Subsidized pharmacological treatment for smoking cessation by the Spanish public health system: A randomized, pragmatic, clinical trial by clusters

Gender, smoking, and tobacco cessation with pharmacological treatment in a cluster randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Whether men find it easier to quit smoking than women is still controversial. Different studies have reported that the efficacy of pharmacological treatments could be different between men and women. This study conducted a secondary analysis of 'Subsidized pharmacological treatment for smoking cessation by the Spanish public health system' (FTFT-AP study) to evaluate the effectiveness of a drug-funded intervention for smoking cessation by gender.

METHODS

A pragmatic randomized clinical trial by clusters was used. The population included smokers aged ≥18 years, smoking >10 cigarettes per day, randomly assigned to an intervention group receiving regular practice and financed pharmacological treatment, or to a control group receiving only regular practice. The main outcome was continued abstinence at 12 months, self-reported and validated with CO-oximetry. The percentage, with 95% confidence intervals, of continued abstinence was compared between both groups at 12 months post-intervention, by gender and the pharmacological treatment used. Multilevel logistic regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1154 patients from 29 healthcare centers were included. The average age was 46 years (SD=11.78) and 51.7% were men. Overall, the self-reported abstinence at 12 months was 11.1% (62) in women and 15.7% (93) in men (AOR=1.4; 95% CI: 1.0-2.0), and abstinence validated by CO-oximetry was 4.6% (26) and 5.9% (35) in women and men, respectively (OR=1.3; 95% CI: 0.7-2.2). In the group of smokers receiving nicotine replacement treatment, self-reported abstinence was higher in men compared to women (29.5% vs 13.5%, OR=2.7; 95% CI: 1.3-5.8).

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of a drug-financed intervention for smoking cessation was greater in men, who also showed better results in self-reported abstinence with nicotine replacement treatment.

Effectiveness of a Conversational Chatbot (Dejal@bot) for the Adult Population to Quit Smoking: Pragmatic, Multicenter, Controlled, Randomized Clinical Trial in Primary Care

Background

Tobacco addiction is the leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality worldwide, but only 1 in 20 cessation attempts is supervised by a health professional. The potential advantages of mobile health (mHealth) can circumvent this problem and facilitate tobacco cessation interventions for public health systems. Given its easy scalability to large populations and great potential, chatbots are a potentially useful complement to usual treatment.

Objective

This study aims to assess the effectiveness of an evidence-based intervention to quit smoking via a chatbot in smartphones compared with usual clinical practice in primary care.

Methods

This is a pragmatic, multicenter, controlled, and randomized clinical trial involving 34 primary health care centers within the Madrid Health Service (Spain). Smokers over the age of 18 years who attended on-site consultation and accepted help to quit tobacco were recruited by their doctor or nurse and randomly allocated to receive usual care (control group [CG]) or an evidence-based chatbot intervention (intervention group [IG]). The interventions in both arms were based on the 5A’s (ie, Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, and Arrange) in the US Clinical Practice Guideline, which combines behavioral and pharmacological treatments and is structured in several follow-up appointments. The primary outcome was continuous abstinence from smoking that was biochemically validated after 6 months by the collaborators. The outcome analysis was blinded to allocation of patients, although participants were unblinded to group assignment. An intention-to-treat analysis, using the baseline-observation-carried-forward approach for missing data, and logistic regression models with robust estimators were employed for assessing the primary outcomes.

Results

The trial was conducted between October 1, 2018, and March 31, 2019. The sample included 513 patients (242 in the IG and 271 in the CG), with an average age of 49.8 (SD 10.82) years and gender ratio of 59.3% (304/513) women and 40.7% (209/513) men. Of them, 232 patients (45.2%) completed the follow-up, 104/242 (42.9%) in the IG and 128/271 (47.2%) in the CG. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the biochemically validated abstinence rate at 6 months was higher in the IG (63/242, 26%) compared with that in the CG (51/271, 18.8%; odds ratio 1.52, 95% CI 1.00-2.31; P=.05). After adjusting for basal CO-oximetry and bupropion intake, no substantial changes were observed (odds ratio 1.52, 95% CI 0.99-2.33; P=.05; pseudo-R²=0.045). In the IG, 61.2% (148/242) of users accessed the chatbot, average chatbot-patient interaction time was 121 (95% CI 121.1-140.0) minutes, and average number of contacts was 45.56 (SD 36.32).

