Timing of Alcohol and Smoking Cessation (TASC)

Service user perceptions of smoking cessation in residential substance use treatment

INTRODUCTION

Prevalence of tobacco smoking among adults in substance misuse treatment is much higher than the wider population, yet limited research is available, and residential treatment services have been overlooked as a potential setting for cessation interventions. Exploring the perceptions of service users about smoking cessation in residential rehabilitation is important to gain better understanding of this issue and identify ways to inform future intervention development.

METHODS

Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted in the Northwest of England in 2017 with adults (7 male, 3 female) who were currently or had previously been in residential treatment for substance misuse. Five participants were current smokers, three had never smoked, and two were former smokers. Participants were asked about their smoking behaviours, factors relating to smoking and smoking cessation and the relationship between smoking and substance use. All interviews were transcribed and data was analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Study findings highlighted a general consensus amongst participants that residential treatment services offered an ideal opportunity for cessation but there were concerns that doing so might jeopardise recovery. Smoking in substance use treatment services is still the norm and factors such as perceived social and psychological benefits, normative behaviours and lack of perceived risk or prioritisation pose challenges for implementing smoking cessation within this setting, although facilitators such as motivation to change and appropriateness of the setting were also identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that service users perceive residential treatment services as suitable environments to introduce smoking cessation. To address the needs of adults who smoke and are in recovery from substance use, further research and cooperation from treatment organisations is needed to integrate substance misuse and smoking cessation services. More conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of tackling both issues at the same time is also required.

Tobacco cessation among smokers under substance use treatment for alcohol and/or cannabis: study protocol and pilot study

BACKGROUND

Approximately 80% of people with a substance use disorder (SUD) are smokers. Starting SUD treatment offers the opportunity to also quit smoking. The ACT-ATAC project aims to identify the predictors associated with smoking cessation among persons treated for alcohol and/or cannabis use disorder in Barcelona. This manuscript reports its methodology and the experience of carrying it out during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Mixed methods project with three substudies. Substudy 1 (S1) comprises heterogeneous discussion groups among clinicians. S2 has two prospective cohorts composed of smokers under treatment for alcohol and/or cannabis use disorder and the clinicians in charge of these patients. Participating smokers will be followed for 12 months and interviewed about their substance use and the tobacco cessation services received using the Spanish version of the users' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Services (S-KAS) scale. The clinicians will be asked about their self-reported practices in smoking cessation using the Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (S-KAP) scale. S3 comprises heterogeneous discussion groups with smokers. Data will be triangulated using qualitative and quantitative analyses. To facilitate the recruitment process, the researchers have introduced several strategies (design clear protocols, set monthly online meetings, extend the project, provide gift cards, etc.).

DISCUSSION

The results of S1 were used to develop the questionnaires. S2 required some adjustments due to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly the follow-up interviews being conducted by phone instead of face-to-face, and the recruitment rhythm was lower than expected. Recruitment will last until reaching at least 200-250 users. The fieldwork could not have been possible without the collaboration of the ACT-ATAC team and the introduction of several strategies. Trial registration The ACT-ATAC project has been successfully registered at Clinicaltrials.gov [NCT04841655].

Tobacco Smoking Rates in a National Cohort of People with Substance Use Disorder Receiving Treatment

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The prevalence of tobacco smoking among individuals receiving treatment for substance use disorder (SUD) remains high. Respiratory disease and other harms are of prime concern to health policy-makers, given the contributory role played by tobacco smoking in the excess rates of premature mortality seen in individuals with SUD. The aim was to use SUD treatment data to investigate tobacco smoking prevalence among subgroups of adults over the course of treatment.

METHODS

We used the English National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS) to examine number of days tobacco had been smoked in the previous month in adults receiving SUD treatment (N = 106,472, median length of treatment 157 days).

