Comparative effectiveness of post-discharge interventions for hospitalized smokers: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

In 2020, 32.6% of the world's population used tobacco. Smoking contributes to many illnesses that require hospitalisation. A hospital admission may prompt a quit attempt. Initiating smoking cessation treatment, such as pharmacotherapy and/or counselling, in hospitals may be an effective preventive health strategy. Pharmacotherapies work to reduce withdrawal/craving and counselling provides behavioural skills for quitting smoking. This review updates the evidence on interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, to understand the most effective smoking cessation treatment methods for hospitalised smokers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of any type of smoking cessation programme for patients admitted to an acute care hospital.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 7 September 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised studies of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients admitted to hospital quit. Interventions had to start in the hospital (including at discharge), and people had to have smoked within the last month. We excluded studies in psychiatric, substance and rehabilitation centres, as well as studies that did not measure abstinence at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from smoking assessed at least six months after discharge or the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically-validated rates where reported. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 82 studies (74 RCTs) that included 42,273 participants in the review (71 studies, 37,237 participants included in the meta-analyses); 36 studies are new to this update. We rated 10 studies as being at low risk of bias overall (low risk in all domains assessed), 48 at high risk of bias overall (high risk in at least one domain), and the remaining 24 at unclear risk. Cessation counselling versus no counselling, grouped by intensity of intervention Hospitalised patients who received smoking cessation counselling that began in the hospital and continued for more than a month after discharge had higher quit rates than patients who received no counselling in the hospital or following hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.49; 28 studies, 8234 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might account for an additional 76 quitters in every 1000 participants (95% CI 51 to 103). The evidence was uncertain (very low-certainty) about the effects of counselling interventions of less intensity or shorter duration (in-hospital only counselling ≤ 15 minutes: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1417 participants; and in-hospital contact plus follow-up counselling support for ≤ 1 month: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 7 studies, 4627 participants) versus no counselling. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that smoking cessation counselling for at least 15 minutes in the hospital without post-discharge support led to higher quit rates than no counselling in the hospital (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.58; 12 studies, 4432 participants). Pharmacotherapy versus placebo or no pharmacotherapy Nicotine replacement therapy helped more patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.67; 8 studies, 3838 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 62 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 9 to 126). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision (as CI encompassed the possibility of no difference), that varenicline helped more hospitalised patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 4 studies, 829 participants). Evidence for bupropion was low-certainty; the point estimate indicated a modest benefit at best, but CIs were wide and incorporated clinically significant harm and clinically significant benefit (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43, 4 studies, 872 participants). Hospital-only intervention versus intervention that continues after hospital discharge Patients offered both smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge had higher quit rates than patients offered counselling in hospital but not offered post-discharge support (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.38; 7 studies, 5610 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 34 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 to 55). Post-discharge interventions offering real-time counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.60, 8 studies, 2299 participants; low certainty-evidence) and those offering unscheduled counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 2 studies, 1598 participants; very low-certainty evidence) may have little to no effect on quit rates compared to control. Telephone quitlines versus control To provide post-discharge support, hospitals may refer patients to community-based telephone quitlines. Both comparisons relating to these interventions had wide CIs encompassing both possible harm and possible benefit, and were judged to be of very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias (post-discharge telephone counselling versus quitline referral: RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.51; 3 studies, 3260 participants; quitline referral versus control: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.96; 2 studies, 1870 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Offering hospitalised patients smoking cessation counselling beginning in hospital and continuing for over one month after discharge increases quit rates, compared to no hospital intervention. Counselling provided only in hospital, without post-discharge support, may have a modest impact on quit rates, but evidence is less certain. When all patients receive counselling in the hospital, high-certainty evidence indicates that providing both counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge increases quit rates compared to no post-discharge intervention. Starting nicotine replacement or varenicline in hospitalised patients helps more patients to quit smoking than a placebo or no medication, though evidence for varenicline is only moderate-certainty due to imprecision. There is less evidence of benefit for bupropion in this setting. Some of our evidence was limited by imprecision (bupropion versus placebo and varenicline versus placebo), risk of bias, and inconsistency related to heterogeneity. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies to implement, disseminate, and sustain interventions, and to ensure cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy initiated in the hospital is sustained after discharge.

