Effectiveness of an individual acceptance and commitment therapy for smoking cessation, delivered face-to-face and by telephone to adults recruited in primary health care settings: a randomized controlled trial

Do medications increase the efficacy of digital interventions for smoking cessation? Secondary results from the iCanQuit randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

iCanQuit is a smartphone application (app) proven efficacious for smoking cessation in a Phase III randomized controlled trial (RCT). This study aimed to measure whether medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for smoking cessation would further enhance the efficacy of iCanQuit, relative to its parent trial comparator-the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) QuitGuide app.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of the entire parent trial sample of a two-group (iCanQuit and QuitGuide), stratified, doubled-blind RCT.

SETTING

United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants who reported using an FDA-approved cessation medication on their own (n = 619) and those who reported no use of cessation medications (n = 1469).

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to receive iCanQuit app or NCI's QuitGuide app.

MEASUREMENTS

Use of FDA-approved medications was measured at 3 months post-randomization. Smoking cessation outcomes were measured at 3, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome was 12-month self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA).

FINDINGS

The data retention rate at the 12-month follow-up was 94.0%. Participants were aged 38.5 years, 71.0% female, 36.6% minority race/ethnicity, 40.6% high school or less education, residing in all 50 US States and smoking 19.2 cigarettes/day. The 29.6% of all participants who used medications were more likely to choose nicotine replacement therapy (NRT; 78.8%) than other cessation medications (i.e. varenicline or bupropion; 18.3 and 10.5%, respectively) and use did not differ by app treatment assignment (all P > 0.05). There was a significant (P = 0.049) interaction between medication use and app treatment assignment on PPA. Specifically, 12-month quit rates were 34% for iCanQuit versus 20% for QuitGuide [odds ratio (OR) = 2.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.59, 3.49] among participants reporting any medication use, whereas among participants reporting no medication use, quit rates were 28% for iCanQuit versus 22% for QuitGuide (OR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.09, 1.82). Results were stronger for those using only NRT: 40% quit rates for iCanQuit versus 18% quit rates for QuitGuide (OR = 3.57, 95% CI = 2.20, 5.79).

CONCLUSIONS

The iCanQuit smartphone app for smoking cessation was more efficacious than the QuitGuide smartphone app, regardless of whether participants used medications to aid cessation. Smoking cessation medications, especially nicotine replacement therapy, might enhance the efficacy of the iCanQuit app.

Relative Efficacy of an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-Based Smartphone App with a Standard US Clinical Practice Guidelines-Based App for Smoking Cessation in Dual Users of Combustible and Electronic Cigarettes: Secondary Findings from a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

While smartphone apps for smoking cessation have shown promise for combustible cigarette smoking cessation, their efficacy in helping dual users of combustible and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) to quit cigarettes remains unknown. This study utilized data from a randomized trial to determine if an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT)-based app (iCanQuit) was more efficacious than a US Clinical Practice Guidelines-based app (QuitGuide) for combustible cigarette smoking cessation among 575 dual users.

METHODS

The primary cessation outcome was self-reported, complete-case 30-day abstinence from combustible cigarettes at 12 months. Logistic regression assessed the interaction between dual use and treatment arm on the primary outcome in the full trial sample (N = 2,415). We then compared the primary outcome between arms among dual users (iCanQuit: n = 297; QuitGuide: n = 178). Mediation analyses were conducted to explore mechanisms of action of the intervention: acceptance of cues to smoke and app engagement. Results: There was an interaction between dual use of combustible and e-cigarettes and treatment arm on the primary outcome (p = 0.001). Among dual users, 12-month abstinence from cigarettes did not differ between arms (23% for iCanQuit vs. 27% for QuitGuide, p = 0.40). Mediation analysis revealed a significant positive indirect effect of the iCanQuit app on 12-month abstinence from cigarettes through acceptance of emotions that cue smoking (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this study of dual users of combustible and e-cigarettes showed no evidence of a difference in quit rates between arms. Acceptance of emotions that cue smoking is a potential mechanism contributing to cigarette smoking abstinence among dual users.