RESULTS

At baseline (treatment start), 48.7% reported smoking tobacco; the highest rate was observed in opiate users (61%). Overall, the level of smoking at the latest assessment was 48.5%. Reductions (of between 5 and 7%) were observed among those who finished treatment but only within the final stages of treatment. A 5% increase in smoking was observed in those still in treatment within the study timeframe.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies the potential for a greater emphasis on reducing tobacco consumption within SUD treatment, for example, by offering all smokers within SUD treatment smoking cessation support as part of their SUD treatment programme.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Interventions for tobacco use cessation in people in treatment for or recovery from substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

Smoking rates in people with alcohol and other drug dependencies are two to four times those of the general population. Concurrent treatment of tobacco dependence has been limited due to concern that these interventions are not successful in this population or that recovery from other addictions could be compromised if tobacco cessation was combined with other drug dependency treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether interventions for tobacco cessation are associated with tobacco abstinence for people in concurrent treatment for or in recovery from alcohol and other drug dependence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases, with the most recent search completed in August 2016. A grey literature search of conference abstracts from the Society on Nicotine Research and Treatment and the ProQuest database of digital dissertations yielded one additional study, which was excluded.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions among people in concurrent treatment for alcohol or other drug dependence or in outpatient recovery programmes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study risk of bias and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by consensus. The primary outcome was abstinence from tobacco use at the longest period of follow-up, and the secondary outcome was abstinence from alcohol or other drugs, or both. We reported the strictest definition of abstinence. We summarised effects as risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Two clustered studies did not provide intraclass correlation coefficients, and were excluded from the sensitivity analysis. We used the I² statistic to assess heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-five randomised controlled trials, one ongoing, involving 5796 participants met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Included studies assessed the efficacy of tobacco cessation interventions, including counselling, and pharmacotherapy consisting of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or non-NRT, or the two combined, in both inpatient and outpatient settings for participants in treatment and in recovery. Most studies did not report information to assess the risk of allocation, selection, and attrition bias, and were classified as unclear.Analyses considered the nature of the intervention, whether participants were in treatment or recovery and the type of dependency. Of the 34 studies included in the meta-analysis, 11 assessed counselling, 11 assessed pharmacotherapy, and 12 assessed counselling in combination with pharmacotherapy, compared to usual care or no intervention. Tobacco cessation interventions were significantly associated with tobacco abstinence for two types of interventions. Pharmacotherapy appeared to increase tobacco abstinence (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.12, 11 studies, 1808 participants, low quality evidence), as did combined counselling and pharmacotherapy (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.18, 12 studies, 2229 participants, low quality evidence) at the period of longest follow-up, which ranged from six weeks to 18 months. There was moderate evidence of heterogeneity (I² = 56% with pharmacotherapy and 43% with counselling plus pharmacotherapy). Counselling interventions did not significantly increase tobacco abstinence (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.95).Interventions were significantly associated with tobacco abstinence for both people in treatment (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.50) and people in recovery (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.67), and for people with alcohol dependence (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.81) and people with other drug dependencies (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.40).Offering tobacco cessation therapy to people in treatment or recovery for other drug dependence was not associated with a difference in abstinence rates from alcohol and other drugs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.03, 11 studies, 2231 participants, moderate evidence of heterogeneity (I² = 66%)).Data on adverse effect of the interventions were limited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The studies included in this review suggest that providing tobacco cessation interventions targeted to smokers in treatment and recovery for alcohol and other drug dependencies increases tobacco abstinence. There was no evidence that providing interventions for tobacco cessation affected abstinence from alcohol and other drugs. The association between tobacco cessation interventions and tobacco abstinence was consistent for both pharmacotherapy and combined counselling and pharmacotherapy, for participants both in treatment and in recovery, and for people with alcohol dependency or other drug dependency. The evidence for the interventions was low quality due primarily to incomplete reporting of the risks of bias and clinical heterogeneity in the nature of treatment. Certain results were sensitive to the length of follow-up or the type of pharmacotherapy, suggesting that further research is warranted regarding whether tobacco cessation interventions are associated with tobacco abstinence for people in recovery, and the outcomes associated with NRT versus non-NRT or combined pharmacotherapy. Overall, the results suggest that tobacco cessation interventions incorporating pharmacotherapy should be incorporated into clinical practice to reduce tobacco addiction among people in treatment for or recovery from alcohol and other drug dependence.