Conclusions

A treatment including a chatbot for helping with tobacco cessation was more effective than usual clinical practice in primary care. However, this outcome was at the limit of statistical significance, and therefore these promising results must be interpreted with caution.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT 03445507; https://tinyurl.com/mrnfcmtd

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.1186/s12911-019-0972-z

Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care

BACKGROUND

Primary care is an important setting in which to treat tobacco addiction. However, the rates at which providers address smoking cessation and the success of that support vary. Strategies can be implemented to improve and increase the delivery of smoking cessation support (e.g. through provider training), and to increase the amount and breadth of support given to people who smoke (e.g. through additional counseling or tailored printed materials).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of strategies intended to increase the success of smoking cessation interventions in primary care settings. To assess whether any effect that these interventions have on smoking cessation may be due to increased implementation by healthcare providers.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries to 10 September 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs (cRCTs) carried out in primary care, including non-pregnant adults. Studies investigated a strategy or strategies to improve the implementation or success of smoking cessation treatment in primary care. These strategies could include interventions designed to increase or enhance the quality of existing support, or smoking cessation interventions offered in addition to standard care (adjunctive interventions). Intervention strategies had to be tested in addition to and in comparison with standard care, or in addition to other active intervention strategies if the effect of an individual strategy could be isolated. Standard care typically incorporates physician-delivered brief behavioral support, and an offer of smoking cessation medication, but differs across studies. Studies had to measure smoking abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome - smoking abstinence - was measured using the most rigorous intention-to-treat definition available. We also extracted outcome data for quit attempts, and the following markers of healthcare provider performance: asking about smoking status; advising on cessation; assessment of participant readiness to quit; assisting with cessation; arranging follow-up for smoking participants. Where more than one study investigated the same strategy or set of strategies, and measured the same outcome, we conducted meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects methods to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 81 RCTs and cRCTs, involving 112,159 participants. Fourteen were rated at low risk of bias, 44 at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. We identified moderate-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that the provision of adjunctive counseling by a health professional other than the physician (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.55; I2 = 44%; 22 studies, 18,150 participants), and provision of cost-free medications (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.76; I2 = 63%; 10 studies,7560 participants) increased smoking quit rates in primary care. There was also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that the addition of tailored print materials to standard smoking cessation treatment increased the number of people who had successfully stopped smoking at six months' follow-up or more (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.59; I2 = 37%; 6 studies, 15,978 participants). There was no clear evidence that providing participants who smoked with biomedical risk feedback increased their likelihood of quitting (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.41; I2 = 40%; 7 studies, 3491 participants), or that provider smoking cessation training (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.41; I2 = 66%; 7 studies, 13,685 participants) or provider incentives (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 2454 participants) increased smoking abstinence rates. However, in assessing the former two strategies we judged the evidence to be of low certainty and in assessing the latter strategies it was of very low certainty. We downgraded the evidence due to imprecision, inconsistency and risk of bias across these comparisons. There was some indication that provider training increased the delivery of smoking cessation support, along with the provision of adjunctive counseling and cost-free medications. However, our secondary outcomes were not measured consistently, and in many cases analyses were subject to substantial statistical heterogeneity, imprecision, or both, making it difficult to draw conclusions. Thirty-four studies investigated multicomponent interventions to improve smoking cessation rates. There was substantial variation in the combinations of strategies tested, and the resulting individual study effect estimates, precluding meta-analyses in most cases. Meta-analyses provided some evidence that adjunctive counseling combined with either cost-free medications or provider training enhanced quit rates when compared with standard care alone. However, analyses were limited by small numbers of events, high statistical heterogeneity, and studies at high risk of bias. Analyses looking at the effects of combining provider training with flow sheets to aid physician decision-making, and with outreach facilitation, found no clear evidence that these combinations increased quit rates; however, analyses were limited by imprecision, and there was some indication that these approaches did improve some forms of provider implementation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that providing adjunctive counseling by an allied health professional, cost-free smoking cessation medications, and tailored printed materials as part of smoking cessation support in primary care can increase the number of people who achieve smoking cessation. There is no clear evidence that providing participants with biomedical risk feedback, or primary care providers with training or incentives to provide smoking cessation support enhance quit rates. However, we rated this evidence as of low or very low certainty, and so conclusions are likely to change as further evidence becomes available. Most of the studies in this review evaluated smoking cessation interventions that had already been extensively tested in the general population. Further studies should assess strategies designed to optimize the delivery of those interventions already known to be effective within the primary care setting. Such studies should be cluster-randomized to account for the implications of implementation in this particular setting. Due to substantial variation between studies in this review, identifying optimal characteristics of multicomponent interventions to improve the delivery of smoking cessation treatment was challenging. Future research could use component network meta-analysis to investigate this further.