Comparative Effectiveness of Postdischarge Smoking Cessation Interventions for Hospital Patients: The Helping HAND 4 Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Smoking cessation interventions for hospitalized patients must continue after discharge to improve long-term tobacco abstinence. How health systems can best deliver postdischarge tobacco treatment is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if health system-based tobacco cessation treatment after hospital discharge produces more long-term tobacco abstinence than referral to a community-based quitline.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial was conducted September 2018 to November 2020 in 3 hospitals in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. Cigarette smokers admitted to a study hospital who received brief in-hospital tobacco treatment and wanted to quit smoking were recruited for participation and randomized for postdischarge treatment to health system-based Transitional Tobacco Care Management (TTCM) or electronic referral to a community-based quitline (QL). Both multicomponent interventions offered smoking cessation counseling and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for up to 3 months. Data were analyzed from February 1, 2021, to April 25, 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

TTCM provided 8 weeks of NRT at discharge and 7 automated calls with a hospital-based counselor call-back option. The QL intervention sent referrals from the hospital electronic health record to the state quitline, which offered 5 counseling calls and an NRT sample.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was biochemically verified past 7-day tobacco abstinence at 6 months. Self-reported point-prevalence and continuous tobacco abstinence and tobacco treatment utilization were assessed 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 1409 participants (mean [SD] age, 51.7 [12.6] years; 784 [55.6%] women; mean [SD] 16.4 [10.6] cigarettes/day) were recruited, including 706 randomized to TTCM and 703 randomized to QL. Participants were comparable at baseline, including 216 Black participants (15.3%), 82 Hispanic participants (5.8%), and 1089 White participants (77.3%). At 1 and 3 months after discharge, more TTCM participants than QL participants used cessation counseling (1 month: 245 participants [34.7%] vs 154 participants [21.9%]; 3 months: 248 participants [35.1%] vs 123 participants [17.5%]; P < .001) and pharmacotherapy (1 month: 455 participants [64.4%] vs 324 participants [46.1%]; 3 months: 367 participants [52.0%] vs 264 participants [37.6%]; P < .001). More TTCM than QL participants reported continuous abstinence for 3 months (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.58) and point-prevalence abstinence at 1 month (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.35) and 3 months (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.09-1.37) but not at 6 months (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.99-1.29). The primary outcome, biochemically verified point-prevalence abstinence at 6 months, was not statistically significantly different between groups (19.9% vs 16.9%; RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.92-1.50).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial, biochemically verified tobacco abstinence rates were not significantly different between groups at the 6-month follow-up. However, the health system-based model was superior to the community-based quitline model throughout the 3 months of active treatment. A longer duration of postdischarge treatment may sustain the superiority of the health system-based model.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03603496.

Smartphone-based financial incentives to promote smoking cessation during pregnancy: A pilot study

Cigarette smoking during pregnancy increases risk for pregnancy complications, growth restriction, and other adverse health outcomes. The most effective intervention for reducing smoking during pregnancy is financial incentives contingent on biochemically-verified smoking abstinence. The present study examined the efficacy of a smartphone-based intervention whereby smoking monitoring and incentive delivery occurred remotely using a mobile app. If efficacious, this remote intervention would allow pregnant women residing in geographically remote areas to benefit from incentives-based cessation interventions. Sixty U.S. pregnant smokers were recruited between May 2018 to May 2019 via obstetrical clinics, Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) offices, and Facebook. Participants were assigned sequentially to one of two treatments: best practices alone (N = 30) or best practices plus financial incentives (N = 30). Outcomes were analyzed using repeated measures analysis based on generalized estimating equations (GEE). Seven-day point prevalence abstinence rates were greater in the incentives versus best practices arms early- (46.7% vs 20.0%, OR = 3.50, 95%CI = 1.11,11.02) and late-antepartum (36.7% vs 13.3%, OR = 3.76, 95%CI = 1.04,13.65), and four- (36.7% vs 10.0%, OR = 5.21, 95%CI = 1.28,21.24) and eight-weeks postpartum (40.0% vs 6.7%, OR = 9.33, 95%CI = 1.87,46.68), although not at the 12- (23.3% vs 10.0%, OR = 2.74, 95%CI = 0.63,11.82) or 24-week (20.0% vs 6.7%, OR = 3.50, 95%CI = 0.65,18.98) postpartum assessments likely due to this pilot study being underpowered for discerning differences at the later assessments, especially 24-weeks postpartum which was three months after treatment completion. These results support the efficacy of this remote, incentives-based intervention for pregnant smokers. Further research evaluating its efficacy and cost-effectiveness in a well-powered, randomized controlled trial appears warranted.