Comparative efficacy of simultaneous versus sequential multiple health behavior change interventions among adults: A systematic review of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Growing evidence points to the benefits of addressing multiple health behaviors rather than single behaviors.

PURPOSE

This review evaluates the relative effectiveness of simultaneous and sequentially delivered multiple health behavior change (MHBC) interventions. Secondary aims were to identify: a) the most effective spacing of sequentially delivered components; b) differences in efficacy of MHBC interventions for adoption/cessation behaviors and lifestyle/addictive behaviors, and; c) differences in trial retention between simultaneously and sequentially delivered interventions.

METHODS

MHBC intervention trials published up to October 2015 were identified through a systematic search. Eligible trials were randomised controlled trials that directly compared simultaneous and sequential delivery of a MHBC intervention. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Six trials met the inclusion criteria and across these trials the behaviors targeted were smoking, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption. Three trials reported a difference in intervention effect between a sequential and simultaneous approach in at least one behavioral outcome. Of these, two trials favoured a sequential approach on smoking. One trial favoured a simultaneous approach on fat intake. There was no difference in retention between sequential and simultaneous approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence regarding the relative effectiveness of sequential and simultaneous approaches. Given only three of the six trials observed a difference in intervention effectiveness for one health behavior outcome, and the relatively consistent finding that the sequential and simultaneous approaches were more effective than a usual/minimal care control condition, it appears that both approaches should be considered equally efficacious. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42015027876.

Provision of Chronic Disease Preventive Care in Community Substance Use Services: Client and Clinician Report

INTRODUCTION

People with substance use problems have a higher prevalence of modifiable health risk behaviors. Routine clinician provision of preventive care may be effective in reducing such health behaviors. This study aimed to examine clinician provision of preventive care to clients of community substance use treatment services.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was undertaken with 386 clients and 54 clinicians of community substance use treatment services in one health district in New South Wales, Australia. Client- and clinician-reported provision of three elements of care (assessment, brief advice and referral) for three health risk behaviors (tobacco smoking, insufficient fruit and/or vegetable consumption and insufficient physical activity) was assessed, with associations with client characteristics examined.

RESULTS

Provision was highest for tobacco smoking assessment (90% client reported, 87% clinician reported) and brief advice (79% client reported, 80% clinician reported) and lowest for fruit and vegetable consumption (assessment 23%, brief advice 25%). Few clients reported being offered a referral (<10%). Assessment of physical activity and brief advice for all behaviors was higher for clients residing in rural/remote areas.

CONCLUSION

Assessment and brief advice were provided to the majority of clients for smoking, but sub-optimally for the other behaviors. Further investigation of barriers to the provision of preventive care within substance use treatment settings is required, particularly for referral to ongoing support.

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.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Effective pharmacotherapies are available to help people who are trying to stop smoking, but quitting can still be difficult and providing higher levels of behavioural support may increase success rates further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in May 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact. The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, or just written information. We did not include studies that used a contact-matched control to evaluate differences between types or components of 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

One author prescreened search results and two authors agreed inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials. One author extracted data and another checked them.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

Forty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria with over 18,000 participants in the relevant arms. There was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 18%) so we pooled all studies in the main analysis. There was evidence of a small but statistically significant benefit from more intensive support (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.24) for abstinence at longest follow-up. All but four of the included studies provided four or more sessions of support to the intervention group. Most trials used NRT. We did not detect significant effects for studies where the pharmacotherapy was nortriptyline (two trials) or varenicline (one trial), but this reflects the absence of evidence.In subgroup analyses, studies that provided at least four sessions of personal contact for the intervention and no personal contact for the control had slightly larger estimated effects (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45; 6 trials, 3762 participants), although a formal test for subgroup differences was not significant. Studies where all intervention counselling was via telephone (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41; 6 trials, 5311 participants) also had slightly larger effects, and the test for subgroup differences was significant, but this subgroup analysis was not prespecified. In this update, the benefit of providing additional behavioural support was similar for the subgroup of trials in which all participants, including controls, had at least 30 minutes of personal contact (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.32; 21 trials, 5166 participants); previously the evidence of benefit in this subgroup had been weaker. This subgroup was not prespecified and a test for subgroup differences was not significant. We judged the quality of the evidence to be high, using the GRADE approach. We judged a small number of trials to be at high risk of bias on one or more domains, but findings were not sensitive to their exclusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking has a small but important effect. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 25%, based on a pooled estimate from 47 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support.

