1
|
Leinberger-Jabari A, Golob MM, Lindson N, Hartmann-Boyce J. Effectiveness of culturally tailoring smoking cessation interventions for reducing or quitting combustible tobacco: A systematic review and meta-analyses. Addiction 2024; 119:629-648. [PMID: 38105395 DOI: 10.1111/add.16400] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2023] [Accepted: 10/24/2023] [Indexed: 12/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Standard approaches to smoking cessation may not be as effective for certain populations, and tailoring on cultural factors could improve their effectiveness. This systematic review measured the effectiveness of culturally tailoring smoking cessation interventions on quitting or reducing smoking combustible tobacco. METHOD We searched MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Embase and Cochrane Central Register from inception to 21 June 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of community-based, primary care or web-based interventions for smoking cessation in adults who smoked tobacco, with measurement of smoking abstinence or reduction at least 3 months following baseline. We examined comparisons between either an intensity-matched culturally tailored intervention and a non-tailored intervention or a standard non-tailored intervention and the same intervention plus a culturally tailored adjunct. We sub-grouped studies according to the level of tailoring and performed subgroup analyses where appropriate. We assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence. RESULTS We identified 43 studies, 33 of which were meta-analyzed (n = 12 346 participants). We found moderate certainty evidence, limited by heterogeneity, that intensity-matched culturally tailored cessation interventions increased quit success when compared with non-tailored interventions at 3-month follow-up or longer (n = 5602, risk ratio [RR] = 1.29 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10, 1.51, I2 = 47%, 14 studies). We found a positive effect of adding a culturally tailored component to a standard intervention compared with the standard intervention alone (n = 6674, RR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.10, 1.95, I2 = 74%, 18 studies), but our certainty in this effect was low due to imprecision and substantial statistical heterogeneity. CONCLUSION Culturally tailored smoking cessation interventions may help more people to quit smoking than a non-tailored intervention. Adapting or adding cultural components to smoking cessation interventions originally developed for majority populations could improve cessation rates in populations who do not fully identify with majority cultural norms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Leinberger-Jabari
- Public Health Research Center, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
- Department of Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Melanie M Golob
- Department of Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- Department of Health Policy and Promotion, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, United States
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Juul-Hindsgaul N, Alalwani Z, Boylan AM, Hartmann-Boyce J, Nunan D. Defining success in adult obesity management: A systematic review and framework synthesis of clinical practice guidelines. Clin Obes 2024; 14:e12631. [PMID: 38320758 DOI: 10.1111/cob.12631] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2023] [Revised: 10/18/2023] [Accepted: 11/16/2023] [Indexed: 03/16/2024]
Abstract
Obesity is a chronic and complex disease affecting millions of people worldwide. Currently, there is no standard definition of success for the management of obesity. We set out to complete a synthesis of clinical practice guidelines for obesity management for adult populations, aiming to provide both a quantitative descriptive and qualitative analysis of definitions of success in clinical practice guidelines. An electronic search retrieved 4477 references. Sixteen clinical practice guidelines were included after screening and full-text review. We coded definitions of success 147 times across the included guidelines. No standard or explicit definition of success was identified in the guidelines but rather success was implicitly defined. We developed three themes describing how success was defined in the clinical practice guidelines: Knowledge-based decision making; management of expectations; and the perception of control. The review reinforced that success is an inherently subjective and complex concept. Defining success is limited by existing studies that focus on weight loss and would benefit from additional research on different outcomes. Equally, the relationship between people living with obesity and their clinicians should be further explored to understand how defining success is controlled, discussed and framed in a clinical setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole Juul-Hindsgaul
- Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Department for Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Zahra Alalwani
- Department for Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Anne-Marie Boylan
- Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - David Nunan
- Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Redvers N, Hartmann-Boyce J, Tonkin-Crine S. Patient-planetary health co-benefit prescribing in a circumpolar health region: a qualitative study of physician voices from the Northwest Territories, Canada. BMJ Open 2024; 14:e081156. [PMID: 38431297 PMCID: PMC10910660 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081156] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2023] [Accepted: 02/19/2024] [Indexed: 03/05/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite climate change being described as a code red for humanity, health systems have been particularly slow in both climate mitigation and adaptation responses. The effects of climate change on health and health systems will not be felt equally, with underserved and marginalised communities disproportionately impacted. The circumpolar region is warming at 3-4 times the global rate, amplifying already existing socioeconomic barriers and health inequities, with particular amplified effects for the substantial Indigenous population in the area. OBJECTIVES AND SETTING We therefore sought to explore perspectives of physicians around patient-planetary health (P-PH) co-benefit prescribing in a circumpolar region in the Northwest Territories (NWT), Canada, known to be one of the ground zero levels for climate change. METHODS Thirteen semi-structured physician interviews were carried out in the NWT region between May 2022 and March 2023 using purposive sampling. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and reflexive thematic analysis was carried out to identify key themes. RESULTS There were three main themes identified including (1) current healthcare system does not support planetary health, (2) supporting patient-planetary health is currently difficult for clinicians and (3) considering change in the NWT to support patient-planetary health. Participants noted key opportunities to move planetary health forward, with the NWT having the potential to be an innovative model for planetary health-informed change for other health systems. CONCLUSION The NWT health system has unique features due to its rural and remote nature and smaller population base. Despite this, our study identified some key opportunities for advancing P-PH co-benefit efforts. The identified opportunities may be considered in future intervention, organisational change and policy-making efforts with potential relevance in other settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole Redvers
- Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
- Department for Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Department of Health Policy and Promotion, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Sarah Tonkin-Crine
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Butler AR, Hartmann-Boyce J, Livingstone-Banks J, Turner T, Lindson N. Optimizing process and methods for a living systematic review: 30 search updates and three review updates later. J Clin Epidemiol 2024; 166:111231. [PMID: 38043829 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.111231] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2023] [Revised: 11/27/2023] [Accepted: 11/28/2023] [Indexed: 12/05/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To describe the living systematic review (LSR) process and to share experience of planning, searches, screening, extraction, publishing and dissemination to inform and assist authors planning their own LSR. Many LSR do not publish more than one update, we hope this paper helps to increase this. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING A Cochrane LSR with an international author team that has been 'living' for two years, with monthly search updates and three full updates published in this time. LSRs are regularly updated systematic reviews that allow new evidence to be incorporated as it becomes available. LSR are ideally suited to policy-relevant topics where there is uncertainty and new evidence will likely impact the interpretation and/or certainty of outcomes. RESULTS The key features of the process that require consideration are: specifying the frequency of searches and triggers for full updates in the protocol; stakeholder input; publishing and disseminating monthly search findings. A strong team, incorporating methodological and topic expertise, with core members that meet regularly is essential. Regular search updates make it important to have a clear cyclical schedule of activity. To achieve timely updates this process should be streamlined, for example, using automated monthly searches, and systematic reviewing software for screening. LSR provide a unique opportunity to incorporate stakeholder feedback. CONCLUSIONS We recommend that LSRs should be: justified; carefully planned including the timing of search updates, triggers for publication and termination; published in a timely manner; have a clear dissemination plan; and a strong core team of authors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ailsa R Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Health Promotion and Policy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA
| | | | - Tari Turner
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, Highton P, Rees K, Onakpoya I, Suklan J, Curtis F, O'Mahoney L, Morris E, Kudlek L, Morgan J, Lynch R, Marpadga S, Seidu S, Khunti K. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated disruptions in health-care provision on clinical outcomes in people with diabetes: a systematic review. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2024; 12:132-148. [PMID: 38272607 DOI: 10.1016/s2213-8587(23)00351-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2023] [Revised: 11/10/2023] [Accepted: 11/13/2023] [Indexed: 01/27/2024]
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic triggered disruptions to health care and lifestyles that could conceivably impact diabetes management. We set out to identify the impact of disruptions caused by COVID-19 on clinical outcomes in people with diabetes. We performed a systematic review of the available literature in the MEDLINE and OVID databases from Jan 1, 2020, to June 7, 2023, and included 138 studies (n>1 000 000 people). All but five studies were judged to be at some risk of bias. All studies compared prepandemic with pandemic periods. All-cause mortality (six studies) and diabetes-related mortality (13 studies) showed consistent increases, and most studies indicated increases in sight loss (six studies). In adult and mixed samples, data generally suggested no difference in diabetic ketoacidosis frequency or severity, whereas in children and adolescents most studies showed increases with some due to new-onset diabetes (69 studies). Data suggested decreases in hospital admissions in adults but increases in diabetes-related admissions to paediatric intensive care units (35 studies). Data were equivocal on diabetic foot ulcer presentations (nine studies), emergency department admissions (nine studies), and overall amputation rates (20 studies). No studies investigated renal failure. Where reported, the impact was most pronounced for females, younger people, and racial and ethnic minority groups. Further studies are needed to investigate the longer-term impact of the pandemic and the on potential differential impacts, which risk further exacerbating existing inequalities within people with diabetes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Department of Health Promotion and Policy, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA; Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | | | | | - Igho Onakpoya
