Effectiveness of postal smoking cessation advice: a randomized controlled trial in young men with reduced FEV1 and asbestos exposure

Evaluating the effectiveness of mailout smoking cessation support: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

One of the main barriers to smoking cessation support is accessibility. Mailout supports can potentially mitigate access barriers, but their effectiveness has not been explored. The aim of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of mailout smoking cessation support.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using studies retrieved from six databases, from inception to May 2024. The methodological qualities were assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects model to estimate pooled effects. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the Higgins' I2 test. Publication bias was assessed through a funnel plot and Egger's regression test.

RESULTS

A total of 1918 citations were screened, resulting in the inclusion of 12 RCTs. Mailout support significantly improved the odds of smoking cessation at six to twelve months (OR = 1.43, 95 % CI: 1.29, 1.59). Interventions that included nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) were associated with higher odds of smoking cessation (OR = 1.61, 95 % CI: 1.38, 1.87) compared to behavioural interventions alone (OR = 1.28, 95 % CI: 1.11, 1.48). Interventions lasting longer than 12 weeks resulted in higher odds of smoking cessation (OR = 1.57, 95 % CI 1.29, 1.59) compared to interventions lasting 8 to 12 weeks (OR = 1.52, 95 % CI 1.29, 1.80) and less than 8 weeks (OR = 1.40, 95 % CI 1.10, 1.77).

CONCLUSION

Mailout smoking cessation support improves quitting, especially when interventions include NRT and delivered for longer than 12 weeks. While further research is needed to refine implementation strategies, mailout smoking cessation supports are effective and have potential to reduce access barriers.

Ever Smoking is Not Associated with Performed Spirometry while Occupational Exposure and Respiratory Symptoms are

Objective

Despite recommendations, assessment using spirometry or peak expiratory flow is insufficient in the clinical evaluation of suspected obstructive pulmonary disease. The aim was to investigate factors associated with performing spirometry or peak flow expiratory flow assessment.

Methods

Randomly selected subjects from the general population aged 50-65 completed a respiratory questionnaire with items about the history of previously performed spirometry or peak expiratory flow. The association between ever having had spirometry or peak expiratory flow performed was analyzed for smoking, age, sex, occupational exposures, dyspnea, wheeze, self-reported physician diagnosed asthma and COPD using multivariable logistic regression models. The results are presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

Results

Of the 1105 participants, 43.4% (n=479) had a history of previously performed spirometry or peak expiratory flow. Occupational exposure (OR 1.72, [95% CI] 1.30-2.27), wheeze (OR 2.29, 1.41-3.70), and dyspnea (OR 1.70, 1.11-2.60) were associated with previously performed spirometry. Compared to men, women had spirometry or peak expiratory flow performed less often (OR 0.67, 0.51-0.86). Neither current smoking (OR 0.83, 0.57-1.20) or former smoking (OR 1.27, 0.96-1.67) were associated with performed spirometry or peak expiratory flow.

Conclusion

We found no relation between smoking status and a history of previously performed spirometry or peak expiratory flow in a population-based sample of middle-aged people. This is surprising regarding the strong guidelines which highlight the importance for spirometry surveillance on current smokers due to their increased risk of lung disease. Male sex, respiratory symptoms and occupational exposures to air pollution were associated with previously performed spirometry or peak expiratory flow. The association with occupational exposure may be an effect of pre-employment screening and workplace surveillance, and the findings indicate that females do not receive the same attention regarding spirometry or peak expiratory flow.

HSD3B1 variant and androgen-deprivation therapy outcome in prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

Rate-limiting enzyme 3b-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 (3βHSD1) encoded by HSD3B1 catalyzes the transition of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) to dihydrotestosterone (DHT). The HSD3B1 (1245C) variant renders 3bHSD1 of resistant to ubiquitination and degradation, leading to a large amount of protein accumulation in the cell. Multiple clinical studies have shown that this mutation was correlated with resistance to androgen-deprivation therapy in prostate cancer. However, the results were not consistent depending on different treatment strategy and in some researches, the number of observed cases was relatively small.

METHODS

To determine the effects of HSD3B1 (1245C) variant on resistance to androgen-deprivation therapy in prostate cancer, we performed a meta-analysis of the available literature. Electronic database searches identified appropriately designed studies that detected HSD3B1 in prostate cancer. We conducted a systematic search of studies in the following databases: PubMed, and EMBASE published until August 10, 2020 using the following search terms: (HSD3B1 AND ((((prostate cancer) OR prostatic neoplasm) OR prostatic carcinoma) OR prostatic cancer).

RESULTS

Eight researches were included in this research. The result validated that the HSD3B1 (1245C) variant allele was associated with a shorter PFS (HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.39-2.79; P = 0.0001) (homozygous wild-type group) in men with prostate cancer when treated with ADT, however, a higher PFS (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.96; P = 0.03) when treated with ADT and CYP17A1 inhibitor.

CONCLUSION

The HSD3B1 (1245C) variant is a predictor of ADT plus CYP17A1 inhibitor response in prostate cancer.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers with feedback on the current or potential future biomedical effects of smoking using, for example, measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer or other diseases.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was to determine the efficacy of providing smokers with feedback on their exhaled CO measurement, spirometry results, atherosclerotic plaque imaging, and genetic susceptibility to smoking-related diseases in helping them to quit smoking.

SEARCH METHODS

For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in March 2018 and ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP in September 2018 for studies added since the last update in 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria for the review were: a randomised controlled trial design; participants being current smokers; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase smoking cessation rates; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; and an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed results as a risk ratio (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials using a variety of biomedical tests interventions; one trial included two interventions, for a total of 21 interventions. We included a total of 9262 participants, all of whom were adult smokers. All studies included both men and women adult smokers at different stages of change and motivation for smoking cessation. We judged all but three studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. We pooled trials in three categories according to the type of biofeedback provided: feedback on risk exposure (five studies); feedback on smoking-related disease risk (five studies); and feedback on smoking-related harm (11 studies). There was no evidence of increased cessation rates from feedback on risk exposure, consisting mainly of feedback on CO measurement, in five pooled trials (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.21; I2 = 0%; n = 2368). Feedback on smoking-related disease risk, including four studies testing feedback on genetic markers for cancer risk and one study with feedback on genetic markers for risk of Crohn's disease, did not show a benefit in smoking cessation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; I2 = 0%; n = 2064). Feedback on smoking-related harm, including nine studies testing spirometry with or without feedback on lung age and two studies on feedback on carotid ultrasound, also did not show a benefit (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.61; I2 = 34%; n = 3314). Only one study directly compared multiple forms of measurement with a single form of measurement, and did not detect a significant difference in effect between measurement of CO plus genetic susceptibility to lung cancer and measurement of CO only (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.56; n = 189).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence about the effects of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. The most promising results relate to spirometry and carotid ultrasound, where moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision and risk of bias, did not detect a statistically significant benefit, but confidence intervals very narrowly missed one, and the point estimate favoured the intervention. A sensitivity analysis removing those studies at high risk of bias did detect a benefit. Moderate-certainty evidence limited by risk of bias did not detect an effect of feedback on smoking exposure by CO monitoring. Low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, did not detect a benefit from feedback on smoking-related risk by genetic marker testing. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.