Is smoking cessation associated with worse comorbid substance use outcomes among homeless adults?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Smoking prevalence among homeless adults is exceedingly high, and high rates of comorbid substance use are among the barriers to abstinence experienced by this group. The extent to which smoking cessation might engender an escalation in comorbid substance use could be a concern prohibiting treatment provision and engagement. This study examined whether smoking abstinence status was associated with alcohol and substance use at 26 weeks post-randomization among homeless smokers in a smoking cessation trial.

DESIGN

The current study was a secondary analysis of randomized smoking cessation intervention trial data.

SETTING

The parent study was conducted in the Minneapolis/St Paul area of Minnesota, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were 427 homeless adult smokers interested in quitting smoking.

MEASUREMENTS

Covariates collected at baseline included alcohol, cocaine, marijuana/hashish, heroin and 'any' drug use, age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, tobacco dependence, length of time homeless and treatment group. Biochemically verified smoking abstinence and self-reported alcohol and substance use were collected at 26 weeks post-randomization.

FINDINGS

Smoking abstinence was associated with fewer drinking days (P = 0.03), fewer drinks consumed on drinking days (P = 0.01), and lower odds of heavy drinking (P = 0.05), but not with differences in the number of days of cocaine, marijuana/hashish, heroin or any drug use.

CONCLUSIONS

In homeless smokers, achieving smoking abstinence may be associated with a reduction in alcohol consumption but appears not to be associated with a substantial change in other drug use.

Smoking and its treatment in addiction services: clients' and staff behaviour and attitudes

BACKGROUND

High smoking prevalence has been observed among those misusing other substances. This study aimed to establish smoking behaviours and attitudes towards nicotine dependence treatment among clients and staff in substance abuse treatment settings.

METHODS

Cross-sectional questionnaire survey of staff and clients in a convenience sample of seven community and residential addiction services in, or with links to, Europe's largest provider of mental health care, the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. Survey items assessed smoking behaviour, motivation to quit, receipt of and attitudes towards nicotine dependence treatment.

RESULTS

Eighty five percent (n = 163) and 97% (n = 145) response rates of clients and staff were achieved. A high smoking prevalence was observed in clients (88%) and staff (45%); of current smokers, nearly all clients were daily smokers, while 42% of staff were occasional smokers. Despite 79% of clients who smoked expressing a desire to quit and 46% interested in receiving advice, only 15% had been offered support to stop smoking during their current treatment episode with 56% reported never having been offered support. Staff rated smoking treatment significantly less important than treatment of other substances (p < 0.001), and only 29% of staff thought it should be addressed early in a client's primary addiction treatment, compared with 48% of clients.

CONCLUSIONS

A large unmet clinical need is evident with a widespread failure to deliver smoking cessation interventions to an extraordinarily high prevalence population of smokers in addiction services. This is despite the majority of smokers reporting motivation to quit. Staff smoking and attitudes may be a contributory factor in these findings.

Smoking cessation interventions for smokers with current or past depression

BACKGROUND

Individuals with current or past depression are often smokers who are more nicotine dependent, more likely to suffer from negative mood changes after nicotine withdrawal, and more likely to relapse to smoking after quitting than the general population, which contributes to their higher morbidity and mortality from smoking-related illnesses. It remains unclear what interventions can help them to quit smoking.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions, with and without specific mood management components, in smokers with current or past depression.

