A Pilot Study of Tobacco Screening and Referral for Smoking Cessation Program among HIV-Infected Patients in France

Interventions for tobacco use cessation in people living with HIV

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of tobacco use among people living with HIV (PLWH) is up to four times higher than in the general population. Unfortunately, tobacco use increases the risk of progression to AIDS and death. Individual- and group-level interventions, and system-change interventions that are effective in helping PLWH stop using tobacco can markedly improve the health and quality of life of this population. However, clear evidence to guide policy and practice is lacking, which hinders the integration of tobacco use cessation interventions into routine HIV care. This is an update of a review that was published in 2016. We include 11 new studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits, harms and tolerability of interventions for tobacco use cessation among people living with HIV. To compare the benefits, harms and tolerability of interventions for tobacco use cessation that are tailored to the needs of people living with HIV with that of non-tailored cessation interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO in December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individual-/group-level behavioural or pharmacological interventions, or both, for tobacco use cessation, delivered directly to PLWH aged 18 years and over, who use tobacco. We also included RCTs, quasi-RCTs, other non-randomised controlled studies (e.g. controlled before and after studies), and interrupted time series studies of system-change interventions for tobacco use cessation among PLWH. For system-change interventions, participants could be PLWH receiving care, or staff working in healthcare settings and providing care to PLWH; but studies where intervention delivery was by research personnel were excluded. For both individual-/group-level interventions, and system-change interventions, any comparator was eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods, and used GRADE to assess certainty of the evidence. The primary measure of benefit was tobacco use cessation at a minimum of six months. Primary measures for harm were adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We also measured quit attempts or quit episodes, the receipt of a tobacco use cessation intervention, quality of life, HIV viral load, CD4 count, and the incidence of opportunistic infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 17 studies (16 RCTs and one non-randomised study) with a total of 9959 participants; 11 studies are new to this update. Nine studies contributed to meta-analyses (2741 participants). Fifteen studies evaluated individual-/group-level interventions, and two evaluated system-change interventions. Twelve studies were from the USA, two from Switzerland, and there were single studies for France, Russia and South Africa. All studies focused on cigarette smoking cessation. All studies received funding from independent national- or institutional-level funding. Three studies received study medication free of charge from a pharmaceutical company. Of the 16 RCTs, three were at low risk of bias overall, five were at high risk, and eight were at unclear risk. Behavioural support or system-change interventions versus no or less intensive behavioural support Low-certainty evidence (7 studies, 2314 participants) did not demonstrate a clear benefit for tobacco use cessation rates in PLWH randomised to receive behavioural support compared with brief advice or no intervention: risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.42, with no evidence of heterogeneity. Abstinence at six months or more was 10% (n = 108/1121) in the control group and 11% (n = 127/1193) in the intervention group. There was no evidence of an effect on tobacco use cessation on system-change interventions: calling the quitline and transferring the call to the patient whilst they are still in hospital ('warm handoff') versus fax referral (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.76 to 13.99; 1 study, 25 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the studies in this comparison assessed SAE. Pharmacological interventions versus placebo, no intervention, or another pharmacotherapy Moderate-certainty evidence (2 studies, 427 participants) suggested that varenicline may help more PLWH to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.62) with no evidence of heterogeneity. Abstinence at six months or more was 7% (n = 14/215) in the placebo control group and 13% (n = 27/212) in the varenicline group. There was no evidence of intervention effects from individual studies on behavioural support plus nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) versus brief advice (RR 8.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 126.67; 15 participants; very low-certainty evidence), behavioural support plus NRT versus behavioural support alone (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.36; 560 participants; low-certainty evidence), varenicline versus NRT (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.83; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and cytisine versus NRT (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.11; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence (2 studies, 427 participants) did not detect a difference between varenicline and placebo in the proportion of participants experiencing SAEs (8% (n = 17/212) versus 7% (n = 15/215), respectively; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.22) with no evidence of heterogeneity. Low-certainty evidence from one study indicated similar SAE rates between behavioural support plus NRT and behavioural support only (1.8% (n = 5/279) versus 1.4% (n = 4/281), respectively; RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.64). No studies assessed SAEs for the following: behavioural support plus NRT versus brief advice; varenicline versus NRT and cytisine versus NRT.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear evidence to support or refute the use of behavioural support over brief advice, one type of behavioural support over another, behavioural support plus NRT over behavioural support alone or brief advice, varenicline over NRT, or cytisine over NRT for tobacco use cessation for six months or more among PLWH. Nor is there clear evidence to support or refute the use of system-change interventions such as warm handoff over fax referral, to increase tobacco use cessation or receipt of cessation interventions among PLWH who use tobacco. However, the results must be considered in the context of the small number of studies included. Varenicline likely helps PLWH to quit smoking for six months or more compared to control. We did not find evidence of difference in SAE rates between varenicline and placebo, although the certainty of the evidence is low.

Patient-reported outcome measures in adult HIV care: A rapid scoping review of targeted outcomes and instruments used

OBJECTIVE

There is international interest in the integration of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into routine HIV care, but little work has synthesized the content of published initiatives. We conducted a rapid scoping review primarily to identify their selected patient-reported outcomes and respective instruments.