One-Year Efficacy and Incremental Cost-effectiveness of Contingency Management for Cigarette Smokers With Depression

INTRODUCTION

Contingency management (CM) is efficacious for smoking cessation. To date, the number of cost-effectiveness evaluations of behavioral and pharmacological smoking cessation treatments far outnumbers the ones on CM. This study estimated 1-year efficacy and incremental cost-effectiveness of adding CM in relation to abstinence outcomes for a cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)+behavioral activation (BA) treatment.

METHODS

The study sample comprised 120 smokers with depression (% females: 70.8%; mean age: 51.67 [SD = 9.59]) enrolled in an 8-week randomized controlled clinical trial. Clinical effectiveness variables were point-prevalence abstinence, continuous abstinence, longest duration of abstinence (LDA), and Beck-Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) scores at 1-year follow-up. Cost-effectiveness analyses were based on resource utilization, unit costs per patient, and incremental cost per additional LDA week at 1 year.

RESULTS

There was a significant effect of time by treatment group interaction, which indicated superior effects of CBT+BA+CM across time. Point-prevalence abstinence (53.3% [32/60]) was superior in participants receiving CBT+BA+CM compared with those in CBT+BA (23.3% [14/60]), but both groups were equally likely to present sustained reductions in depression. The average cost per patient was €208.85 (US$236.57) for CBT+BA and €410.64 (US$465.14) for CBT+BA+CM, p < .001. The incremental cost of using CM to enhance 1-year abstinence by one extra LDA week was €18 (US$20.39) (95% confidence interval: 17.75-18.25).

CONCLUSIONS

Behavioral treatments addressing both smoking and depression are efficacious for sustaining high quit rates at 1 year. Adding CM to CBT+BA for smoking cessation is highly cost-effective, with an estimated net benefit of €4704 (US$5344.80).

IMPLICATIONS

Informing on the cost-effectiveness of CM might expedite the translation of research findings into clinical practice. Findings suggested that CM is feasible and highly cost-effective, confirming that its implementation is worthwhile. At a CM cost per patient of €410.64 (US$465.14), the net benefit equals €4704 (US$5344.80), although even starting from a minimum investment of €20 (US$22.72) was cost-effective.

CLINICALTRIALS-GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT03163056.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of text messaging to support health advice for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Smoking in one of the most serious public health problems. It is well known that it constitutes a major risk factor for chronic diseases and the leading cause of preventable death worldwide. Due to high prevalence of smokers, new cost-effective strategies seeking to increase smoking cessation rates are needed.

METHODS

We performed a Markov model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing two treatments: health advice provided by general practitioners and nurses in primary care, and health advice reinforced by sending motivational text messages to smokers' mobile phones. A Markov model was used in which smokers transitioned between three mutually exclusive health states (smoker, former smoker and dead) after 6-month cycles. We calculated the cost-effectiveness ratio associated with the sending of motivational messages. Health care and society perspectives (separately) was adopted. Costs taken into account were direct health care costs and direct health care cost and costs for lost productivity, respectively. Additionally, deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed modifying the probability of smoking cessation with each option.