Print-based self-help interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Many smokers give up smoking on their own, but materials that provide a structured programme for smokers to follow may increase the number who quit successfully.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were to determine the effectiveness of different forms of print-based self-help materials that provide a structured programme for smokers to follow, compared with no treatment and with other minimal contact strategies, and to determine the comparative effectiveness of different components and characteristics of print-based self-help, such as computer-generated feedback, additional materials, tailoring of materials to individuals, and targeting of materials at specific groups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The date of the most recent search was March 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials of smoking cessation with follow-up of at least six months, where at least one arm tested print-based materials providing self-help compared with minimal print-based self-help (such as a short leaflet) or a lower-intensity control. We defined 'self-help' as structured programming for smokers trying to quit without intensive contact with a therapist.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in accordance with standard methodological procedures set out by Cochrane. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months' follow-up in people smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each study and biochemically validated rates when available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 75 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Many study reports did not include sufficient detail to allow judgement of risk of bias for some domains. We judged 30 studies (40%) to be at high risk of bias for one or more domains.Thirty-five studies evaluated the effects of standard, non-tailored self-help materials. Eleven studies compared self-help materials alone with no intervention and found a small effect in favour of the intervention (n = 13,241; risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.37; I² = 0%). We judged the evidence to be of moderate certainty in accordance with GRADE, downgraded for indirect relevance to populations in low- and middle-income countries because evidence for this comparison came from studies conducted solely in high-income countries and there is reason to believe the intervention might work differently in low- and middle-income countries. This analysis excluded two studies by the same author team with strongly positive outcomes that were clear outliers and introduced significant heterogeneity. Six further studies of structured self-help compared with brief leaflets did not show evidence of an effect of self-help materials on smoking cessation (n = 7023; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.07; I² = 21%). We found evidence of benefit from standard self-help materials when there was brief contact that did not include smoking cessation advice (4 studies; n = 2822; RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.88; I² = 0%), but not when self-help was provided as an adjunct to face-to-face smoking cessation advice for all participants (11 studies; n = 5365; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.28; I² = 32%).Thirty-two studies tested materials tailored for the characteristics of individual smokers, with controls receiving no materials, or stage-matched or non-tailored materials. Most of these studies used more than one mailing. Pooling studies that compared tailored self-help with no self-help, either on its own or compared with advice, or as an adjunct to advice, showed a benefit of providing tailored self-help interventions (12 studies; n = 19,190; RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.49; I² = 0%) with little evidence of difference between subgroups (10 studies compared tailored with no materials, n = 14,359; RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.51; I² = 0%; two studies compared tailored materials with brief advice, n = 2992; RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.49; I² = 0%; and two studies evaluated tailored materials as an adjunct to brief advice, n = 1839; RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.53; I² = 10%). When studies compared tailored self-help with non-tailored self-help, results favoured tailored interventions when the tailored interventions involved more mailings than the non-tailored interventions (9 studies; n = 14,166; RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.68; I² = 0%), but not when the two conditions were contact-matched (10 studies; n = 11,024; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.30; I² = 50%). We judged the evidence to be of moderate certainty in accordance with GRADE, downgraded for risk of bias.Five studies evaluated self-help materials as an adjunct to nicotine replacement therapy; pooling three of these provided no evidence of additional benefit (n = 1769; RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; I² = 0%). Four studies evaluating additional written materials favoured the intervention, but the lower confidence interval crossed the line of no effect (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.58; I² = 73%). A small number of other studies did not detect benefit from using targeted materials, or find differences between different self-help programmes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence shows that when no other support is available, written self-help materials help more people to stop smoking than no intervention. When people receive advice from a health professional or are using nicotine replacement therapy, there is no evidence that self-help materials add to their effect. However, small benefits cannot be excluded. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that self-help materials that use data from participants to tailor the nature of the advice or support given are more effective than no intervention. However, when tailored self-help materials, which typically involve repeated assessment and mailing, were compared with untailored materials delivered similarly, there was no evidence of benefit.Available evidence tested self-help interventions in high-income countries, where more intensive support is often available. Further research is needed to investigate effects of these interventions in low- and middle-income countries, where more intensive support may not be available.

Factors associated with study attrition in a pilot randomised controlled trial to explore the role of exercise-assisted reduction to stop (EARS) smoking in disadvantaged groups

Background

Study attrition has the potential to compromise a trial’s internal and external validity. The aim of the present study was to identify factors associated with participant attrition in a pilot trial of the effectiveness of a novel behavioural support intervention focused on increasing physical activity to reduce smoking, to inform the methods to reduce attrition in a definitive trial.

Methods

Disadvantaged smokers who wanted to reduce but not quit were randomised (N = 99), of whom 61 (62 %) completed follow-up assessments at 16 weeks. Univariable logistic regression was conducted to determine the effects of intervention arm, method of recruitment, and participant characteristics (sociodemographic factors, and lifestyle, behavioural and attitudinal characteristics) on attrition, followed by multivariable logistic regression on those factors found to be related to attrition.

Results

Participants with low confidence to quit, and who were undertaking less than 150 mins of moderate and vigorous physical activity per week at baseline were less likely to complete the 16-week follow-up assessment. Exploratory analysis revealed that those who were lost to follow-up early in the trial (i.e., by 4 weeks), compared with those completing the study, were younger, had smoked for fewer years and had lower confidence to quit in the next 6 months. Participants who recorded a higher expired air carbon monoxide reading at baseline were more likely to drop out late in the study, as were those recruited via follow-up telephone calls. Multivariable analyses showed that only completing less than 150 mins of physical activity retained any confidence in predicting attrition in the presence of other variables.

Conclusions

The findings indicate that those who take more effort to be recruited, are younger, are heavier smokers, have less confidence to quit, and are less physically active are more likely to withdraw or be lost to follow-up.