Comparative effectiveness of post-discharge strategies for hospitalized smokers: Study protocol for the Helping HAND 4 randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death in the US. A hospital admission provides smokers with a unique opportunity to stop smoking because it requires temporary tobacco abstinence while illness may enhance motivation to quit. Hospital interventions must continue post-discharge to increase tobacco abstinence long-term, but how best to accomplish this remains unclear. Building on two previous randomized controlled trials, each of which tested smoking cessation interventions that began in hospital and continued after discharge, this trial compares two interventions that provide sustained smoking cessation treatment after hospital discharge with the goal of improving long-term smoking cessation rates among hospitalized smokers.

METHODS/DESIGN

Helping HAND 4 is a three-site randomized controlled trial that compares the effectiveness of two active interventions for producing validated past 7-day tobacco abstinence 6 months after hospital discharge. Smokers who are admitted to three hospitals receive a standard in-hospital smoking intervention, and those who plan to quit smoking after discharge are recruited and randomly assigned to two interventions that begin at discharge, Personalized Tobacco Care Management (PTCM) or Quitline eReferral. Each lasts 3 months. At discharge, PTCM provides 8 weeks of free nicotine replacement (NRT; a participant's choice of patch, gum, lozenge, or a combination) and then proactive smoking cessation support using an automated communication platform and live contact with a tobacco treatment specialist who is based in the health care system. In the eReferral condition, a direct referral is made from the hospital electronic health record to a community-based resource, the state's telephone quitline. The quitline provides up to 8 weeks of free NRT and offers behavioral support via a series of phone calls from a trained coach. Outcomes are assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge. The study hypothesis is that PTCM will produce higher quit rates than eReferral.

DISCUSSION

Helping HAND 4 is a pragmatic trial that aims to evaluate interventions in real-world conditions. This project will give hospital systems critical evidence-based tools for meeting National Hospital Quality Measures for tobacco treatment and maximizing their ability to improve cessation rates and overall health for the millions of smokers hospitalized annually in the US.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospectively registered prior to start of enrollment at Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03603496 (July 27, 2018). https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S00084MJ&selectaction=Edit&uid=U00002G7&ts=2&cx=ff0oxn.

Real-time video counselling for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Real-time video communication software such as Skype and FaceTime transmits live video and audio over the Internet, allowing counsellors to provide support to help people quit smoking. There are more than four billion Internet users worldwide, and Internet users can download free video communication software, rendering a video counselling approach both feasible and scalable for helping people to quit smoking.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of real-time video counselling delivered individually or to a group in increasing smoking cessation, quit attempts, intervention adherence, satisfaction and therapeutic alliance, and to provide an economic evaluation regarding real-time video counselling.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO and Embase to identify eligible studies on 13 August 2019. We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify ongoing trials registered by 13 August 2019. We checked the reference lists of included articles and contacted smoking cessation researchers for any additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), randomised trials, cluster RCTs or cluster randomised trials of real-time video counselling for current tobacco smokers from any setting that measured smoking cessation at least six months following baseline. The real-time video counselling intervention could be compared with a no intervention control group or another smoking cessation intervention, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data from included trials, assessed the risk of bias and rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis for the primary outcome of smoking cessation, using the most stringent measure of smoking cessation measured at the longest follow-up. Analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. We considered participants with missing data at follow-up for the primary outcome of smoking cessation to be smokers.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two randomised trials with 615 participants. Both studies delivered real-time video counselling for smoking cessation individually, compared with telephone counselling. We judged one study at unclear risk of bias and one study at high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant treatment effect for smoking cessation (using the strictest definition and longest follow-up) across the two included studies when real-time video counselling was compared to telephone counselling (risk ratio (RR) 2.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 12.04; 2 studies, 608 participants; I2 = 66%). We judged the overall certainty of the evidence for smoking cessation as very low due to methodological limitations, imprecision in the effect estimate reflected by the wide 95% CIs and inconsistency of cessation rates. There were no significant differences between real-time video counselling and telephone counselling reported for number of quit attempts among people who continued to smoke (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI -0.60 to 1.60; 1 study, 499 participants), mean number of counselling sessions completed (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.05; 1 study, 566 participants), completion of all sessions (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.79; 1 study, 43 participants) or therapeutic alliance (MD 1.13, 95% CI -0.24 to 2.50; 1 study, 398 participants). Participants in the video counselling arm were more likely than their telephone counselling counterparts to recommend the programme to a friend or family member (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.11; 1 study, 398 participants); however, there were no between-group differences on satisfaction score (MD 0.70, 95% CI -1.16 to 2.56; 1 study, 29 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very little evidence about the effectiveness of real-time video counselling for smoking cessation. The existing research does not suggest a difference between video counselling and telephone counselling for assisting people to quit smoking. However, given the very low GRADE rating due to methodological limitations in the design, imprecision of the effect estimate and inconsistency of cessation rates, the smoking cessation results should be interpreted cautiously. High-quality randomised trials comparing real-time video counselling to telephone counselling are needed to increase the confidence of the effect estimate. Furthermore, there is currently no evidence comparing real-time video counselling to a control group. Such research is needed to determine whether video counselling increases smoking cessation.