RESULTS

Sending of text messages as a tool to support health advice was found to be cost-effective as it was associated with increases in costs of €7.4 and €1,327 per QALY gained (ICUR) for men and women respectively from a healthcare perspective, significantly far from the published cost-effectiveness threshold. From a societal perspective, the combined programmed was dominant.

CONCLUSIONS

Sending text messages is a cost-effective approach. These findings support the implantation of the combined program across primary care health centres.

Impact of the ENSP eLearning platform on improving knowledge, attitudes and self-efficacy for treating tobacco dependence: An assessment across 15 European countries

INTRODUCTION

In 2018, the European Network for Smoking Cessation and Prevention (ENSP) released an update to its Tobacco Treatment Guidelines for healthcare professionals, which was the scientific base for the development of an accredited eLearning curriculum to train healthcare professionals, available in 14 languages. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of ENSP eLearning curriculum in increasing healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy (perceived behavioral control) and intentions in delivering tobacco treatment interventions in their daily clinical routines.

METHODS

We conducted a quasi-experimental pre-post design study with 444 healthcare professionals, invited by 20 collaborating institutions from 15 countries (Albania, Armenia, Belgium, Italy, France, Georgia, Greece, Kosovo, Romania, North Macedonia, Russia, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Ukraine), which completed the eLearning course between December 2018 and July 2019.

RESULTS

Healthcare professionals' self-reported knowledge improved after the completion of each module of the eLearning program. Increases in healthcare professionals' self-efficacy in delivering tobacco treatment interventions (p<0.001) were also documented. Significant improvements were documented in intentions to address tobacco use as a priority, document tobacco use, offer support, provide brief counselling, give written material, discuss available medication, prescribe medication, schedule dedicated appointment to develop a quit plan, and be persistent in addressing tobacco use with the patients (all p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

An evidence-based digital intervention can be effective in improving knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy and intentions on future delivery of tobacco-treatment interventions.

Effectiveness of a chat-bot for the adult population to quit smoking: protocol of a pragmatic clinical trial in primary care (Dejal@)

BACKGROUND

The wide scale and severity of consequences of tobacco use, benefits derived from cessation, low rates of intervention by healthcare professionals, and new opportunities stemming from novel communications technologies are the main factors motivating this project. Thus, the purpose of this study is to assess the effectiveness of an intervention that helps people cease smoking and increase their nicotine abstinence rates in the long term via a chat-bot, compared to usual practice, utilizing a chemical validation at 6 months.

METHODS

Design: Randomized, controlled, multicentric, pragmatic clinical trial, with a 6-month follow-up.

SETTING

Healthcare centers in the public healthcare system of the Community of Madrid (Madrid Regional Health Service).

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers > 18 years of age who attend a healthcare center and accept help to quit smoking in the following month. N = 460 smokers (230 per arm) who will be recruited prior to randomization. Intervention group: use of a chat-bot with evidence-based contents to help quit smoking.

CONTROL GROUP

Usual treatment (according to the protocol for tobacco cessation by the Madrid Regional Health Service Main variable: Continuous nicotine withdrawal with chemical validation (carbon monoxide in exhaled air). Intention-to-treat analysis. Difference between groups in continuous abstinence rates at 6 months with their corresponding 95% confidence interval. A logistic regression model will be built to adjust for confounding factors.

RESULTS

First expected results in January 2020.

DISCUSSION

Providing science-based evidence on the effectiveness of clinical interventions via information technologies, without the physical presence of a professional, is essential. In addition to being more efficient, the characteristics of these interventions can improve effectiveness, accessibility, and adherence to treatment. From an ethics perspective, this new type of intervention must be backed by scientific evidence to circumvent pressures from the market or particular interests, improve patient safety, and follow the standards of correct practices for clinical interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, reference number NCT03445507.