- Department for Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Jana Suklan
- National Institute for Health and Care Research Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK
| | - Ffion Curtis
- Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Elizabeth Morris
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Laura Kudlek
- Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jessica Morgan
- Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Rosie Lynch
- Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Samuel Seidu
- Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Lindson N, Butler AR, McRobbie H, Bullen C, Hajek P, Begh R, Theodoulou A, Notley C, Rigotti NA, Turner T, Livingstone-Banks J, Morris T, Hartmann-Boyce J. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2024; 1:CD010216. [PMID: 38189560 PMCID: PMC10772980 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010216.pub8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/09/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review. OBJECTIVES To examine the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence, in comparison to non-nicotine EC, other smoking cessation treatments and no treatment. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register to 1 February 2023, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2023, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA We included trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention as these studies have the potential to provide further information on harms and longer-term use. Studies had to report an eligible outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Critical outcomes were abstinence from smoking after at least six months, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA). MAIN RESULTS We included 88 completed studies (10 new to this update), representing 27,235 participants, of which 47 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 58 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There is high certainty that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 2544 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs is similar between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2052 participants). SAEs were rare, and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differ between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.60; I2 = 32%; 6 studies, 2761 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96; I2 = 4%; 6 studies, 1613 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 7 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differ between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 1412 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to issues with risk of bias, there is low-certainty evidence that, compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates may be higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.25; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 5024 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 5 more). There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs may be more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low-certainty evidence; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.34; I2 = 23%; 10 studies, 3263 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Results from the NMA were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analyses for all critical outcomes, and there was no indication of inconsistency within the networks. Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence, evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing both clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain due to risk of bias inherent in the study design. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but the longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Ailsa R Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Hayden McRobbie
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Chris Bullen
- National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Peter Hajek
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Rachna Begh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Caitlin Notley
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Nancy A Rigotti
- Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Tari Turner
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | - Tom Morris
- Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Department of Health Promotion and Policy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, Rees K, Onakpoya I, Otunla A, Morris E, Morgan J, Highton P, Suklan J, Curtis F, Goyder C, O'Mahoney L, James O, Sreejith N, Seidu S, Khunti K. An Update to the Overview of Reviews: Risks of and From SARS-COV-2 Infection and COVID-19 in People With Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2023; 46:e215-e216. [PMID: 37856358 DOI: 10.2337/dc23-1365] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2023] [Accepted: 09/04/2023] [Indexed: 10/21/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K
- University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA
| | - Karen Rees
- Freelance systematic reviewer, Warwickshire, U.K
| | - Igho Onakpoya
- Department of Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K
| | - Afolarin Otunla
- Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K
| | - Elizabeth Morris
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K
| | - Jessica Morgan
- Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K
| | - Patrick Highton
- Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, U.K
| | - Jana Suklan
- National Institute for Health Research Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K
| | - Ffion Curtis
- Liverpool Reviews & Implementation Group (LRiG), University of Liverpool, Liverpool, U.K
| | - Clare Goyder
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K
| | - Lauren O'Mahoney
- Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, U.K
| | - Olivia James
- Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K
| | | | - Samuel Seidu
- Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, U.K
| | - Kamlesh Khunti
- Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, U.K