Adaptation of a sustained care cessation intervention for smokers hospitalized for psychiatric disorders: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) smoke at disproportionately higher rates than those without SMI, have lifespans 25-32 years shorter, and thus bear an especially large burden of tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. Several recent studies demonstrate that smokers with SMI can successfully quit smoking with adequate support. Further evidence shows that using technology to deliver sustained care interventions to hospitalized smokers can lead to smoking cessation up to 6 months after discharge. The current comparative effectiveness trial adapts a technology-assisted sustained care intervention designed for smokers admitted to a general hospital and tests whether this approach can produce higher cessation rates compared to usual care for smokers admitted to a psychiatric inpatient unit.

METHODS

A total of 353 eligible patients hospitalized for psychiatric illness are randomized by cohort into one of two conditions, Sustained Care (SusC) or Usual Care (UC), and are followed for six months after discharge. Participants assigned to UC receive brief tobacco education delivered by a hospital nurse during or soon after admission. Those assigned to SusC receive a 40-min, in-hospital motivational counseling intervention. Upon discharge, they also receive up to 8 weeks of free nicotine patches, automated interactive voice response (IVR) telephone and text messaging, and access to cessation counseling resources lasting 3 months post discharge. Smoking cessation outcomes are measured at 1-, 3- and 6-months post hospital discharge.

CONCLUSION

Results from this comparative effectiveness trial will add to our understanding of acceptable and effective smoking cessation approaches for patients hospitalized with SMI.

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.

Interactive Voice Response Calls to Promote Smoking Cessation after Hospital Discharge: Pooled Analysis of Two Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Hospitalization offers smokers an opportunity to quit smoking. Starting cessation treatment in hospital is effective, but sustaining treatment after discharge is a challenge. Automated telephone calls with interactive voice response (IVR) technology could support treatment continuance after discharge.

OBJECTIVE

To assess smokers' use of and satisfaction with an IVR-facilitated intervention and to test the relationship between intervention dose and smoking cessation.

DESIGN

Analysis of pooled quantitative and qualitative data from the intervention groups of two similar randomized controlled trials with 6-month follow-up.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 878 smokers admitted to three hospitals. All received cessation counseling in hospital and planned to stop smoking after discharge.

INTERVENTION

After discharge, participants received free cessation medication and five automated IVR calls over 3 months. Calls delivered messages promoting smoking cessation and medication adherence, offered medication refills, and triaged smokers to additional telephone counseling.

MAIN MEASURES

Number of IVR calls answered, patient satisfaction, biochemically validated tobacco abstinence 6 months after discharge.

KEY RESULTS

Participants answered a median of three of five IVR calls; 70% rated the calls as helpful, citing the social support, access to counseling and medication, and reminders to quit as positive factors. Older smokers (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.20-1.54 per decade) and smokers hospitalized for a smoking-related disease (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.21-2.23) completed more calls. Smokers who completed more calls had higher quit rates at 6-month follow-up (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.30-1.70, for each additional call) after multivariable adjustment for age, sex, education, discharge diagnosis, nicotine dependence, duration of medication use, and perceived importance of and confidence in quitting.