Do Smartphone Apps Impact Long-Term Smoking Cessation for Sexual and Gender Minority Adults? Exploratory Results from a 2-Arm Randomized Trial Comparing Acceptance and Commitment Therapy with Standard US Clinical Practice Guidelines

Sexual and gender minority (SGM) adults face unique challenges in accessing smoking cessation care due to stigma tied to their identities and smoking. While cessation apps show promise in the general population, their efficacy for SGM adults is unclear. This study utilized data from a randomized trial to compare two cessation apps, iCanQuit (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-based) and QuitGuide (US Clinical Practice Guidelines-based) among 403 SGM adults. The primary outcome was self-reported complete-case 30-day abstinence from cigarette smoking at 12 months. Mediation analyses explored whether interventions operated through acceptance of cues to smoke and app engagement. At 12 months, quit rates did not differ between arms (26% iCanQuit vs. 22% QuitGuide, OR = 1.22; 95% CI: 0.74 to 2.00, p = .43). iCanQuit positively impacted cessation via acceptance of cues to smoke (indirect effect = 0.23; 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.50, p < .001) and demonstrated higher engagement (no. logins, 28.4 vs. 12.1; p < .001) and satisfaction (91% vs. 75%, OR = 4.18; 95% CI: 2.12 to 8.25, p < .001) than QuitGuide. Although quit rates did not differ between arms, acceptance of cues to smoke seemed to play a crucial role in helping SGM adults quit smoking. Future interventions should consider promoting acceptance of cues to smoke in this population.

Immediate, Short-term, Medium-term, and Long-term effects of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) is increasingly being studied as a treatment for smoking cessation. However, its immediate, short-, and long-term effects have rarely been reviewed.

METHODS

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of immediate, short-, medium-, and long-term smoking cessation rates in ACT and comparators at less than 3-month, 3 to 4-month, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in eight databases until April 20, 2023. We assessed the quality of RCTs and the certainty of evidence of outcomes.

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs involving 7885 smokers across six countries were included. The majority (72.81%) of RCTs were graded as low risk across six domains. For complete-case outcomes, meta-analyses were conducted, and the results revealed a significant effect in favor of ACT [risk ratio: 1.70-1.80 at <3-month, 3 to 4-month, and 6 months follow-up] compared with comparators. For outcomes using missing data management, meta-analyses found an overall effect in favor of ACT, but a significant effect was found at 3 to 4-months only. However, 12-month follow-ups revealed no significant reduction in smoking cessation for both outcomes. Moderate and substantial heterogeneities were found among four meta-analyses that may lead to inaccurate estimates of effects. The certainty of evidence of all outcomes was rated as low and very low.

CONCLUSION

ACT may be an effective intervention for smoking cessation with immediate, short-term, and medium-term effects. Caution must be applied in the interpretation of the results due to the limited trials and low certainty of evidence.

IMPLICATION

ACT can be implemented adjuvant to the usual treatment for smoking cessation. Additional RCTs with follow-up data using biochemically verified measures in non-US countries are warranted.

Use of e-Cigarettes in Cigarette Smoking Cessation: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Many adults use e-cigarettes to help them quit cigarette smoking. However, the impact of self-selected use of e-cigarettes on cigarette smoking cessation, particularly when concurrently receiving app-based behavioral interventions, remains unexplored.

OBJECTIVE

This study used data from a randomized trial of 2 smartphone apps to compare 12-month cigarette smoking cessation rates between participants who used e-cigarettes on their own (ie, adopters: n=465) versus those who did not (ie, nonadopters: n=1097).

METHODS

The study population included all participants who did not use e-cigarettes at baseline. "Adopters" were those who self-reported the use of e-cigarettes at either 3- or 6-month follow-ups. "Nonadopters" were those who self-reported no use of e-cigarettes at either follow-up time point. The primary cessation outcome was self-reported, complete-case, 30-day point prevalence abstinence from cigarette smoking at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were missing-as-smoking and multiple imputation analyses of the primary outcome, prolonged abstinence, and cessation of all nicotine and tobacco products at 12 months. In logistic regression models, we first examined the potential interaction between e-cigarette use and treatment arm (iCanQuit vs QuitGuide) on the primary cessation outcome. Subsequently, we compared 12-month cigarette smoking cessation rates between adopters and nonadopters separately for each app.