SEARCH METHODS

In April 2013, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, other reviews, and asked experts for information on trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Criteria for including studies in this review were that they had to be randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing smoking cessation interventions in adult smokers with current or past depression. Depression was defined as major depression or depressive symptoms. We included studies where subgroups of participants with depression were identified, either pre-stated or post hoc. The outcome was abstinence from smoking after six months or longer follow-up. We preferred prolonged or continuous abstinence and biochemically validated abstinence where available.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

When possible, we estimated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with the Mantel-Haenszel method (fixed-effect model). We also performed subgroup analyses, by length of follow-up, depression measurement, depression group in study, antidepressant use, published or unpublished data, format of intervention, level of behavioural support, additional pharmacotherapy, type of antidepressant medication, and additional nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-nine RCTs were included of which 33 trials investigated smoking cessation interventions with specific mood management components for depression. In smokers with current depression, meta-analysis showed a significant positive effect for adding psychosocial mood management to a standard smoking cessation intervention when compared with standard smoking cessation intervention alone (11 trials, N = 1844, RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.92). In smokers with past depression we found a similar effect (13 trials, N = 1496, RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.77). Meta-analysis resulted in a positive effect, although not significant, for adding bupropion compared with placebo in smokers with current depression (5 trials, N = 410, RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.27). There were not enough trial data to evaluate the effectiveness of fluoxetine and paroxetine for smokers with current depression. Bupropion (4 trials, N = 404, RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.31 to 3.18) might significantly increase long-term cessation among smokers with past depression when compared with placebo, but the evidence for bupropion is relatively weak due to the small number of studies and the post hoc subgroups for all the studies. There were not enough trial data to evaluate the effectiveness of fluoxetine, nortriptyline, paroxetine, selegiline, and sertraline in smokers with past depression.Twenty-three of the 49 trials investigated smoking cessation interventions without specific components for depression. There was heterogeneity between the trials which compared psychosocial interventions with standard smoking cessation counselling for both smokers with current and past depression. Therefore, we did not estimate a pooled effect. One trial compared nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) versus placebo in smokers with current depression and found a positive, although not significant, effect (N = 196, RR 2.64, 95% CI 0.93 to 7.45). Meta-analysis also found a positive, although not significant, effect for NRT versus placebo in smokers with past depression (3 trials, N = 432, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.60). Three trials compared other pharmacotherapy versus placebo and six trials compared other interventions in smokers with current or past depression. Due to heterogeneity between the interventions of the included trials we did not estimate pooled effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that adding a psychosocial mood management component to a standard smoking cessation intervention increases long-term cessation rates in smokers with both current and past depression when compared with the standard intervention alone. Pooled results from four trials suggest that use of bupropion may increase long-term cessation in smokers with past depression. There was no evidence found for the use of bupropion in smokers with current depression. There was not enough evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of the other antidepressants in smokers with current or past depression. There was also not enough evidence to evaluate the group of trials that investigated interventions without specific mood management components for depression, including NRT and psychosocial interventions.

Implementation of a Smoking Cessation Treatment Study at Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Programs: Smoking Behavior and Treatment Feasibility Across Varied Community-based Outpatient Programs

Cigarette smoking is widely prevalent among individuals in treatment for drug or alcohol dependence; however, the treatment of nicotine addiction in this population has numerous obstacles at both programmatic and patient levels. Despite these difficulties, recent studies have demonstrated moderate success in implementing smoking cessation treatment in drug rehabilitation programs. The National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network sponsored a smoking cessation study in 13 community-based outpatient substance abuse rehabilitation programs across the country. The study evaluated the effectiveness of smoking cessation treatment provided as an adjunct to substance abuse treatment-as-usual. This report summarizes the practical and clinical experiences encountered at each of the study sites with regard to implementing the smoking cessation treatment intervention. Smoking behavior of the treatment clientele was assessed by anonymous survey at each site. In addition, sites were systematically characterized by using program review and assessment tools completed by the respective staff and program directors at the site. Survey and recruitment data indicated that cigarette smoking is more prevalent and that smoking cessation treatment is more feasible, in methadone maintenance treatment programs. Other factors associated with smoking behavior and with the recruitment of drug- and alcohol-dependent individuals into the smoking cessation treatment study are described.