CONCLUSIONS

Automated IVR calls to support smoking cessation after hospital discharge were viewed favorably by patients. Higher IVR utilization was associated with higher odds of tobacco abstinence at 6-month follow-up. IVR technology offers health care systems a potentially scalable means of sustaining tobacco cessation interventions after hospital discharge.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers NCT01177176, NCT01714323.

Postdischarge smoking cessation in subgroups of hospitalized smokers: A latent class analysis

BACKGROUND

Hospitalization presents a window of opportunity to treat smoking, and hospital-initiated smoking treatment has demonstrated effectiveness. Despite effective interventions, not all smokers will discontinue use, highlighting the need to better understand which patients achieve cessation. Traditional regression methods may not capture the complexity of inpatient smoker subgroups.

METHODS

Latent class analysis (LCA) was conducted with data from 397 hospitalized adult cigarette smokers enrolled in a randomized trial. Six categorical indicator variables known to impact cessation were selected to estimate subgroups: health conditions (smoking-related disease [SRD], depressive symptoms, positive screen for alcohol problems) and smoking-related variables (time to first cigarette, cigarettes/day, smoking indoors). The probability of achieving biologically verified 7-day tobacco cessation 6 months after discharged was estimated.

RESULTS

A 3-class model best fit the trial data: a Light Smokers subgroup had lower probability for most indicators; a High Health Burden subgroup had high smoking behavior probabilities and similar health problems to the Light Smokers subgroup; and a Heavy Smoking Drinking Depressed subgroup had high nicotine dependence, depressive symptoms, and alcohol misuse probabilities. Probability of biologically verified cessation conditional on class membership was significantly higher (P < .001) for the High Health Burden and the Light Smokers subgroups compared with the Heavy Smoking Drinking Depressed subgroup.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that subgroups with lower probabilities of alcohol misuse and depression and higher probability of SRD had higher probability of successful cessation after hospital discharge. Hospitalized patients with nicotine dependence combined with behavioral and mental health problems have additional cessation barriers that may require intervention focus.

Automated telephone communication systems for preventive healthcare and management of long-term conditions