RESULTS

There was suggestive evidence for an interaction between e-cigarette use and treatment arm on cessation (P=.05). In the iCanQuit arm, 12-month cigarette smoking cessation rates were significantly lower among e-cigarette adopters compared with nonadopters (41/193, 21.2% vs 184/527, 34.9%; P=.003; odds ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.81). In contrast, in the QuitGuide arm, 12-month cigarette smoking cessation rates did not differ between adopters and nonadopters (46/246, 18.7% vs 104/522, 19.9%; P=.64; odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.62-1.35).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of e-cigarettes while concurrently receiving an app-based smoking cessation intervention was associated with either a lower or an unimproved likelihood of quitting cigarette smoking compared to no use. Future behavioral treatments for cigarette smoking cessation should consider including information on the potential consequences of e-cigarette use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02724462; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02724462.

Smoking cessation policy and treatments derived from the protective motivation of smokers: a study on graphic health warning labels

Introduction

Smoking is a leading public health risk. Many countries are reducing the demand for tobacco through graphic health warning labels (GHWLs). This study aims to explore smokers' perceptions of GHWLs and analyze the effect of GHWLs on their behavioral intentions to quit smoking.

Methods

A theoretical model is designed by synthesizing protection motivation theory, an extension of the extended parallel process model, and the theory of planned behavior. We collected a cross-sectional sample of 547 anonymous smokers through a stratified random sampling strategy. GHWLs published in 2011 by the US Food and Drug Administration were used in the survey to assess smokers' responses to them, and then the hypotheses are validated through structural equation models.

Results

The results suggest that perceived severity, perceived vulnerability, response efficacy, and health anxiety have a significant impact on smokers' protection motivation. Furthermore, smokers' protection motivation directly impacts the behavioral intention to quit smoking and indirectly influences intention to quit through attitudes.

Discussion

These findings have practical implications for the implementation and improvement of GHWLs policies. Meanwhile, this study enriches the literature on public health protection measures (i.e., GHWLs) and smokers' behavioral intention to quit smoking.

Efficacy of smartphone applications to help cancer patients quit smoking: Protocol of the Quit2Heal randomized controlled trial

Cigarette smoking is highly prevalent among cancer patients in the United States (US), with up to half of cancer patients smoking at the time of their initial cancer diagnosis. However, evidence-based cessation programs are rarely implemented in oncology care, and smoking is not consistently treated in cancer treatment settings. Consequently, there is an urgent need for accessible and efficacious cessation treatments that are uniquely tailored to the needs of cancer patients. Here we describe the design and implementation of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) testing the efficacy of a smartphone app (Quit2Heal) versus a US Clinical Practice Guidelines-based app (QuitGuide) for smoking cessation among a planned sample of 422 cancer patients. Quit2Heal is designed to address cancer-related shame, stigma, depression, anxiety, and knowledge about the consequences of smoking/quitting. Quit2Heal is based on the principles of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, a behavioral therapy that teaches skills for accepting cravings to smoke without smoking, values-driven motivation to quit, and preventing relapse. The primary aim of the RCT is to determine whether Quit2Heal has significantly higher self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence at 12 months relative to QuitGuide. The trial will also determine whether Quit2Heal's effect on cessation is (1) mediated by improvements in cancer-related shame, stigma, depression, anxiety, and knowledge about the consequences of smoking/quitting; and (2) moderated by baseline factors (e.g., cancer type, stage, time since diagnosis). If successful, Quit2Heal will offer a more efficacious, broadly scalable smoking cessation treatment that could be implemented alongside existing oncology care, thereby improving cancer outcomes.