Print-based self-help interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Many smokers give up smoking on their own, but materials giving advice and information may help them and increase the number who quit successfully.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were to determine: the effectiveness of different forms of print-based self-help materials, compared with no treatment and with other minimal contact strategies; the effectiveness of adjuncts to print-based self help, such as computer-generated feedback, telephone hotlines and pharmacotherapy; and the effectiveness of approaches tailored to the individual compared with non-tailored materials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register. Date of the most recent search April 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials of smoking cessation with follow-up of at least six months, where at least one arm tested a print-based self-help intervention. We defined self help as structured programming for smokers trying to quit without intensive contact with a therapist.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the participants, the nature of the self-help materials, the amount of face-to-face contact given to intervention and to control conditions, outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in people smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates when available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 74 trials which met the inclusion criteria. Many study reports did not include sufficient detail to judge risk of bias for some domains. Twenty-eight studies (38%) were judged at high risk of bias for one or more domains but the overall risk of bias across all included studies was judged to be moderate, and unlikely to alter the conclusions.Thirty-four trials evaluated the effect of standard, non-tailored self-help materials. Pooling 11 of these trials in which there was no face-to-face contact and provision of structured self-help materials was compared to no intervention gave an estimate of benefit that just reached statistical significance (n = 13,241, risk ratio [RR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04 to 1.37). This analysis excluded two trials with strongly positive outcomes that introduced significant heterogeneity. Six further trials without face-to-face contact in which the control group received alternative written materials did not show evidence for an effect of the smoking self-help materials (n = 7023, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.04). When these two subgroups were pooled, there was no longer evidence for a benefit of standard structured materials (n = 20,264, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.18). We failed to find evidence of benefit from providing standard self-help materials when there was brief contact with all participants (5 trials, n = 3866, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42), or face-to-face advice for all participants (11 trials, n = 5365, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.18).Thirty-one trials offered materials tailored for the characteristics of individual smokers, with controls receiving either no materials, or stage matched or non-tailored materials. Most of the trials used more than one mailing. Pooling these showed a benefit of tailored materials (n = 40,890, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.37) with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 32%). The evidence is strongest for the subgroup of nine trials in which tailored materials were compared to no intervention (n = 13,437, RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.53), but also supports tailored materials as more helpful than standard materials. Part of this effect could be due to the additional contact or assessment required to obtain individual data, since the subgroup of 10 trials where the number of contacts was matched did not detect an effect (n = 11,024, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.20). In two trials including a direct comparison between tailored materials and brief advice from a health care provider, there was no evidence of a difference, but confidence intervals were wide (n = 2992, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.49).Only four studies evaluated self-help materials as an adjunct to nicotine replacement therapy, with no evidence of additional benefit (n = 2291, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.25). A small number of other trials failed to detect benefits from using additional materials or targeted materials, or to find differences between different self-help programmes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Standard, print-based self-help materials increase quit rates compared to no intervention, but the effect is likely to be small. We did not find evidence that they have an additional benefit when used alongside other interventions such as advice from a healthcare professional, or nicotine replacement therapy. There is evidence that materials that are tailored for individual smokers are more effective than non-tailored materials, although the absolute size of effect is still small. Available evidence tested self-help interventions in high income countries; further research is needed to investigate their effect in contexts where more intensive support is not available.

Workplace interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The workplace has potential as a setting through which large groups of people can be reached to encourage smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVES

1. To categorize workplace interventions for smoking cessation tested in controlled studies and to determine the extent to which they help workers to stop smoking.2. To collect and evaluate data on costs and cost effectiveness associated with workplace interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register (July 2013), MEDLINE (1966 - July 2013), EMBASE (1985 - June 2013), and PsycINFO (to June 2013), amongst others. We searched abstracts from international conferences on tobacco and the bibliographies of identified studies and reviews for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected interventions conducted in the workplace to promote smoking cessation. We included only randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials allocating individuals, workplaces, or companies to intervention or control conditions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author extracted information relating to the characteristics and content of all kinds of interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the studies, and a second author checked them. For this update we have conducted meta-analyses of the main interventions, using the generic inverse variance method to generate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 57 studies (61 comparisons) in this updated review. We found 31 studies of workplace interventions aimed at individual workers, covering group therapy, individual counselling, self-help materials, nicotine replacement therapy, and social support, and 30 studies testing interventions applied to the workplace as a whole, i.e. environmental cues, incentives, and comprehensive programmes. The trials were generally of moderate to high quality, with results that were consistent with those found in other settings. Group therapy programmes (odds ratio (OR) for cessation 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 2.80; eight trials, 1309 participants), individual counselling (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.54; eight trials, 3516 participants), pharmacotherapies (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.11; five trials, 1092 participants), and multiple intervention programmes aimed mainly or solely at smoking cessation (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.13; six trials, 5018 participants) all increased cessation rates in comparison to no treatment or minimal intervention controls. Self-help materials were less effective (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.82; six trials, 1906 participants), and two relapse prevention programmes (484 participants) did not help to sustain long-term abstinence. Incentives did not appear to improve the odds of quitting, apart from one study which found a sustained positive benefit. There was a lack of evidence that comprehensive programmes targeting multiple risk factors reduced the prevalence of smoking.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

1. We found strong evidence that some interventions directed towards individual smokers increase the likelihood of quitting smoking. These include individual and group counselling, pharmacological treatment to overcome nicotine addiction, and multiple interventions targeting smoking cessation as the primary or only outcome. All these interventions show similar effects whether offered in the workplace or elsewhere. Self-help interventions and social support are less effective. Although people taking up these interventions are more likely to stop, the absolute numbers who quit are low.2. We failed to detect an effect of comprehensive programmes targeting multiple risk factors in reducing the prevalence of smoking, although this finding was not based on meta-analysed data. 3. There was limited evidence that participation in programmes can be increased by competitions and incentives organized by the employer, although one trial demonstrated a sustained effect of financial rewards for attending a smoking cessation course and for long-term quitting. Further research is needed to establish which components of this trial contributed to the improvement in success rates.4. Further research would be valuable in low-income and developing countries, where high rates of smoking prevail and smoke-free legislation is not widely accepted or enforced.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in July 2012 for studies added since the last update in 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, a pooled effect was estimated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials using a variety of biomedical tests. Two pairs of trials had sufficiently similar recruitment, setting and interventions to calculate a pooled effect; there was no evidence that carbon monoxide (CO) measurement in primary care (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) or spirometry in primary care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81) increased cessation rates. We did not pool the other 11 trials due to the presence of substantial clinical heterogeneity. Of the remaining 11 trials, two trials detected statistically significant benefits: one trial in primary care detected a significant benefit of lung age feedback after spirometry (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62) and one trial that used ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries and photographs of plaques detected a benefit (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.04 to 7.41) but enrolled a population of light smokers and was judged to be at unclear risk of bias in two domains. Nine further trials did not detect significant effects. One of these tested CO feedback alone and CO combined with genetic susceptibility as two different interventions; none of the three possible comparisons detected significant effects. One trial used CO measurement, one used ultrasonography of carotid arteries and two tested for genetic markers. The four remaining trials used a combination of CO and spirometry feedback in different settings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment on smoking cessation. Of the fifteen included studies, only two detected a significant effect of the intervention. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial but the evidence is not optimal. A trial of carotid plaque screening using ultrasound also detected a significant effect, but a second larger study of a similar feedback mechanism did not detect evidence of an effect. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in terms of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analyses; neither of these found evidence of an effect. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.