BACKGROUND

Automated telephone communication systems (ATCS) can deliver voice messages and collect health-related information from patients using either their telephone's touch-tone keypad or voice recognition software. ATCS can supplement or replace telephone contact between health professionals and patients. There are four different types of ATCS: unidirectional (one-way, non-interactive voice communication), interactive voice response (IVR) systems, ATCS with additional functions such as access to an expert to request advice (ATCS Plus) and multimodal ATCS, where the calls are delivered as part of a multicomponent intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of ATCS for preventing disease and managing long-term conditions on behavioural change, clinical, process, cognitive, patient-centred and adverse outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 10 electronic databases (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Global Health; WHOLIS; LILACS; Web of Science; and ASSIA); three grey literature sources (Dissertation Abstracts, Index to Theses, Australasian Digital Theses); and two trial registries (www.controlled-trials.com; www.clinicaltrials.gov) for papers published between 1980 and June 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, cluster- and quasi-randomised trials, interrupted time series and controlled before-and-after studies comparing ATCS interventions, with any control or another ATCS type were eligible for inclusion. Studies in all settings, for all consumers/carers, in any preventive healthcare or long term condition management role were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods to select and extract data and to appraise eligible studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 132 trials (N = 4,669,689). Studies spanned across several clinical areas, assessing many comparisons based on evaluation of different ATCS types and variable comparison groups. Forty-one studies evaluated ATCS for delivering preventive healthcare, 84 for managing long-term conditions, and seven studies for appointment reminders. We downgraded our certainty in the evidence primarily because of the risk of bias for many outcomes. We judged the risk of bias arising from allocation processes to be low for just over half the studies and unclear for the remainder. We considered most studies to be at unclear risk of performance or detection bias due to blinding, while only 16% of studies were at low risk. We generally judged the risk of bias due to missing data and selective outcome reporting to be unclear.For preventive healthcare, ATCS (ATCS Plus, IVR, unidirectional) probably increase immunisation uptake in children (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18 to 1.32; 5 studies, N = 10,454; moderate certainty) and to a lesser extent in adolescents (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11; 2 studies, N = 5725; moderate certainty). The effects of ATCS in adults are unclear (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.53 to 9.02; 2 studies, N = 1743; very low certainty).For screening, multimodal ATCS increase uptake of screening for breast cancer (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.55 to 3.04; 2 studies, N = 462; high certainty) and colorectal cancer (CRC) (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.88 to 2.55; 3 studies, N = 1013; high certainty) versus usual care. It may also increase osteoporosis screening. ATCS Plus interventions probably slightly increase cervical cancer screening (moderate certainty), but effects on osteoporosis screening are uncertain. IVR systems probably increase CRC screening at 6 months (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.48; 2 studies, N = 16,915; moderate certainty) but not at 9 to 12 months, with probably little or no effect of IVR (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99, 1.11; 2 studies, 2599 participants; moderate certainty) or unidirectional ATCS on breast cancer screening.Appointment reminders delivered through IVR or unidirectional ATCS may improve attendance rates compared with no calls (low certainty). For long-term management, medication or laboratory test adherence provided the most general evidence across conditions (25 studies, data not combined). Multimodal ATCS versus usual care showed conflicting effects (positive and uncertain) on medication adherence. ATCS Plus probably slightly (versus control; moderate certainty) or probably (versus usual care; moderate certainty) improves medication adherence but may have little effect on adherence to tests (versus control). IVR probably slightly improves medication adherence versus control (moderate certainty). Compared with usual care, IVR probably improves test adherence and slightly increases medication adherence up to six months but has little or no effect at longer time points (moderate certainty). Unidirectional ATCS, compared with control, may have little effect or slightly improve medication adherence (low certainty). The evidence suggested little or no consistent effect of any ATCS type on clinical outcomes (blood pressure control, blood lipids, asthma control, therapeutic coverage) related to adherence, but only a small number of studies contributed clinical outcome data.The above results focus on areas with the most general findings across conditions. In condition-specific areas, the effects of ATCS varied, including by the type of ATCS intervention in use.Multimodal ATCS probably decrease both cancer pain and chronic pain as well as depression (moderate certainty), but other ATCS types were less effective. Depending on the type of intervention, ATCS may have small effects on outcomes for physical activity, weight management, alcohol consumption, and diabetes mellitus. ATCS have little or no effect on outcomes related to heart failure, hypertension, mental health or smoking cessation, and there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects for preventing alcohol/substance misuse or managing illicit drug addiction, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, HIV/AIDS, hypercholesterolaemia, obstructive sleep apnoea, spinal cord dysfunction or psychological stress in carers.Only four trials (3%) reported adverse events, and it was unclear whether these were related to the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ATCS interventions can change patients' health behaviours, improve clinical outcomes and increase healthcare uptake with positive effects in several important areas including immunisation, screening, appointment attendance, and adherence to medications or tests. The decision to integrate ATCS interventions in routine healthcare delivery should reflect variations in the certainty of the evidence available and the size of effects across different conditions, together with the varied nature of ATCS interventions assessed. Future research should investigate both the content of ATCS interventions and the mode of delivery; users' experiences, particularly with regard to acceptability; and clarify which ATCS types are most effective and cost-effective.

Implementation of the Tobacco Tactics intervention versus usual care in Trinity Health community hospitals

Background

Guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) implementation framework, a National Institutes of Health-sponsored study compared the nurse-administered Tobacco Tactics intervention to usual care. A prior paper describes the effectiveness of the Tobacco Tactics intervention. This subsequent paper provides data describing the remaining constructs of the RE-AIM framework.

Methods

This pragmatic study used a mixed methods, quasi-experimental design in five Michigan community hospitals of which three received the nurse-administered Tobacco Tactics intervention and two received usual care. Nurses and patients were surveyed pre- and post-intervention.

Measures included reach (patient participation rates, characteristics, and receipt of services), adoption (nurse participation rates and characteristics), implementation (pre-to post-training changes in nurses' attitudes, delivery of services, barriers to implementation, opinions about training, documentation of services, and numbers of volunteer follow-up phone calls), and maintenance (continuation of the intervention once the study ended).