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-Based Smartphone Applications for Cessation of Tobacco Use among Adults with High Nicotine Dependence: Results from the iCanQuit Randomized Trial

Background: With 1 in 2 adult tobacco users being highly dependent on nicotine, population-based interventions specifically designed for this group are urgently needed. This study used data from a randomized trial to evaluate whether (1) Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) delivered via a smartphone application (iCanQuit) would be more efficacious for cessation of nicotine-containing tobacco products than the US Clinical Practice Guidelines (USCPG)-based application (QuitGuide) among highly nicotine-dependent adults, (2) the effect of treatment on cessation was mediated by increases in acceptance of cravings to smoke, and (3) treatment utilization and satisfaction differed by arm. Methods: A total of 1452 highly nicotine-dependent adults received the iCanQuit or QuitGuide application for 12-months. Cessation outcomes were self-reported complete-case 30-day abstinence of nicotine-containing tobacco products (e.g., combustible cigarettes, e-cigarettes, chewing tobacco, snus, hookahs, cigars, cigarillos, tobacco pipes, and kreteks) at 3, 6, and 12-month post-randomization timepoints, missing-as-smoking, and multiple imputation analyses. Acceptance of cues to smoke and satisfaction with the applications was also reported. Results: Participants who received iCanQuit were significantly more likely to report 30-day abstinence of nicotine-containing tobacco products than those who received QuitGuide at 12-months (24% vs. 17%; OR = 1.47 95% CI: 1.11, 1.95). iCanQuit participants utilized their application more frequently and reported greater satisfaction than those who received QuitGuide. Increases in participants' acceptance of cues to smoke mediated the intervention effect on cessation of nicotine-containing tobacco products. Conclusions: Among nicotine-dependent adults, an application-delivered ACT-based intervention was more engaging and efficacious than a USCPG-based intervention for cessation of nicotine-containing tobacco products.

Current Status and Future Trends of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) for Smoking Cessation: A Narrative Review with Specific Attention to Technology-Based Interventions

Background

During recent decades, it has become evident that cigarette smoking has led to an increase in cancer, risk of death, and economic problems or sanitation issues worldwide. Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), as a third-wave behavioral therapy, has devoted significant attention to smoking cessation. However, this treatment has been utilized in different formats and protocols. Moreover, addressing its challenges and progress needs examination and integration. Accordingly, the primary aim of this study was to present a narrative review for summarizing and integrating the current data on the effectiveness of ACT on smoking cessation. This study also aimed to investigate the challenges and the future of this field.

Methods

The publications from January 1, 2010 to October 9, 2021 were identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science electronic databases. The search was performed with the following keywords: "Acceptance AND Commitment Therapy" OR "Acceptance" AND "smoking" OR "tobacco" OR "cigarette" OR "smoker" OR "Nicotine". The inclusion criterion was studies with interventions aimed at reducing smoking cessation in smokers.

Findings

A total of 17 articles were analyzed in this study. The results showed that this treatment has significant effectiveness in smoking cessation and psychiatric comorbidities. Moreover, the role of experiential avoidance in smoking cessation was discussed in detail.

Conclusion

ACT is a suitable psychotherapy module for smoking cessation. However, it needs some upgrades regarding technology. To this end, smartphone applications and AVATAR therapy technologies were discussed with their advantages and solvable disadvantages.