An Evaluation of a Novel Biomarker Feedback Intervention on Smoking Cessation: A Pilot Study

Cessation is the single most important decision smokers can make to improve their health. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of a novel biomarker feedback intervention on smoking cessation. Participants (n = 14) were block matched into two groups – biomarker feedback and standard care (control) – and encouraged to stop smoking without the support of any pharmacological aids. All participants received standard smoking cessation advice and also had physiological measures collected during both rest and sub-maximal exercise testing at baseline, week 6 and week 12. The standard care group only received the smoking cessation advice as their intervention, whereas the biomarker feedback group were also given individual feedback in relation to their physiological results. Cessation rates were not significantly different between groups (p = 0.56) at week 12 follow-up; however, a calculation of odds ratios (OR) suggests that the biomarker feedback group was more likely to be successful when compared to standard care (OR = 4.5). Results suggest that targeting health motivations may positively influence cessation rates. Future research is needed to verify this result with a larger group.

Use of spirometry and recording of smoking habits of COPD patients increased in primary health care during national COPD programme

BACKGROUND

In Finland, a national programme for COPD prevention and treatment was developed in 1998. The main goals of the programme were to diagnose COPD as early as possible and to encourage people to quit smoking. The role of primary health care was emphasized in the programme. Our aim was to investigate the use of spirometry and recording of smoking habits of COPD patients in primary health care before and during the COPD programme.

METHODS

We compared patients with respiratory symptoms or diseases visiting primary health care during 1997 (before programme) and 2002 (during programme). Patients with respiratory symptoms were divided into two groups: COPD patients and "others". Patient records were thoroughly investigated and data retrieved from them.

RESULTS

There was a significant increase in the whole study group from 8.0% to 38.9% in the use of spirometry (p < 0.001). This increase was significant both in the COPD group (from 32.0% to 79.6%, p < 0.001) and "others" (from 5.6% to 32.8%, p < 0.001). Written information on smoking habits in patient records increased from 16.6% of all patients in 1997 to 53.2% in 2002 (p < 0.001), and in COPD group from 45.0% to 84.3% (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a significant increase in the use of spirometry and knowledge of smoking habits in COPD patients, which may be a result of the Finnish national COPD programme.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We systematically searched the Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2008 Issue 4, MEDLINE (1966 to January 2009), and EMBASE (1980 to January 2009). We combined methodological terms with terms related to smoking cessation counselling and biomedical measurements.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate a pooled effect was estimated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eleven trials using a variety of biomedical tests. Two pairs of trials had sufficiently similar recruitment, setting and interventions to calculate a pooled effect; there was no evidence that CO measurement in primary care (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) or spirometry in primary care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81) increased cessation rates. We did not pool the other seven trials. One trial in primary care detected a significant benefit of lung age feedback after spirometry (RR 2.12; 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62). One trial that used ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries and photographs of plaques detected a benefit (RR 2.77; 95% CI 1.04 to 7.41) but enrolled a population of light smokers. Five trials failed to detect evidence of a significant effect. One of these tested CO feedback alone and CO + genetic susceptibility as two different intervention; none of the three possible comparisons detected significant effects. Three others used a combination of CO and spirometry feedback in different settings, and one tested for a genetic marker.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in term of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analysis.

Asbestos disease in Australia: looking forward and looking back

This article provides an overview and analysis of recent developments in policy and practice in relation to asbestos disease in Australia. It complements three other concurrent publications in this issue representing important contributions of people and organizations toward addressing the health and social impacts of Australia's asbestos disease epidemic. The campaign to "Make James Hardie Pay" as well as the efforts of workers and advocates are profiled in this article as well as in this issue's Documents and Voices sections. Discussion of recent developments in asbestos-related disease research and mesothelioma surveillance is followed by articulation of the comprehensive public and social health response that is needed to fully engage and address the asbestos disease legacy and to apply lessons learned to help revive the currently waning societal commitment to occupational health and safety in Australia and elsewhere.

Workplace interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The workplace has potential as a setting through which large groups of people can be reached to encourage smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVES

To categorize workplace interventions for smoking cessation tested in controlled studies and to determine the extent to which they help workers to stop smoking or to reduce tobacco consumption.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in April 2008, MEDLINE (1966 - April 2008), EMBASE (1985 - Feb 2008) and PsycINFO (to March 2008). We searched abstracts from international conferences on tobacco and the bibliographies of identified studies and reviews for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected interventions conducted in the workplace to promote smoking cessation. We included only randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials allocating individuals, workplaces or companies to intervention or control conditions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information relating to the characteristics and content of all kinds of interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the study was abstracted by one author and checked by another. Because of heterogeneity in the design and content of the included studies, we did not attempt formal meta-analysis, and evaluated the studies using qualitative narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 51 studies covering 53 interventions in this updated review. We found 37 studies of workplace interventions aimed at individual workers, covering group therapy, individual counselling, self-help materials, nicotine replacement therapy and social support. The results were consistent with those found in other settings. Group programmes, individual counselling and nicotine replacement therapy increased cessation rates in comparison to no treatment or minimal intervention controls. Self-help materials were less effective. We also found 16 studies testing interventions applied to the workplace as a whole. There was a lack of evidence that comprehensive programmes reduced the prevalence of smoking. Incentive schemes increased attempts to stop smoking, though there was less evidence that they increased the rate of actual quitting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

1. We found strong evidence that interventions directed towards individual smokers increase the likelihood of quitting smoking. These include individual and group counselling and pharmacological treatment to overcome nicotine addiction. All these interventions show similar effects whether offered in the workplace or elsewhere. Self-help interventions and social support are less effective. Although people taking up these interventions are more likely to stop, the absolute numbers who quit are low.2. There was limited evidence that participation in programmes can be increased by competitions and incentives organized by the employer.3. We failed to detect an effect of comprehensive programmes in reducing the prevalence of smoking.

Does additional support by nurses enhance the effect of a brief smoking cessation intervention in people with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation is the primary disease modifying intervention for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

SETTING

A Regional Respiratory Centre (RRC) out-patient department in Northern Ireland.

METHODS

A randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluated the effectiveness of brief advice alone or accompanied by individual nurse support or group support facilitated by nurses. Smoking status was biochemically validated and stage of change, nicotine addiction and dyspnoea were recorded at 2, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months.

PARTICIPANTS

Ninety-one cigarette smokers with COPD were enrolled in the study (mean age 61 years, 47 female).