Results

Reach: Patient participation rates were 71.5 %. Compared to no change in the control sites, there were significant pre- to post-intervention increases in self-reported receipt of print materials in the intervention hospitals (n = 1370, p < 0.001). Adoption: In the intervention hospitals, all targeted units and several non-targeted units participated; 76.0 % (n = 1028) of targeted nurses and 317 additional staff participated in the training, and 92.4 % were extremely or somewhat satisfied with the training. Implementation: Nurses in the intervention hospitals reported increases in providing advice to quit, counseling, medications, handouts, and DVD (all p < 0.05) and reported decreased barriers to implementing smoking cessation services (p < 0.001). Qualitative comments were very positive (“user friendly,” “streamlined,” or “saves time”), although problems with showing patients the DVD and charting in the electronic medical record were noted. Maintenance: Nurses continued to provide the intervention after the study ended.

Conclusions

Given that nurses represent the largest group of front-line providers, this intervention, which meets Joint Commission guidelines for treating inpatient smokers, has the potential to have a wide reach and to decrease smoking, morbidity, and mortality among inpatient smokers. As we move toward more population-based interventions, the RE-AIM framework is a valuable guide for implementation.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01309217

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0511-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

CHARTing a Path to Pragmatic Tobacco Treatment Research

INTRODUCTION

It is important to consider the degree to which studies are explanatory versus pragmatic to understand the implications of their findings for patients, healthcare professionals, and policymakers. Pragmatic trials test the effectiveness of interventions in real-world conditions; explanatory trials test for efficacy under ideal conditions. The Consortium of Hospitals Advancing Research on Tobacco (CHART) is a network of seven NIH-funded trials designed to identify effective programs that can be widely implemented in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis of CHART trial study designs was conducted to place each study on the pragmatic-explanatory continuum. After reliability training, six raters independently scored each CHART study according to ten PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) dimensions, which covered participant eligibility criteria, intervention flexibility, practitioner expertise, follow-up procedures, participant compliance, practitioner adherence, and outcome analyses. Means and SDs were calculated for each dimension of each study, with lower scores representing more pragmatic elements. Results were plotted on "spoke and wheel" diagrams. The rating process and analyses were performed in October 2014 to September 2015.

RESULTS

All seven CHART trials tended toward the pragmatic end of the spectrum, although there was a range from 0.76 (SD=0.23) to 1.85 (SD=0.58). Most studies included some explanatory design elements.

CONCLUSIONS

CHART findings should be relatively applicable to clinical practice. Funders and reviewers could integrate PRECIS criteria into their guidelines to better facilitate pragmatic research. CHART study protocols, coupled with scores reported here, may help readers improve the design of their own pragmatic trials.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by two authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by another.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Smoking Status Confirmation by Proxy: Validation in a Smoking Cessation Trial

INTRODUCTION

Biochemical confirmation (BC) of self-report is the gold standard of evidence for abstinence in smoking cessation research, but difficulty in obtaining samples may bias estimates of quit rates. Proxy confirmation (PC) has not been validated in cessation trials. We assessed the feasibility and validity of PC in a cessation trial for hospitalized smokers.

METHODS

We enrolled 402 daily cigarette smokers during a hospital admission. At enrollment, participants provided demographics, smoking history, and named proxies to confirm their smoking status at follow-up. Participants provided self-reported (SR) 7-day tobacco abstinence by telephone at 6 months post-discharge. SR quitters were asked to mail a saliva sample for BC. Incentives were offered for survey completion ($20) and returned samples ($50). We called proxies for all those with SR to obtain PC. Quit rates were calculated with missing data indicating smoking. We assessed associations of nonresponse with baseline characteristics using chi-squared tests and logistic regression. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of PC in detecting smokers as determined by BC.

RESULTS

All patients named at least one proxy. Response rates were 82% for SR, 84% for PC, and 69% for BC. Observed participant characteristics were unrelated to provision of sample for BC. Estimated quit rates were 35% for SR, 27% for SR + PC, 21% for SR + BC and 27% for SR + BC or PC. Sensitivity of PC was not higher than SR (73% vs. 77%); specificity was lower (84% vs. 100%).

CONCLUSION

PC was feasible but not superior to self-report in a cessation trial.