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Pyper E, McKeown S, Hartmann-Boyce J, Powell J. Digital Health Technology for Real-World Clinical Outcome Measurement Using Patient-Generated Data: Systematic Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res 2023; 25:e46992. [PMID: 37819698 PMCID: PMC10600647 DOI: 10.2196/46992] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2023] [Revised: 08/14/2023] [Accepted: 08/31/2023] [Indexed: 10/13/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Digital health technologies (DHTs) play an ever-expanding role in health care management and delivery. Beyond their use as interventions, DHTs also serve as a vehicle for real-world data collection to characterize patients, their care journeys, and their responses to other clinical interventions. There is a need to comprehensively map the evidence-across all conditions and technology types-on DHT measurement of patient outcomes in the real world. OBJECTIVE We aimed to investigate the use of DHTs to measure real-world clinical outcomes using patient-generated data. METHODS We conducted this systematic scoping review in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Detailed eligibility criteria documented in a preregistered protocol informed a search strategy for the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL, Cochrane (CENTRAL), Embase, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the EU Clinical Trials Register. We considered studies published between 2000 and 2022 wherein digital health data were collected, passively or actively, from patients with any specified health condition outside of clinical visits. Categories for key concepts, such as DHT type and analytical applications, were established where needed. Following screening and full-text review, data were extracted and analyzed using predefined fields, and findings were reported in accordance with established guidelines. RESULTS The search strategy identified 11,015 publications, with 7308 records after duplicates and reviews were removed. After screening and full-text review, 510 studies were included for extraction. These studies encompassed 169 different conditions in over 20 therapeutic areas and 44 countries. The DHTs used for mental health and addictions research (111/510, 21.8%) were the most prevalent. The most common type of DHT, mobile apps, was observed in approximately half of the studies (250/510, 49%). Most studies used only 1 DHT (346/510, 67.8%); however, the majority of technologies used were able to collect more than 1 type of data, with the most common being physiological data (189/510, 37.1%), clinical symptoms data (188/510, 36.9%), and behavioral data (171/510, 33.5%). Overall, there has been real growth in the depth and breadth of evidence, number of DHT types, and use of artificial intelligence and advanced analytics over time. CONCLUSIONS This scoping review offers a comprehensive view of the variety of types of technology, data, collection methods, analytical approaches, and therapeutic applications within this growing body of evidence. To unlock the full potential of DHT for measuring health outcomes and capturing digital biomarkers, there is a need for more rigorous research that goes beyond technology validation to demonstrate whether robust real-world data can be reliably captured from patients in their daily life and whether its capture improves patient outcomes. This study provides a valuable repository of DHT studies to inform subsequent research by health care providers, policy makers, and the life sciences industry. TRIAL REGISTRATION Open Science Framework 5TMKY; https://osf.io/5tmky/.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Evelyn Pyper
- Department for Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Sarah McKeown
- Department for Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- Department of Health Promotion and Policy, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, United States
| | - John Powell
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Henry JA, Astbury NM, Hartmann-Boyce J, Koshiaris C, Jebb SA. Use of Cognitive and Behavioral Strategies During a Weight Loss Program: A Secondary Analysis of the Doctor Referral of Overweight People to Low-Energy Total Diet Replacement Treatment (DROPLET) Trial. J Acad Nutr Diet 2023; 123:1417-1428.e17. [PMID: 37019430 PMCID: PMC10895506 DOI: 10.1016/j.jand.2023.03.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2022] [Revised: 03/20/2023] [Accepted: 03/30/2023] [Indexed: 04/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Achieving a sustained energy deficit is essential for weight loss, but the cognitive and behavioral strategies that support this goal are unclear. OBJECTIVE The goal of this study was to investigate the number and type of cognitive and behavioral strategies used by participants who were enrolled in a 1-year weight loss trial and to explore associations between strategies and magnitude of weight loss at 3 months and 1 year. DESIGN The study is a secondary post-hoc exploratory analysis of data collected as part of the Doctor Referral of Overweight People to Low-Energy total diet replacement Treatment (DROPLET), a randomized controlled trial conducted in general practices in England, United Kingdom, between January 2016 and August 2017. PARTICIPANTS/SETTING This study involved 164 participants from both intervention and control groups of the DROPLET trial who completed the Oxford Food and Behaviours (OxFAB) questionnaire to assess the use of 115 strategies grouped into 21 domains used to manage their weight. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomized to either a behavioral weight loss program involving 8 weeks total diet replacement (TDR) and 4 weeks of food reintroduction or a program delivered by a medical practice nurse over a 3-month period (usual care [UC]). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Weight was objectively measured at baseline, 3 months, and 1 year. Cognitive and behavioral strategies used to support weight loss were assessed using the OxFAB questionnaire at 3 months. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PERFORMED Exploratory factor analysis was used to generate data-driven patterns of strategy use, and a linear mixed-effects model was used to examine associations between use of these patterns and weight change. RESULTS No evidence was found of a difference in the number of strategies (mean difference, 2.