RESULTS

After 12 months cessation rates were not significantly different between groups (p=0.7), but all groups had a significant reduction in their nicotine addiction (p=0.03-0.006). No changes in subjects' motivation or dyspnoea were detected over the 12 months.

CONCLUSION

Patients with COPD were unable to stop smoking regardless of the type of support they received. Harm reduction may be a more appropriate goal than complete cessation for intractable smokers and nurses must evaluate their role in this arena.

Effectiveness of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment (eg, exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer) as an aid for smoking cessation.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline (1966-2004) and EMBASE (1980-2004).

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled smoking cessation interventions using biomedical tests with at least 6 months follow-up.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently screened all search results (titles and abstracts) for possible inclusion. Each reviewer then extracted data from the selected studies, and assessed their methodological quality based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 4049 retrieved references, eight trials were retained for data extraction and analysis. Three trials isolated the effect of exhaled CO on smoking cessation rates resulting in the following ORs and 95% CIs: 0.73 (0.38 to 1.39), 0.93 (0.62 to 1.41) and 1.18 (0.84 to 1.64). Measurement of exhaled CO and spirometry were used together in three trials, resulting in the following ORs (95% CI): 0.60 (0.25 to 1.46), 2.45 (0.73 to 8.25) and 3.50 (0.88 to 13.92). Spirometry results alone were used in one other trial with an OR (95% CI) of 1.21 (0.60 to 2.42). Ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries performed on light smokers gave an OR (95% CI) of 3.15 (1.06 to 9.31).

CONCLUSIONS

Scarcity and limited quality of the current evidence does not support the hypothesis that biomedical risk assessment increases smoking cessation as compared with the standard treatment.

Spirometry and smoking cessation advice in general practice: A randomised clinical trial

RATIONALE

To assess the success rate of smoking cessation with the "minimal intervention strategy" in general practice, and to determine the influence of spirometry on this success rate.

METHODS

Training in smoking cessation advice was given to 16 general practitioners (GPs). During 12 weeks, these GPs screened their practice population for smoking habits, the degree of dependence on nicotine, and the motivation to quit smoking. Patients willing to stop were randomised to a group that underwent a single office spirometry, or to a control group. The GPs were asked to support the attempts with the minimal intervention strategy. Success rates were compared after 6, 12 and 24 months.

RESULTS

On a population of 5590 patients, 1206 smokers were identified (22%). To the vulnerable group, identified following the Prochaska and Di Clemente scheme, the proposal was made to change smoking behaviour. Two hundred and twenty-one patients undertook an attempt of smoking cessation. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or bupropion was prescribed in 51% of the attempts. Sixty-four sustained quitters were counted after 6 months (29%), 43 after 1 year (19%) and 33 after 2 years (15%). We found a small but statistically non-significant difference in success rate in favour of the group that underwent office spirometry.

CONCLUSION

GPs can motivate almost 20% of their smoking population to quit smoking. The success rate with the minimal intervention strategy was 19% after 1 year and 15% after 2 years. We found no arguments in favour of confronting smokers with their lung function as a tool for enhancing smoking cessation.

The impact of repeated spirometry and smoking cessation advice on smokers with mild COPD

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation is the most important therapeutic intervention in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD) and the health benefits are immediate and substantial. Major efforts have been made to develop methods with high smoking cessation rates.

OBJECTIVES

To study whether a combination of spirometry and brief smoking cessation advice to smokers with COPD, annually for three years, increased their smoking cessation rate in comparison with groups of smokers with normal lung function.

METHOD

Prospective, randomized study in primary care. Smoking cessation rates were compared between smokers with COPD followed-up yearly over a period of three years and smokers with normal lung function followed-up yearly for three years or followed-up only once after three years.

RESULTS

The point-prevalence abstinence rate and prolonged abstinence rate at 6 and 12 months increased yearly and in smokers with COPD at year 3 was 29%, 28%, and 25%, respectively. The abstinence rates were significantly higher in smokers with COPD than in smokers with normal lung function. Smoking cessation rates among smokers with normal lung function did not increase with increasing number of follow-ups.

CONCLUSION

Smokers diagnosed with COPD stopped smoking significantly more often than those with normal lung function.

Smokers with airway obstruction are more likely to quit smoking

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), usually caused by tobacco smoking, is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. Smoking cessation at an early stage of the disease usually stops further progression. A study was undertaken to determine if diagnosis of airway obstruction was associated with subsequent success in smoking cessation, as advised by a physician.

METHODS

4494 current smokers (57.4% men) with a history of at least 10 pack-years of smoking were recruited from 100 000 subjects screened by spirometric testing for signs of airway obstruction. At the time of screening all received simple smoking cessation advice. 1177 (26.2%) subjects had airway obstruction and were told that they had COPD and that smoking cessation would halt rapid progression of their lung disease. No pharmacological treatment was proposed. After 1 year all subjects were invited for a follow up visit. Smoking status was assessed by history and validated by exhaled carbon monoxide level.

RESULTS

Nearly 70% attended a follow up visit (n = 3077): 61% were men, mean (SD) age was 52 (10) years, mean (SD) tobacco exposure 30 (17) pack-years, and 33.3% had airway obstruction during the baseline examination. The validated smoking cessation rate in those with airway obstruction was 16.3% compared with 12.0% in those with normal spirometric parameters (p = 0.0003). After correction for age, sex, nicotine dependence, number of cigarettes smoked daily, and lung function, success in smoking cessation was predicted by lower lung function, lower nicotine dependence, and lower tobacco exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

Simple smoking cessation advice combined with spirometric testing resulted in good 1 year cessation rates, especially in subjects with airway obstruction.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer. We reviewed systematically data on smoking cessation rates from controlled trials that used biomedical risk assessment and feedback.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We systematically searched he Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to 2004), and EMBASE (1980 to 2004). We combined methodological terms with terms related to smoking cessation counselling and biomedical measurements.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

From 4049 retrieved references, we selected 170 for full text assessment. We retained eight trials for data extraction and analysis. One of the eight used CO alone and CO + Genetic Susceptibility as two different intervention groups, giving rise to three possible comparisons. Three of the trials isolated the effect of exhaled CO on smoking cessation rates resulting in the following odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI): 0.73 (0.38 to 1.39), 0.93 (0.62 to 1.41), and 1.18 (0.84 to 1.64). Combining CO measurement with genetic susceptibility gave an OR of 0.58 (0.29 to 1.19). Exhaled CO measurement and spirometry were used together in three trials, resulting in the following ORs (95% CI): 0.6 (0.25 to 1.46), 2.45 (0.73 to 8.25), and 3.50 (0.88 to 13.92). Spirometry results alone were used in one other trial with an OR of 1.21 (0.60 to 2.42). Two trials used other motivational feedback measures, with an OR of 0.80 (0.39 to 1.65) for genetic susceptibility to lung cancer alone, and 3.15 (1.06 to 9.31) for ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries performed in light smokers (average 10 to 12 cigarettes a day).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the scarcity of evidence of sufficient quality, we can make no definitive statements about the effectiveness of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. Current evidence of lower quality does not however support the hypothesis that biomedical risk assessment increases smoking cessation in comparison with standard treatment. Only two studies were similar enough in term of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow pooling of data and meta-analysis.

