Protocol for the Proactive Or Reactive Telephone Smoking CeSsation Support (PORTSSS) trial

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation increase the likelihood of achieving abstinence in a quit attempt. It is plausible that providing support, or, if support is offered, offering more intensive support or support including particular components may increase abstinence further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of adding or increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition. We also looked at studies which directly compare behavioural interventions matched for contact time, where pharmacotherapy is provided to both groups (e.g. tests of different components or approaches to behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in June 2018 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline, that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount or type of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact (defined as face-to-face or telephone). The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, a different type of personal contact, written information, or no behavioural support at all. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women and trials which did not set out to assess smoking cessation at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates, if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-three studies, 36 of which were new to this update, met the inclusion criteria, representing 29,536 participants. Overall, we judged 16 studies to be at low risk of bias and 21 studies to be at high risk of bias. All other studies were judged to be at unclear risk of bias. Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of studies at high risk of bias. We pooled all studies comparing more versus less support in the main analysis. Findings demonstrated a benefit of behavioural support in addition to pharmacotherapy. When all studies of additional behavioural therapy were pooled, there was evidence of a statistically significant benefit from additional support (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.22, I² = 8%, 65 studies, n = 23,331) for abstinence at longest follow-up, and this effect was not different when we compared subgroups by type of pharmacotherapy or intensity of contact. This effect was similar in the subgroup of eight studies in which the control group received no behavioural support (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43, I² = 20%, n = 4,018). Seventeen studies compared interventions matched for contact time but that differed in terms of the behavioural components or approaches employed. Of the 15 comparisons, all had small numbers of participants and events. Only one detected a statistically significant effect, favouring a health education approach (which the authors described as standard counselling containing information and advice) over motivational interviewing approach (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.94, n = 378).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking increases quit rates. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 20%, based on a pooled estimate from 65 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of specific components that comprise behavioural support.

Telephone counselling for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Telephone services can provide information and support for smokers. Counselling may be provided proactively or offered reactively to callers to smoking cessation helplines.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of telephone support to help smokers quit, including proactive or reactive counselling, or the provision of other information to smokers calling a helpline.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP for studies of telephone counselling, using search terms including 'hotlines' or 'quitline' or 'helpline'. Date of the most recent search: May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials which offered proactive or reactive telephone counselling to smokers to assist smoking cessation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We pooled studies using a random-effects model and assessed statistical heterogeneity amongst subgroups of clinically comparable studies using the I2 statistic. In trials including smokers who did not call a quitline, we used meta-regression to investigate moderation of the effect of telephone counselling by the planned number of calls in the intervention, trial selection of participants that were motivated to quit, and the baseline support provided together with telephone counselling (either self-help only, brief face-to-face intervention, pharmacotherapy, or financial incentives).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 104 trials including 111,653 participants that met the inclusion criteria. Participants were mostly adult smokers from the general population, but some studies included teenagers, pregnant women, and people with long-term or mental health conditions. Most trials (58.7%) were at high risk of bias, while 30.8% were at unclear risk, and only 11.5% were at low risk of bias for all domains assessed. Most studies (100/104) assessed proactive telephone counselling, as opposed to reactive forms.Among trials including smokers who contacted helplines (32,484 participants), quit rates were higher for smokers receiving multiple sessions of proactive counselling (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.61; 14 trials, 32,484 participants; I2 = 72%) compared with a control condition providing self-help materials or brief counselling in a single call. Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate.In studies that recruited smokers who did not call a helpline, the provision of telephone counselling increased quit rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.35; 65 trials, 41,233 participants; I2 = 52%). Due to the substantial unexplained heterogeneity between studies, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate. In subgroup analysis, we found no evidence that the effect of telephone counselling depended upon whether or not other interventions were provided (P = 0.21), no evidence that more intensive support was more effective than less intensive (P = 0.43), or that the effect of telephone support depended upon whether or not people were actively trying to quit smoking (P = 0.32). However, in meta-regression, telephone counselling was associated with greater effectiveness when provided as an adjunct to self-help written support (P < 0.01), or to a brief intervention from a health professional (P = 0.02); telephone counselling was less effective when provided as an adjunct to more intensive counselling. Further, telephone support was more effective for people who were motivated to try to quit smoking (P = 0.02). The findings from three additional trials of smokers who had not proactively called a helpline but were offered telephone counselling, found quit rates were higher in those offered three to five telephone calls compared to those offered just one call (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.44; 2602 participants; I2 = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling aids smokers who seek help from quitlines, and moderate-certainty evidence that proactive telephone counselling increases quit rates in smokers in other settings. There is currently insufficient evidence to assess potential variations in effect from differences in the number of contacts, type or timing of telephone counselling, or when telephone counselling is provided as an adjunct to other smoking cessation therapies. Evidence was inconclusive on the effect of reactive telephone counselling, due to a limited number studies, which reflects the difficulty of studying this intervention.