Behavioural interventions as adjuncts to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Effective pharmacotherapies are available to help people who are trying to stop smoking, but quitting can still be difficult and providing higher levels of behavioural support may increase success rates further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2012 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount of behavioural support. Controls could receive less intensive personal contact, or just written information. We did not include studies that used a contact matched control to evaluate differences between types or components of 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 both authors. Data were extracted by one author and checked by the other.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

Thirty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria with over 15,000 participants in the relevant arms. There was very little evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 3%) so all studies were pooled in the main analysis. There was evidence of a small but statistically significant benefit from more intensive support (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.24) for abstinence at longest follow-up. All but two of the included studies provided four or more sessions of support. Most trials used nicotine replacement therapy. Significant effects were not detected for studies where the pharmacotherapy was nortriptyline (two trials) or varenicline (one trial), but this reflects the absence of evidence. In subgroup analyses, studies that provided at least four sessions of personal contact for the intervention and no personal contact for the control had slightly larger effects (six trials, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45), as did studies where all intervention counselling was via telephone (six trials, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41). Weaker evidence for a benefit of providing additional behavioural support was seen in the trials where all participants, including those in the control condition, had at least 30 minutes of personal contact (18 trials, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.25). None of the differences between subgroups were significant, and the last two subgroup analyses were not prespecified. No trials were judged at high risk of bias on any domain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking has a small but important effect. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10 to 25%, based on a pooled estimate from 38 trials. A subgroup analysis of a small number of trials suggests the benefit could be a little greater when the contrast is between a no contact control and a behavioural intervention that provides at least four sessions of contact. Subgroup analysis also suggests that there may be a smaller incremental benefit from providing even more intensive support via more or longer sessions over and above some personal contact.

Interventions for tobacco use cessation in people in treatment for or recovery from substance abuse

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the effectiveness of tobacco cessation therapy offered concurrently with treatment for drug and alcohol addiction.

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 2012 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 both authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by the other.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

Forty-one studies with a total of more than 20,000 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 three 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 40 studies (15,021 participants) there was good evidence for a benefit of combination pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.00) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 40%). The pooled estimate for 31 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.81 to 2.34) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Pooled estimates were lower in a subgroup of trials where the behavioural intervention was provided by specialist counsellors versus trials where counselling was linked to usual care (specialist: RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.55 to 1.93, 28 trials; usual provider: RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.91 to 3.02, 8 trials) but this was largely attributable to the small effect size in two trials using specialist counsellors where the take-up of the planned intervention was low, and one usual provider trial with alarge effect. There was little indirect evidence that the relative effect of an intervention differed according to whether participants in a trial were required to be motivated to make a quit attempt or not. There was only weak evidence that studies offering more sessions had larger effects and there was not clear evidence that increasing the duration of contact increased the effect, but there was more evidence of a dose-response relationship when analyses were limited to trials where the take-up of treatment was high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Further trials would be unlikely to change this conclusion. We did not find strong evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects but this could be because intensive interventions are less likely to be delivered in full.

Addressing smoking in community drug abuse treatment programs: practical and policy considerations

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. This public health problem is of particular concern among individuals with substance use disorders in that they smoke at a greater rate than the general public. Smoking-related illness represents a major source of preventable death in persons with drug dependencies. Substance abuse treatment programs have access to persons with substance use disorders and the opportunity to intervene on their smoking; however, nicotine dependence has historically not been viewed in the same light as other drug dependencies by the treatment field. As a result, many persons in these treatment program settings do not receive opportunities to address their smoking. When substance abuse treatment organizations consider implementing smoking policies and services, many questions and choices arise. In practice, a range of approaches has been developed from simple assessment and referral for smoking cessation treatment to implementing smoke-free grounds and requiring that patients stop smoking concurrent with addressing their other drug dependencies. Smoking cessation policy decisions have the potential to directly affect the patients, the workforce, the referral network, and other major stakeholders related to these organizations. The authors consider a range of both practical and policy issues facing treatment organizations and conclude that advances in smoking policy are possible with current resources.