Self-help interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Many smokers give up smoking on their own, but materials giving advice and information may help them and increase the number who quit successfully.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were to determine the effectiveness of different forms of self-help materials, compared with no treatment and with other minimal contact strategies; the effectiveness of adjuncts to self help, such as computer-generated feedback, telephone hotlines and pharmacotherapy; and the effectiveness of approaches tailored to the individual compared with non-tailored materials.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register using the terms 'self-help', 'manual*' or 'booklet*'. Date of the most recent search April 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials of smoking cessation with follow up of at least six months, where at least one arm tested a self-help intervention. We defined self help as structured programming for smokers trying to quit without intensive contact with a therapist.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the participants, the nature of the self-help materials, the amount of face-to-face contact given to intervention and to control conditions, outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow up in people smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates when available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified sixty trials. Thirty-three compared self-help materials to no intervention or tested materials used in addition to advice. In 11 trials in which self help was compared to no intervention there was a pooled effect that just reached statistical significance (N = 13,733; odds ratio [OR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07 to 1.45). This analysis excluded two trials with strongly positive outcomes that introduced significant heterogeneity. Four further trials in which the control group received alternative written materials did not show evidence for an effect of the smoking self-help materials. We failed to find evidence of benefit from adding self-help materials to face-to-face advice, or to nicotine replacement therapy. There were seventeen trials using materials tailored for the characteristics of individual smokers, where meta-analysis supported a small benefit of tailored materials (N = 20,414; OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.61). The evidence is strongest for tailored materials compared to no intervention, but also supports tailored materials as more helpful than standard materials. Part of this effect could be due to the additional contact or assessment required to obtain individual data. A small number of other trials failed to detect benefits from using additional materials or targeted materials, or to find differences between different self-help programmes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Standard self-help materials may increase quit rates compared to no intervention, but the effect is likely to be small. We failed to find evidence that they have an additional benefit when used alongside other interventions such as advice from a healthcare professional, or nicotine replacement therapy. There is evidence that materials that are tailored for individual smokers are effective, and are more effective than untailored materials, although the absolute size of effect is still small.

Benefits of and barriers to the widespread use of spirometry

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the basis for spirometry, its benefits in diagnosing and managing both acute and chronic pulmonary disorders with emphasis on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and to critically examine the barriers to its widespread use.

RECENT FINDINGS

A number of recent articles have established the scientific basis for spirometry in the early identification of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and in improving smoking cessation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Economic and other considerations are reported.

SUMMARY

Spirometry is an important office diagnostic device that should be used by all primary care and most specialist physicians. Spirometry is to dyspnea as the electrocardiogram is to chest pain.

Workplace interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The workplace has potential as a setting through which large groups of people can be reached to encourage smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVES

To categorize workplace interventions for smoking cessation tested in controlled studies and to determine the extent to which they help workers to stop smoking or to reduce tobacco consumption.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in October 2004, MEDLINE (1966 - October 2004), EMBASE (1985 - October 2004) and PsycINFO (to October 2004). We searched abstracts from international conferences on tobacco and we checked the bibliographies of identified studies and reviews for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We categorized interventions into two groups: a) Interventions aimed at the individual to promote smoking cessation and b) interventions aimed at the workplace as a whole. We applied different inclusion criteria for the different types of study. For interventions aimed at helping individuals to stop smoking, we included only randomized controlled trials allocating individuals, workplaces or companies to intervention or control conditions. For studies of smoking restrictions and bans in the workplace, we also included controlled trials with baseline and post-intervention outcomes and interrupted times series studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information relating to the characteristics and content of all kinds of interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the study was abstracted by one author and checked by two others. Because of heterogeneity in the design and content of the included studies, we did not attempt formal meta-analysis, and evaluated the studies using qualitative narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

Workplace interventions aimed at helping individuals to stop smoking included ten studies of group therapy, seven studies of individual counselling, nine studies of self-help materials and five studies of nicotine replacement therapy. The results were consistent with those found in other settings. Group programmes, individual counselling and nicotine replacement therapy increased cessation rates in comparison to no treatment or minimal intervention controls. Self-help materials were less effective.Workplace interventions aimed at the workforce as a whole included 14 studies of tobacco bans, two studies of social support, four studies of environmental support, five studies of incentives, and eight studies of comprehensive (multi-component) programmes. Tobacco bans decreased cigarette consumption during the working day but their effect on total consumption was less certain. We failed to detect an increase in quit rates from adding social and environmental support to these programmes. There was a lack of evidence that comprehensive programmes reduced the prevalence of smoking. Competitions and incentives increased attempts to stop smoking, though there was less evidence that they increased the rate of actual quitting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found: 1. Strong evidence that interventions directed towards individual smokers increase the likelihood of quitting smoking. These include advice from a health professional, individual and group counselling and pharmacological treatment to overcome nicotine addiction. Self-help interventions are less effective. All these interventions are effective whether offered in the workplace or elsewhere. Although people taking up these interventions are more likely to stop, the absolute numbers who quit are low. 2. Limited evidence that participation in programmes can be increased by competitions and incentives organized by the employer. 3. Consistent evidence that workplace tobacco policies and bans can decrease cigarette consumption during the working day by smokers and exposure of non-smoking employees to environmental tobacco smoke at work, but conflicting evidence about whether they decrease prevalence of smoking or overall consumption of tobacco by smokers. 4. A lack of evidence that comprehensive approaches reduce the prevalence of smoking, despite the strong theoretical rationale for their use. 5. A lack of evidence about the cost-effectiveness of workplace programmes.

A smoking-cessation program consisting of extensive counseling, pharmacotherapy, and office spirometry: results of a pilot project in a Veterans Administration Medical Center

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To describe the 1-year outcomes of a Veterans Administration smoking-cessation program that demonstrates a standard of care comprising extensive counseling, pharmacotherapy, and office spirometry.

DESIGN

Prospective one-group pretest-posttest, with an intervention of state-of-the-art practice in smoking cessation.

SETTING

Outpatient clinic in a Veterans Administration Medical Center (VAMC).

PATIENTS

Two hundred fifty-two veterans receiving health care at the VAMC.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome measured was the 1-year cessation rate of smokers. Demographic and clinical covariates also were collected. Of the 252 patients who enrolled in the program, 120 never quit smoking for even 1 day. Of the remaining 132 patients, 32 (24%) achieved long-term (1 yr) cessation. The number of visits to the clinic and the number of methods used during the attempt to quit were the only variables significantly associated with long-term smoking cessation (p<0.0001 for each).