Nicotine replacement therapy versus control for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), including gum, transdermal patch, intranasal spray and inhaled and oral preparations, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to placebo or 'no NRT' interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search is July 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in people motivated to quit which compared NRT to placebo or to no treatment. We excluded trials that did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months, except for those in pregnancy (where less than six months, these were excluded from the main analysis). We recorded adverse events from included and excluded studies that compared NRT with placebo. Studies comparing different types, durations, and doses of NRT, and studies comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered in separate reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 136 studies; 133 with 64,640 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The majority of studies were conducted in adults and had similar numbers of men and women. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day at the start of the studies. We judged the evidence to be of high quality; we judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias but restricting the analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the result. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.61). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 56 trials, 22,581 participants) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.75, 51 trials, 25,754 participants) for nicotine patch; 1.52 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.74, 8 trials, 4439 participants) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials, 976 participants) for nicotine inhalator; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials, 887 participants) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the definition of abstinence, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. A subset of six trials conducted in pregnant women found a statistically significant benefit of NRT on abstinence close to the time of delivery (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.69; 2129 participants); in the four trials that followed up participants post-partum the result was no longer statistically significant (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.86; 1675 participants). Adverse events from using NRT were related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. Attempts to quantitatively synthesize the incidence of various adverse effects were hindered by extensive variation in reporting the nature, timing and duration of symptoms. The odds ratio (OR) of chest pains or palpitations for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.88 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.57, 15 included and excluded trials, 11,074 participants). However, chest pains and palpitations were rare in both groups and serious adverse events were extremely rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that all of the licensed forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhalator and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50% to 60%, regardless of setting, and further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect. The relative effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT. NRT often causes minor irritation of the site through which it is administered, and in rare cases can cause non-ischaemic chest pain and palpitations.

Are financial incentives cost-effective to support smoking cessation during pregnancy?

AIMS

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of up to £400 worth of financial incentives for smoking cessation in pregnancy as an adjunct to routine health care.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis based on a Phase II randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a cost-utility analysis using a life-time Markov model.

SETTING

The RCT was undertaken in Glasgow, Scotland. The economic analysis was undertaken from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 612 pregnant women randomized to receive usual cessation support plus or minus financial incentives of up to £400 vouchers (US $609), contingent upon smoking cessation.

MEASUREMENTS

Comparison of usual support and incentive interventions in terms of cotinine-validated quitters, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and direct costs to the NHS.

FINDINGS

The incremental cost per quitter at 34-38 weeks pregnant was £1127 ($1716).This is similar to the standard look-up value derived from Stapleton & West's published ICER tables, £1390 per quitter, by looking up the Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial (CIPT) incremental cost (£157) and incremental 6-month quit outcome (0.14). The life-time model resulted in an incremental cost of £17 [95% confidence interval (CI) = -£93, £107] and a gain of 0.04 QALYs (95% CI = -0.058, 0.145), giving an ICER of £482/QALY ($734/QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicates uncertainty in these results, particularly regarding relapse after birth. The expected value of perfect information was £30 million (at a willingness to pay of £30 000/QALY), so given current uncertainty, additional research is potentially worthwhile.

CONCLUSION

Financial incentives for smoking cessation in pregnancy are highly cost-effective, with an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years of £482, which is well below recommended decision thresholds.

Do cravings predict smoking cessation in smokers calling a national quit line: secondary analyses from a randomised trial for the utility of 'urges to smoke' measures

Background

Single-item urges to smoke measures have been contemplated as important measures of nicotine dependence This study aimed to prospectively determine the relationships between measures of craving to smoke and smoking cessation, and compare their ability to predict cessation with the Heaviness of Smoking Index, an established measure of nicotine dependence.

Methods

We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the randomised controlled PORTSSS trial. Measures of nicotine dependence, ascertained before making a quit attempt, were the HSI, frequency of urges to smoke (FUTS) and strength of urges to smoke (SUTS). Self-reported abstinence at six months after quitting was the primary outcome measure. Multivariate logistic regression and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis were used to assess associations and abilities of the nicotine dependence measures to predict smoking cessation.

Results

Of 2,535 participants, 53.5% were female; the median (Interquartile range) age was 38 (28–50) years. Both FUTS and HSI were inversely associated with abstinence six months after quitting; for each point increase in HSI score, participants were 16% less likely to have stopped smoking (OR 0.84, 95% C.I 0.78-0.89, p < 0.0001). Compared to participants with the lowest possible FUTS scores, those with greater scores had generally lower odds of cessation (p across frequency of urges categories=0.0026). SUTS was not associated with smoking cessation. ROC analysis suggested the HSI and FUTS had similar predictive validity for cessation.

Conclusions

Higher FUTS and HSI scores were inversely associated with successful smoking cessation six months after quit attempts began and both had similar validity for predicting cessation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13011-015-0011-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evidence-based smoking cessation for college students

Despite a strong stance by the American College Health Association and years of prevention and control efforts on US college campuses, smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke remain a problem among college students. This article provides an overview of what is known about cigarette smoking in this population as well as existing interventions for smoking prevention, cessation, and exposure to secondhand smoke on college campuses. Strategies to reduce tobacco use are presented, many of which have been demonstrated to be effective in the short-term.

Pharmacogenetics of smoking cessation in general practice: results from the patch II and patch in practice trials

INTRODUCTION

Cigarette smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death worldwide. However, the efficacy of available first-line therapies remains low, particularly in primary care practice where most smokers seek and receive treatment. These observations reinforce the notion that 'one size fits all' smoking cessation therapies may not be optimal. Therefore, a translational research effort was launched by the Imperial Cancer Research Fund (later Cancer Research UK) General Practice Research Group, who led a decade-long research enterprise that examined the influence of pharmacological hypothesis-driven research into genetic influences on drug response for smoking cessation with transdermal nicotine replacement therapy in general practice.

METHODS

New and previously published smoking cessation genetic association results of 30 candidate gene polymorphisms genotyped for participants in two transdermal nicotine replacement clinical trials based in UK general practices, which employed an intention to analyze approach.

RESULTS

By this high bar, one of the polymorphisms (COMT rs4680) was robust to correction for multiple comparisons. Moreover, future research directions are outlined; and lessons learned as well as best-practice models for designing, analyzing, and translating results into clinical practice are proposed.

CONCLUSIONS

The results and lessons learned from this general practice-based pharmacogenetic research programme provide transportable insights at the transition to the second generation of pharmacogenetic and genomic investigations of smoking cessation and its translation to primary care.