Ethnic differences in alcohol treatment outcomes and the effect of concurrent smoking cessation treatment

The Timing of Alcohol and Smoking Cessation (TASC) Study tested the optimal timing of smoking cessation treatment in an alcohol-dependent population. Previously reported results suggest that providing concurrent smoking cessation treatment adversely affects alcohol outcomes. The purpose of this analysis was to investigate whether there are ethnic differences in alcohol and tobacco outcomes among a diverse sample of alcohol-dependent smokers using data from the TASC trial in which 499 participants were randomized to either concurrent (during alcohol treatment) or delayed (6 months later) smoking intervention. This analysis focused on smokers of Caucasian (n=381) and African American (n=78) ethnicity. Alcohol outcomes included 6 months sustained alcohol abstinence rates and time to first use of alcohol post-treatment. Tobacco outcomes included 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence. Random effects logistic regression analysis was used to investigate intervention group and ethnic differences in the longitudinally assessed alcohol outcomes. Alcohol abstinence outcomes were consistently worse in the concurrent group than the delayed group among Caucasians, but this was not the case for African Americans. No significant ethnic differences were observed in smoking cessation outcomes. Findings from this analysis suggest that concurrent smoking cessation treatment adversely affects alcohol outcomes for Caucasians but not necessarily for African Americans.

The impact of depressive symptoms on alcohol and cigarette consumption following treatment for alcohol and nicotine dependence

BACKGROUND

Although depression is common among alcohol and tobacco dependent patients, its impact on treatment outcomes is not well established. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of depressive symptoms on abstinence from tobacco and alcohol after treatment for alcohol dependence and nicotine dependence.

METHODS

The Timing of Alcohol and Smoking Cessation Study (TASC) randomized adults receiving intensive alcohol dependence treatment, who were also smokers, to concurrent or delayed smoking cessation treatment. The sample consisted of 462 adults who completed depression and substance use (alcohol and smoking) assessments at treatment entry and 6, 12, and 18 months posttreatment. Longitudinal regression models were used to examine the relationships between depression and subsequent abstinence from alcohol and tobacco after baseline characteristics, including alcohol and smoking histories, were considered.

RESULTS

Depressive symptoms were prospectively related to nonabstinence from alcohol. Depressive symptoms at the previous assessment increased the odds of drinking at the subsequent time point by a factor of 1.67 (95% CI 1.14, 2.43), p < 0.01. Depressive symptoms were not significantly related to subsequent abstinence from cigarettes.

CONCLUSIONS

Depression is an important negative predictor of the ability to maintain abstinence from alcohol within the context of intensive alcoholism and smoking treatment. It may be important to include depression-specific interventions for alcohol and tobacco dependent individuals to facilitate successful drinking treatment outcomes.

Intention to quit tobacco use among clients in substance use disorder treatment settings

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of age, gender, tobacco-related knowledge, treatment modality, and changes in smoking patterns on intention to quit tobacco use among individuals participating in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment in Ohio. Of the 791 SUD program attendees, 91.7% currently used tobacco, with cigarette smoking being the most prevalent form of use. Among tobacco users, 67% reported intention to quit tobacco use. Four of the five hypothesized predictor variables had a significant relationship with intention to quit tobacco: gender, age, treatment modality, and smoking pattern, with age and gender demonstrating the strongest relationships to intention to quit smoking.

Changes in tobacco smoking following treatment for cocaine dependence

Incorporation of smoking cessation into cocaine treatment programs remains a challenge. A major concern is that cocaine abusers may tend to substitute one drug for the other. If this is true, successful treatment of cocaine abuse should lead to an increase in tobacco smoking. We compared tobacco smoking at admission, end of treatment and 9-month follow up for 168 crack cocaine dependent patients entering a 12-week outpatient treatment program for substance abuse. Smoking cessation was not a part of treatment. As expected cocaine patients improved with treatment and showed significant reduction in scores on the Addiction Severity Index (ASI). There were no significant changes in number of cigarettes smoked per day or scores on the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine dependence (FTND) from baseline to end of treatment or follow-up. Also, there were no differences in the proportions of nonsmokers and smokers who changed their smoking habits over the treatment and follow up period. At follow up subjects who were abstinent as well as those using cocaine showed no changes in tobacco smoking. There is no evidence that reduction in crack cocaine smoking following treatment is accompanied by an increase in tobacco smoking. It appears that concerns over tobacco being substituted for cocaine may be unfounded in this population.