CONCLUSION

The availability of a standard-of-practice clinic for smoking cessation within a primary care clinic can help patients who have a desire to quit. A combination of intensive counseling, pharmacotherapy, and office spirometry helped patients in a Veterans Administration population to achieve long-term smoking cessation.

Benefits and risks of pharmacological smoking cessation therapies in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Smoking cessation is the most effective way to reduce the risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or to reduce its progression. However, little is known about the efficacy and safety of different pharmacological smoking cessation therapies used for the treatment of patients with COPD who smoke. The aim of this review was to evaluate the benefits and risks of pharmacological smoking cessation therapies in COPD. We conducted an extensive computer-aided literature search which resulted in the identification of four papers that met the inclusion criteria and contributed to this review. In two studies the efficacy of nicotine polacrilex (nicotine gum) was assessed. In one study, which did not have a control group, the efficacy of nicotine nasal spray was evaluated. The fourth study, a placebo-controlled trial, evaluated the efficacy of bupropion sustained release. The results of these studies indicated that nicotine gum, nicotine nasal spray and bupropion have a good safety profile and seem to increase abstinence rates in smokers with COPD. The incidence and nature of specific adverse effects occurring in patients with COPD seem to be comparable with the adverse effects reported by healthy smokers. However, the efficacy seems to depend on the follow-up period used to define success (i.e. abstinence rates decline with longer follow-up), as well as the intensity and duration of the concomitant psychosocial intervention. This review indicates that for a continuation of the effect of pharmacological smoking cessation therapies, the combination of pharmacotherapy (to reduce craving and withdrawal) and a relapse-prevention programme, in which attention is focused on the behavioural aspects of smoking and smoking cessation, seems to increase abstinence, especially when the psychosocial intervention is prolonged for a longer period. Also, the characteristics of the smokers who are motivated to quit must be taken into account in order to increase the number of successful attempts to quit smoking and prevent relapses. We therefore recommend using a holistic approach in which the possible coexistence of multiple problems (which are known to affect the success of smoking cessation strategies) is integrated.

Diagnosis of airflow limitation combined with smoking cessation advice increases stop-smoking rate

OBJECTIVES

To assess how the diagnosis of airflow limitation (AL) combined with advice to stop smoking in middle-aged smokers influence the smoking cessation rate and to identify predictors of successful outcome.

DESIGN

Prospective, single-center, comparative study of the effects of smoking intervention in smokers with diagnosed AL and in smokers with normal lung function (NLF).

SETTING

University hospital, out-patient clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

Of 659 smokers participating in a population spirometric screening for COPD combined with smoking cessation advice, 558 (AL, 297 smokers; NLF, 261 smokers) were invited for a follow-up after 1 year.

INTERVENTION

At follow-up, spirometry was repeated and smoking status was assessed. Nonsmoking status was validated with carbon monoxide measurements in exhaled air. Patients who did not come for the follow-up visit were considered to be smokers.

RESULTS

Of 558 smokers invited, 368 (66%) presented for the follow-up visit. All had tried to reduce their smoking habit. The number of cigarettes smoked per day (cpd) at 1 year was - 5.2 (p < 0.01) in patients with AL and - 2.7 (not significant [NS]) in those with NLF. The 1-year cessation rate in smokers with AL was 10.1% vs 8.4% in smokers with NLF (NS). After stratifying the patients according to AL severity, the highest cessation rate was observed in smokers with moderate and severe AL (16.5%) compared to smokers with mild AL (6.4%; p < 0.001) and smokers with NLF (8.4%; p < 0.05). In a univariate analysis, the cessation of smoking was correlated with older age (p < 0.001), later age when starting smoking (p < 0.005), lower tobacco exposure (in pack-years; p < 0.01), fewer cpd (p < 0.001), and lower lung function (p < 0.05). No interaction effect was observed for any of the studied variables using two-way analysis of variance. In a stepwise logistic regression analysis, age (p < 0.001), tobacco exposure (in pack-years; p < 0.001), and FEV(1) percent predicted (p < 0.01) proved to be significant predictors of success in stopping smoking.

CONCLUSION

All smokers, irrespective of their lung function, tried to modify their habit as the result of screening for COPD combined with smoking cessation advice. The diagnosis of AL motivated smokers to attempt to quit smoking. Older age, lower tobacco exposure, and lower lung function were the predictors of success in quitting smoking.

A pilot study of telephone-based smoking cessation intervention in asbestos workers

Smoking markedly increases the risk of asbestos-related lung cancer. We conducted a randomized pilot trial of a telephone-based smoking cessation intervention in asbestos workers. Fifty-nine smokers were assigned to either a control or telephone-based smoking cessation treatment group and were followed-up at 6 months. Intent-to-treat analysis revealed a 16.7% quit rate at 6 months for the intervention group compared to 6.9% for the control group (P = 0.25). Treatment-received quit-rates were 33% for the intervention group and 6.9% for the control group (P = 0.05). The intervention group was twice as likely to use smoking cessation medicines and progressed further along the stage of change continuum compared with the control group. Incorporating telephone-based smoking cessation treatment into medical screening activities for asbestos workers is feasible and the intervention is effective in increasing quit rates at 6 months.

Smoking cessation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation is the most important treatment for smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but little is known about the effectiveness of different smoking cessation interventions for this particular group of patients.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions in people with COPD.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches were undertaken on MEDLINE (from 1966 to March 2002), EMBASE (from 1989 to March 2002) and Psyclit (from 1971 to March 2002), and CENTRAL (Issue 1, 2002).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which smoking cessation was assessed in participants with confirmed COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted the data and performed the methodological quality assessment independently for each study, with disagreements resolved by consensus. High-quality was defined, based on pre-set criteria according to the DelphiList.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies were included in this systematic review, two of which were of high-quality. The high-quality studies show the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions combined with pharmacological intervention compared to no treatment: psychosocial interventions combined with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and a bronchodilator versus no treatment at a 5 year follow-up (RD = 0.16, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.18), (RR = 4.0, 95% CI 3.25 to 4.93), psychosocial interventions combined with NRT and placebo versus no treatment at a 5 year follow-up (RD = 0.17, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.19), (RR = 4.19, 95% CI 3.41 to 5.15). Furthermore the results show the effectiveness of various combinations of psychosocial and pharmacological interventions at a 6 months follow-up (RD = 0.07, 95% CI 0.0 to 0.13), (RR = 1.74, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.0). Unfortunately, none of the included studies compared psychosocial interventions with no treatment. Therefore we found no evidence with regard to the effectiveness of these interventions.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Based on this systematic review, the authors found evidence that a combination of psychosocial interventions and pharmacological interventions is superior to no treatment or to psychosocial interventions alone. Furthermore we conclude that there is no clear or convincing evidence for the effectiveness of any psychosocial intervention for patients with COPD due to lack of a sufficient number of high-quality studies.