METHODS

Four databases were searched on 4 May 2022 (Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsychINFO) for relevant English language documents published from 2005 onwards. Dual review of at least 20% of records, full texts and data extraction was performed. Outcomes and instruments were classified with an adapted 14-domain taxonomy. Instruments with evidence of validation were described.

RESULTS

Of 13 062 records generated for review, we retained a final sample of 94 documents, referring to 60 distinct initiatives led mostly in the USA (n = 29; 48% of initiatives), Europe (n = 16; 27%) and Africa (n = 9; 15%). The measured patient-reported outcome domains were: mental health (n = 42; 70%), substance use (n = 23; 38%), self-management (n = 16; 27%), symptoms (n = 12; 20%), sexual/reproductive health (n = 12; 20%), physical health (n = 9; 15%), treatment (n= 8; 13%), cognition (n = 7; 12%), quality of life (n = 7; 12%), violence/abuse (n = 6; 10%), stigma (n = 6; 10%), socioeconomic issues (n = 5; 8%), social support (n = 3; 5%) and body/facial appearance (n = 1; 2%). Initiatives measured 2.6 outcome domains, on average (range = 1-11). In total, 62 distinct validated PROMs were identified, with 53 initiatives (88%) employing at least one (M = 2.2). Overwhelmingly, the most used instrument was any version of the Patient Health Questionnaire to measure symptoms of depression, employed by over a third (26; 43%) of initiatives.

CONCLUSION

Published PROM initiatives in HIV care have spanned 19 countries and disproportionately target mental health and substance use.

Cushing's syndrome due to interaction between ritonavir or cobicistat and corticosteroids: a case-control study in the French Pharmacovigilance Database

OBJECTIVES

To explore the frequent interaction between antiretroviral-boosting agents and corticosteroids causing Cushing's syndrome (CS) in the French Pharmacovigilance Database (FPVD).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective case-control study describing CS recorded in the FPVD between 1996 and 2018. Case was defined as CS occurring in people living with HIV (PLWH) and control was defined as CS in uninfected individuals. Drug-drug interaction (DDI) was defined as an interaction between corticosteroids and CYP3A4 inhibitors. Data concerning the DDI, corticosteroids involved, route of administration and seriousness of the CS were described.

RESULTS

Among the 139 instances of CS identified, 34/35 cases (97%) had DDIs (31 with ritonavir and 3 with cobicistat) and 7/104 controls (7%) had DDIs (6 with itraconazole and 1 with verapamil). The main corticosteroid involved was inhaled fluticasone (28/35, 80%) among the cases and oral prednisone (38/104, 37%) among the controls. More CS cases (30/35, 86%) than CS controls (62/104, 60%) were serious (OR = 4.0, 95% CI = 1.4-14.4; P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Antiretroviral-boosting agents were responsible for one out of four iatrogenic CS cases in a French national database. Prescribers should be aware of the risk of potentially serious DDIs between antiretroviral-boosting agents and corticosteroids, including single-tablet regimens containing cobicistat.

[How to reduce lung cancer mortality among people living with HIV?]

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related death among people living with HIV (PLHIV). Tobacco exposure is higher among PLHIV (38.5%) and mainly explains the increased risk of lung cancer. To reduce lung cancer mortality, two approaches need to be implemented: lung cancer screening with low-dose thoracic CT scan and smoking cessation. Low dose CT scan is feasible in PLHIV. The false positive rate is not higher than in the general population, except for cases with CD4 <200/mm³. The impact on survival remains to be assessed. Despite the high prevalence, smoking cessation research among PLHIV is scarce. Very low quality data from 11 studies showed that more intensive smoking cessation interventions were effective in achieving short-term abstinence. A single randomized phase 3 trial showed the superiority of varenicline compared to placebo in long-term smoking cessation. The maximum benefit of reducing lung cancer mortality should be obtained by combining smoking cessation and lung cancer screening.

Implementation of a comprehensive smoking cessation program in cancer care

Background

Quitting smoking after a cancer diagnosis maximizes treatment-related effects, improves prognosis, and enhances quality of life. However, smoking cessation (sc) services are not routinely integrated into cancer care. The Princess Margaret Cancer Centre implemented a digitally-based sc program in oncology, leveraging an e-referral system (cease) to screen all new ambulatory patients, provide tailored education and advice on quitting, and facilitate referrals.

Methods

We adopted the Framework for Managing eHealth Change to guide implementation of the sc program by integrating 6 key elements: governance and leadership, stakeholder engagement, communication, workflow analysis and integration, monitoring and evaluation, and training and education.

Results

Incorporating elements of the Framework, we used extensive stakeholder engagement and strategic partnerships to establish a sc program with organizational and provincial accountability. Existing electronic patient-reported assessments were changed to integrate cease. Clinic audits and staff engagement allowed for analysis of workflow, ongoing monitoring and evaluation that aided in establishing a communication strategy, and development of cancer-specific education for patients and health care providers. From April 2016 to March 2018, 22,137 new patients were eligible for screening. Among those new patients, 13,617 (62%) were screened, with 1382 (10%) being current smokers and 532 (4%) having recently quit (within 6 months). Of the current smokers and those who had recently quit, all were advised to quit or to stay smoke-free, and 380 (20%) accepted referral to a sc counselling service.

Conclusions

Here, we provide a comprehensive practice blueprint for the implementation of digitally based sc programs as a standard of care within comprehensive cancer centres with high patient volumes.