Critical steps in the path to using cessation pharmacotherapy following hospital-initiated tobacco treatment

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.

Tobacco Treatment Program Models in US Hospitals and Outpatient Centers on Behalf of the SRNT Treatment Network

Because tobacco use remains one of the leading causes of disease, disability, and mortality, tobacco treatment programs should be integrated into medical systems such as hospitals and outpatient centers. Medical providers have a unique, high-impact opportunity to initiate smoking cessation treatment with patients. However, there are several barriers that may hinder the development and implementation of these programs. The purpose of this review was to address such barriers by illustrating several examples of successful tobacco treatment programs in US health-care systems that were contributed by the authors. This includes describing treatment models, billing procedures, and implementation considerations. Using an illustrative review of vignettes from existing programs, various models are outlined, emphasizing commonalities and unique features, strengths and limitations, resources necessary, and other relevant considerations. In addition, clinical research and dissemination trials from each program are described to provide evidence of feasibility and efficacy from these programs. This overview of example treatment models designed for hospitals and outpatient centers provides guidelines for any emerging tobacco cessation services within these contexts. For existing treatment programs, this review provides additional insight and ideas about improving these programs within their respective medical systems.

Provision of free nicotine replacement therapy to parental smokers in the pediatric emergency setting

INTRODUCTION

Although the administration of free Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) is effective in helping smokers quit, the feasibility, acceptability and safety of this practice have not been examined in the emergency setting of the pediatric emergency department (PED) or urgent care (UC). We examined the characteristics of parental smokers who were interested and eligible for free NRT during their child's emergency visit and the uptake, usage, and associated side effects of NRT use.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 377 parental smokers who were randomized to receive cessation counseling and free NRT as part of an emergency visit-based randomized controlled trial. Parents interested in NRT were screened for medical contraindications; eligible parents were given a 6-week supply of NRT patches or lozenges during their child's emergency visit and offered another supply 6 weeks later. We conducted Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and chi-squared tests to address our main study objective.

RESULTS

The majority of parents were female (87.5%), non-Hispanic Black (52.5%), and mean (SD) age was 33.1 (8.2) years. A total of 252 (66.8%) parents were interested in receiving NRT. Compared to uninterested parents, interested parents were more likely to: be older [33.6 (8.2) vs 31.9 (8.2), years]; be non-Hispanic Black (54.0% vs 49.6%); have older children [5.5 (5.0) vs 4.2 (4.6)]; have a higher readiness to quit [7.0 (2.4) vs 5.2 (2.6)]; and have a child being evaluated in UC compared to the PED (72.4% vs 56.5%). A total of 53 (21%) interested parents had >1 NRT contraindications. At 6 weeks, 94 (79.0%) parents reported some ≥NRT usage and 50 (53.2%) requested an additional 6-week supply. There were no serious adverse events and 5 (5.3%) reported minor side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Parental smokers in the emergency setting are interested in receiving free NRT, the majority use it, and use is not associated with adverse side effects. The emergency visit may be an optimal time to offer NRT to parental smokers.

Effectiveness of an Opt-Out Electronic Heath Record-Based Tobacco Treatment Consult Service at an Urban Safety Net Hospital

BACKGROUND

To address the burden of tobacco use in underserved populations, our safety net hospital developed a tobacco treatment intervention consisting of an "opt-out" electronic health record-based best practice alert + order set, which triggers consultation to an inpatient tobacco treatment consult (TTC) service for all hospitalized smokers.

RESEARCH QUESTION

We sought to understand if the intervention would increase patient-level outcomes (receipt of tobacco treatment during hospitalization and at discharge; 6-month smoking abstinence) and improve hospital-wide performance on tobacco treatment metrics.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted two retrospective quasi-experimental analyses to examine effectiveness of the TTC service. Using a pragmatic design and multivariable logistic regression, we compared patient-level outcomes of receipt of nicotine replacement therapy and 6-month quit rates between smokers seen by the service (n = 505) and eligible smokers not seen because of time constraints (n = 680) between July 2016 and December 2016. In addition, we conducted an interrupted time series analysis to examine the effect of the TTC service on hospital-level performance measures, comparing reported Joint Commission measure rates for inpatient (Tob-2) and postdischarge (Tob-3) tobacco treatment preimplementation (January 2015-June 2016) vs postimplementation (July 2016-December 2017) of the intervention.

RESULTS

Compared with inpatient smokers not seen by the TTC service, smokers seen by the TTC service had higher odds of receiving nicotine replacement during hospitalization (260 of 505 [51.5%] vs 244 of 680 [35.9%]; adjusted ORs [AOR], 1.93 [95% CI, 1.5-2.45]) and at discharge (164 of 505 [32.5%] vs 84 of 680 [12.4%]; AOR, 3.41 [95% CI, 2.54-4.61]), as well as higher odds of 6-month smoking abstinence (75 of 505 [14.9%] vs 68 of 680 [10%]; AOR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.03-2.12]). Hospital-wide, the intervention was associated with a change in slope trends for Tob-3 (P < .01), but not for Tob-2.

INTERPRETATION

The "opt-out" electronic health record-based TTC service at our large safety net hospital was effective at improving both patient-level outcomes and hospital-level performance metrics, and could be implemented at other safety net hospitals that care for hard-to-reach smokers.