Using new information technology to treat tobacco dependence

Smoking cessation programs that can be disseminated at a large scale and at a low cost are needed to decrease smoking-related mortality and morbidity. Research showed that several computer-based smoking cessation programs are effective, in particular when they are combined with pharmacotherapy. When available on the Internet, these programs can reach thousands of smokers at a low cost per participant. Some of these programs are designed to complement smoking cessation counseling given by physicians to their patients who smoke. They can be a useful adjunct to medical advice and should be prescribed in association with pharmacotherapy.

Detecting patients at a high risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in general practice: cross sectional case finding study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effectiveness of case finding of patients at risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, whether the method is suitable for use in general practice, how patients should be selected, and the time required.

DESIGN

Cross sectional study.

SETTING

Two semirural general practices in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

651 smokers aged 35 to 70 years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Short standardised questionnaire on bronchial symptoms for current smokers, lung function with a spirometer, and the quality of the spirometric curve.

RESULTS

Of the 201 smokers not taking drugs for a pulmonary condition, 169 produced an acceptable curve (fulfilling American Thoracic Society criteria). Of these, 30 (18%, 95% confidence interval 12% to 24%) had a forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) <80% of predicted. When smokers were preselected on the basis of chronic cough, the proportion with an FEV(1) <80% of predicted increased to 27% (17 of 64; 12% to 38%). Chronic cough was a better predictor of airflow obstruction than other symptoms, such as wheeze and dyspnoea. The presence of two symptoms was a slightly better predictor than cough only (odds ratio 3.02 (1.37 to 6.64) v 2.50 (1.14 to 5.52)). Age was also a good predictor of obstruction; smokers over 60 with cough had a 48% chance of having an obstruction. The mean time needed for spirometry was four minutes. Detecting one smoker with an FEV(1) <80% of predicted cost 5 pound sterling to 10 pound sterling.

CONCLUSIONS

Trained practice assistants could check all patients who smoke for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at little cost to the practice. Cough and age are the most important predictors of the disease. By testing one smoker a day, an average practice could identify one patient at risk a week.

Self-help interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Many smokers give up smoking on their own, but materials giving advice and information may help them and increase the number who quit successfully.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were to determine the effectiveness of different forms of self-help materials, compared with no treatment and with other minimal contact strategies; the effectiveness of adjuncts to self-help, such as computer generated feedback, telephone hotlines and pharmacotherapy; and the effectiveness of approaches tailored to the individual compared with non-tailored materials.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register using the terms 'self-help', 'manual*' or 'booklet*'. Date of the most recent search March 2002.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials of smoking cessation with follow-up of at least six months, where at least one arm tested a self-help intervention. We defined self-help as structured programming for smokers trying to quit without intensive contact with a therapist.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the type of subjects, the nature of the self-help materials, the amount of face to face contact given to subjects and to controls, outcome measures, method of randomisation, and completeness of follow-up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in patients smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates when available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified fifty-one trials. Thirty two compared self-help materials to no intervention or tested materials used in addition to advice. In eleven trials in which self-help was compared to no intervention there was a pooled effect that just reached statistical significance (odds ratio 1.24, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.45) This analysis excluded one trial with a strongly positive outcome that introduced significant heterogeneity. Four further trials in which the control group received alternative written materials did not show evidence for an effect of the smoking self-help materials. We failed to find evidence of benefit from adding self-help materials to face to face advice, or to nicotine replacement therapy. There was evidence from fourteen trials using materials tailored for the characteristics of individual smokers that such personalised materials were more effective than standard manuals (ten trials, odds ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.64) or no materials (three trials, odds ratio 1.80, 95% confidence interval 1.46 to 2.23). A small numbers of trials failed to detect benefit from using additional materials or targetted materials.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Standard self-help materials may increase quit rates compared to no intervention, but the effect is likely to be small. We failed to find evidence that they have an additional benefit when used alongside other interventions such as advice from a health care professional, or nicotine replacement therapy. There is evidence that materials that are tailored for individual smokers are more effective.

Controversies in the use of spirometry for early recognition and diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in cigarette smokers

Office spirometry used to detect COPD in smokers ages 44 and above with respiratory symptoms probably meets the criteria for a population-based screening test and for clinical case finding: If not detected early, COPD causes substantial morbidity or mortality, and smoking cessation is more effective when COPD is recognized before exertional dyspnea develops. Office spirometry is a feasible testing strategy and may be used to encourage smoking cessation efforts that change behavior in at least some patients. Office spirometry is relatively simple and affordable, is safe, and includes an action plan with minimal adverse effects. On the other hand, the false-positive and false-negative rates of office spirometry in the primary care setting may be higher than diagnostic spirometry performed during epidemiologic studies or in diagnostic pulmonary function laboratories, and the incremental benefit of office spirometry on smoking cessation rates is poorly established (when added to referral to an AHCPR-based smoking cessation program).

Office spirometry for lung health assessment in adults: A consensus statement from the National Lung Health Education Program

COPD is easily detected in its preclinical phase using spirometry, and successful smoking cessation (a cost-effective intervention) prevents further disease progression. This consensus statement recommends the widespread use of office spirometry by primary-care providers for patients >/= 45 years old who smoke cigarettes. Discussion of the spirometry results with current smokers should be accompanied by strong advice to quit smoking and referral to local smoking cessation resources. Spirometry also is recommended for patients with respiratory symptoms such as chronic cough, episodic wheezing, and exertional dyspnea in order to detect airways obstruction due to asthma or COPD. Although diagnostic-quality spirometry may be used to detect COPD, we recommend the development, validation, and implementation of a new type of spirometry-office spirometry-for this purpose in the primary-care setting. In order to encourage the widespread use of office spirometers, their specifications differ somewhat from those for diagnostic spirometers, allowing lower instrument cost, smaller size, less effort to perform the test, improved ease of calibration checks, and an improved quality-assurance program.

Medical examination for asbestos-related disease

There are millions of workers whose exposure to asbestos dust prior to the implementation of asbestos regulation and improved control measures places them at risk of asbestos-related disease today. In addition, workers are still being exposed to significant amounts of asbestos, when asbestos materials in place are disturbed during renovation, repair, or demolition. Given the continued presence of asbestos-containing materials in industrial, commercial, and residential settings throughout the U.S., a sizeable population remains at risk of asbestos-related disease. This article reviews the health effects associated with exposure to asbestos and delineates the steps necessary for the comprehensive screening and clinical assessment for asbestos-related disease, in order to assist physicians in identifying and preventing illness associated with exposure to asbestos among their patients.