. Systematic computer searches and other methods located 19 studies examining reduction and subsequent cessation and 10 studies examining reduction and disease risk. Because of the heterogeneity of methods and results, a meta-analysis could not be undertaken. None of 19 studies found that reduction undermined future cessation, and 16 found that reduction was associated with greater future cessation, including the two randomized trials of reduction versus nonreduction. The 10 trials of disease risk found conflicting results, and none was an adequate test. We conclude that (a) smoking reduction increases the probability of future cessation and (b) whether smoking reduction decreases the risks of smoking-related diseases has not been adequately tested.

Nicotine replacement therapy: patterns of use after a quit attempt among methadone-maintained smokers

AIM

To determine the association between daily smoking and use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and to determine predictors of greater NRT use among methadone-maintained smokers.

INTERVENTION

Assignment to free nicotine patch (8 to 12 weeks) plus either (1) a baseline-tailored brief motivational intervention, a quit date behavioral skills counseling session, and a relapse prevention follow-up session (max), or (2) brief advice using NCI's 4 A's model (min).

SETTING

Five methadone maintenance treatment centers.

PARTICIPANTS

Of the 383 methadone-maintained smokers enrolled, 309 (80.6%) set a specific quit date (received NRT) and were located for assessments. Participants were 51.8% male, 78.6% Caucasian, and smoked 26.6 (SD=12.2) cigarettes/day.

OUTCOME

Use of NRT and smoking behaviors during the 180-day follow-up period assessed by the Timeline follow-back method.

FINDINGS

On the day following their quit day, 86.4% of participants used NRT. The percentage of participants using NRT was 52.3%, 27.1%, and 10.4% on day 30, day 60, and day 90, respectively. Participants used NRT on 44.1% of the days through the 90 days of the treatment protocol. The estimated odds of smoking abstinence was 7.1 (P<.001) times higher on days when NRT was used than on days when NRT was not used, and cigarettes/day was also significantly lower on NRT days (14.93 vs 4.65; P<.001).

CONCLUSION

Nicotine replacement therapy use was inconsistent following an initial quit attempt among methadone-maintained smokers. On days when NRT was used, individuals were likely to smoke at reduced levels or not at all.