Comparative Effectiveness of Post-Discharge Strategies for Hospitalized Smokers: study protocol for the Helping HAND 2 randomized controlled trial

Background

Smoking cessation interventions for hospitalized smokers are effective in promoting smoking cessation, but only if the tobacco dependence treatment continues after the patient leaves the hospital. Sustaining tobacco dependence treatment after hospital discharge is a challenge for health care systems. Our previous single-site randomized controlled trial demonstrated the effectiveness of an intervention that facilitated the delivery of comprehensive tobacco cessation treatment, including both medication and counseling, after hospital discharge. We subsequently streamlined the intervention model to increase its potential for dissemination. This new model is being tested in a larger multi-site trial with broader eligibility criteria in order to enroll a more representative sample of hospitalized smokers. This paper describes the trial design and contrasts it with the earlier study.

Methods/Design

A 2-arm, 3-site randomized controlled trial is testing the hypothesis that a multi-component Sustained Care intervention is more effective than Standard Care in helping hospitalized cigarette smokers stop smoking after hospital discharge. The trial enrolls adult daily cigarette smokers who are admitted to 1 of 3 participating hospitals in Massachusetts or Pennsylvania. Participants receive the same smoking cessation intervention in the hospital. They are randomly assigned to receive either Standard Care or Sustained Care after hospital discharge. Participants in the Sustained Care arm receive a free 3-month supply of FDA-approved smoking cessation medication and 5 interactive voice response calls that provide tailored motivational messages, medication refills, and access to a live tobacco treatment counselor. Participants in the Standard Care arm receive a smoking cessation medication recommendation and information about community resources. Outcomes are assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge. The primary outcome is biochemically-validated tobacco abstinence for the past 7 days at 6-month follow-up. Other outcome measures include self-reported tobacco abstinence measures, use of medication and counseling after discharge, hospital readmissions, and program cost-effectiveness.

Discussion

We adapted a proven intervention for hospitalized smokers to enhance its potential for dissemination and are testing it in a multi-site trial. Study enrollment data suggests that the trial achieved the goal of recruiting a broader sample of hospitalized smokers.

Trial registration

Comparative Effectiveness of Post-Discharge Strategies for Hospitalized Smokers (Helping HAND2) NCT01714323. Registered October 22, 2012.

Sustained care intervention and postdischarge smoking cessation among hospitalized adults: a randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE

Health care systems need effective models to manage chronic diseases like tobacco dependence across transitions in care. Hospitalizations provide opportunities for smokers to quit, but research suggests that hospital-delivered interventions are effective only if treatment continues after discharge.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether an intervention to sustain tobacco treatment after hospital discharge increases smoking cessation rates compared with standard care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A randomized clinical trial compared sustained care (a postdischarge tobacco cessation intervention) with standard care among 397 hospitalized daily smokers (mean age, 53 years; 48% were males; 81% were non-Hispanic whites) who wanted to quit smoking after discharge and received a tobacco dependence intervention in the hospital; 92% of eligible patients and 44% of screened patients enrolled. The study was conducted from August 2010 through November 2012 at Massachusetts General Hospital.

INTERVENTIONS

Sustained care participants received automated interactive voice response telephone calls and their choice of free smoking cessation medication (any type approved by the US Food and Drug Administration) for up to 90 days. The automated telephone calls promoted cessation, provided medication management, and triaged smokers for additional counseling. Standard care participants received recommendations for postdischarge pharmacotherapy and counseling.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was biochemically confirmed past 7-day tobacco abstinence at 6-month follow-up after discharge from the hospital; secondary outcomes included self-reported tobacco abstinence.

RESULTS

Smokers randomly assigned to sustained care (n = 198) used more counseling and more pharmacotherapy at each follow-up assessment than those assigned to standard care (n = 199). Biochemically validated 7-day tobacco abstinence at 6 months was higher with sustained care (26%) than with standard care (15%) (relative risk [RR], 1.71 [95% CI, 1.14-2.56], P = .009; number needed to treat, 9.4 [95% CI, 5.4-35.5]). Using multiple imputation for missing outcomes, the RR for 7-day tobacco abstinence was 1.55 (95% CI, 1.03-2.21; P = .04). Sustained care also resulted in higher self-reported continuous abstinence rates for 6 months after discharge (27% vs 16% for standard care; RR, 1.70 [95% CI, 1.15-2.51]; P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among hospitalized adult smokers who wanted to quit smoking, a postdischarge intervention providing automated telephone calls and free medication resulted in higher rates of smoking cessation at 6 months compared with a standard recommendation to use counseling and medication after discharge. These findings, if replicated, suggest an approach to help achieve sustained smoking cessation after a hospital stay.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01177176.