Mindfulness for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Mindfulness-based smoking cessation interventions may aid smoking cessation by teaching individuals to pay attention to, and work mindfully with, negative affective states, cravings, and other symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. Types of mindfulness-based interventions include mindfulness training, which involves training in meditation; acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT); distress tolerance training; and yoga.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions for smoking cessation among people who smoke, and whether these interventions have an effect on mental health outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and trial registries to 15 April 2021. We also employed an automated search strategy, developed as part of the Human Behaviour Change Project, using Microsoft Academic.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared a mindfulness-based intervention for smoking cessation with another smoking cessation programme or no treatment, and assessed smoking cessation at six months or longer. We excluded studies that solely recruited pregnant women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking cessation at the longest time point, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of intervention and type of comparator. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models. We summarised mental health outcomes narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies, with 8186 participants. Most recruited adults from the community, and the majority (15 studies) were conducted in the USA. We judged four of the studies to be at low risk of bias, nine at unclear risk, and eight at high risk. Mindfulness-based interventions varied considerably in design and content, as did comparators, therefore, we pooled small groups of relatively comparable studies. We did not detect a clear benefit or harm of mindfulness training interventions on quit rates compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.46; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 542 participants; low-certainty evidence), less intensive smoking cessation treatment (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.19; I² = 60%; 5 studies, 813 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or no treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.53; 1 study, 325 participants; low-certainty evidence). In each comparison, the 95% CI encompassed benefit (i.e. higher quit rates), harm (i.e. lower quit rates) and no difference. In one study of mindfulness-based relapse prevention, we did not detect a clear benefit or harm of the intervention over no treatment (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.67; 86 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not detect a clear benefit or harm of ACT on quit rates compared with less intensive behavioural treatments, including nicotine replacement therapy alone (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.02; 1 study, 102 participants; low-certainty evidence), brief advice (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.75; 1 study, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or less intensive ACT (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.01; 1 study, 100 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was a high level of heterogeneity (I² = 82%) across studies comparing ACT with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatments, meaning it was not appropriate to report a pooled result. We did not detect a clear benefit or harm of distress tolerance training on quit rates compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.98; 1 study, 69 participants; low-certainty evidence) or less intensive smoking cessation treatment (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 8.08; 1 study, 49 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not detect a clear benefit or harm of yoga on quit rates compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.16; 1 study, 55 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Excluding studies at high risk of bias did not substantially alter the results, nor did using complete case data as opposed to using data from all participants randomised. Nine studies reported on changes in mental health and well-being, including depression, anxiety, perceived stress, and negative and positive affect. Variation in measures and methodological differences between studies meant we could not meta-analyse these data. One study found a greater reduction in perceived stress in participants who received a face-to-face mindfulness training programme versus an intensity-matched programme. However, the remaining eight studies found no clinically meaningful differences in mental health and well-being between participants who received mindfulness-based treatments and participants who received another treatment or no treatment (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not detect a clear benefit of mindfulness-based smoking cessation interventions for increasing smoking quit rates or changing mental health and well-being. This was the case when compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment, less intensive smoking cessation treatment, or no treatment. However, the evidence was of low and very low certainty due to risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision, meaning future evidence may very likely change our interpretation of the results. Further RCTs of mindfulness-based interventions for smoking cessation compared with active comparators are needed. There is also a need for more consistent reporting of mental health and well-being outcomes in studies of mindfulness-based interventions for smoking cessation.

Establishment of a multimodal protocol combining a motivational interview, subcutaneous injection of NicoSan® and hyper-hydration for the "stopsmoking therapy": A multicentre real-life study'

OBJECTIVES

The StopSmoking Therapy, combins a motivational interview, a subcutaneous injection of NicoSan® and a hyperhydration protocol. The objectives were to evaluate the number of patients declaring cessation and factors related to relapse.

METHODS

In the 18 months following protocol, 554 subjects who consented, responded to the study's questionnaire. Categorical variables are presented as the frequency and percentage, continuous variables are presented as the mean and standard deviation, responses of abstinent subjects and of those who had started smoking again are compared via the chi-square test for categorical variables, and the Student's t-test for continuous variables.

RESULTS

In our sample 92.8% of the subjects reported smoking for 10 years or more. A total of 475 subjects (85.7%) reported a complete cessation (31.2% for more than 6 months and 33.1% for more than a year). Among relapsing subjects, were significantly over-represented: youngest ages, lower motivation, more frequent close friends or family using tobacco, lower dependency scores. No subject reported any significant adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

The multimodal protocol explored seems to have a favorable impact on smoking cessation, which could be enhanced by additional interventions dedicated to the youngest age groups, to people having smoking close friends and family, and should possibly add interventions based on cognitive behavioral therapy. A dedicated support by specialist tobacco addiction in the first weeks after treatment and/or the use of mobile support applications could also be useful. In order to asses efficacy, a prospective randomized double blind controlled versus placebo protocol could be considered.