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.83, 5.65) or the number of domains used (mean difference, -0.23; 95% CI, -0.69, 0.23) between the TDR group and the UC group. The number of strategies was not associated with weight loss at either 3 months (-0.02 kg; 95% CI, -0.11, 0.06) or 1 year (-0.05 kg; 95% CI, -0.14, 0.02). Similarly, the number of domains used was not associated with weight loss at 3 months (-0.02 kg; 95% CI, -0.53, 0.49) or 1 year (-0.07 kg; 95% CI, -0.60, 0.46). Factor analysis identified four coherent patterns of strategy use, identified as Physical Activity, Motivation, Planned Eating, and Food Purchasing patterns. Greater use of strategies in the Food Purchasing (-2.6 kg; 95% CI, -4.42, -0.71) and Planned Eating patterns (-3.20 kg; 95% CI, -4.94, -1.46) was associated with greater weight loss at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS The number of cognitive and behavioral strategies or domains used does not appear to influence weight loss, but the types of strategy appear of greater importance. Supporting people to adopt strategies linked to planned eating and food purchasing may aid long-term weight loss.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Nerys M. Astbury
- Address correspondence to: Nerys M. Astbury, PhD, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Primary Care, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6GG UK.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Freeman SC, Saeedi E, Ordóñez-Mena JM, Nevill CR, Hartmann-Boyce J, Caldwell DM, Welton NJ, Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ. Data visualisation approaches for component network meta-analysis: visualising the data structure. BMC Med Res Methodol 2023; 23:208. [PMID: 37715126 PMCID: PMC10502971 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-023-02026-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2023] [Accepted: 08/28/2023] [Indexed: 09/17/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Health and social care interventions are often complex and can be decomposed into multiple components. Multicomponent interventions are often evaluated in randomised controlled trials. Across trials, interventions often have components in common which are given alongside other components which differ across trials. Multicomponent interventions can be synthesised using component NMA (CNMA). CNMA is limited by the structure of the available evidence, but it is not always straightforward to visualise such complex evidence networks. The aim of this paper is to develop tools to visualise the structure of complex evidence networks to support CNMA. METHODS We performed a citation review of two key CNMA methods papers to identify existing published CNMA analyses and reviewed how they graphically represent intervention complexity and comparisons across trials. Building on identified shortcomings of existing visualisation approaches, we propose three approaches to standardise visualising the data structure and/or availability of data: CNMA-UpSet plot, CNMA heat map, CNMA-circle plot. We use a motivating example to illustrate these plots. RESULTS We identified 34 articles reporting CNMAs. A network diagram was the most common plot type used to visualise the data structure for CNMA (26/34 papers), but was unable to express the complex data structures and large number of components and potential combinations of components associated with CNMA. Therefore, we focused visualisation development around representing the data structure of a CNMA more completely. The CNMA-UpSet plot presents arm-level data and is suitable for networks with large numbers of components or combinations of components. Heat maps can be utilised to inform decisions about which pairwise interactions to consider for inclusion in a CNMA model. The CNMA-circle plot visualises the combinations of components which differ between trial arms and offers flexibility in presenting additional information such as the number of patients experiencing the outcome of interest in each arm. CONCLUSIONS As CNMA becomes more widely used for the evaluation of multicomponent interventions, the novel CNMA-specific visualisations presented in this paper, which improve on the limitations of existing visualisations, will be important to aid understanding of the complex data structure and facilitate interpretation of the CNMA results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suzanne C Freeman
- Biostatistics Research Group, Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
- NIHR Complex Reviews Support Unit, University of Leicester and University of Glasgow, Leicester, UK.
| | - Elnaz Saeedi
- Biostatistics Research Group, Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
- NIHR Complex Reviews Support Unit, University of Leicester and University of Glasgow, Leicester, UK
| | - José M Ordóñez-Mena
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Clareece R Nevill
- Biostatistics Research Group, Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
- NIHR Complex Reviews Support Unit, University of Leicester and University of Glasgow, Leicester, UK
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Deborah M Caldwell
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Nicky J Welton
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Nicola J Cooper
- Biostatistics Research Group, Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
- NIHR Complex Reviews Support Unit, University of Leicester and University of Glasgow, Leicester, UK
| | - Alex J Sutton
- Biostatistics Research Group, Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
- NIHR Complex Reviews Support Unit, University of Leicester and University of Glasgow, Leicester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Lindson N, Theodoulou A, Ordóñez-Mena JM, Fanshawe TR, Sutton AJ, Livingstone-Banks J, Hajizadeh A, Zhu S, Aveyard P, Freeman SC, Agrawal S, Hartmann-Boyce J. Pharmacological and electronic cigarette interventions for smoking cessation in adults: component network meta-analyses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 9:CD015226. [PMID: 37696529 PMCID: PMC10495240 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd015226.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/13/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease worldwide. Stopping smoking can reduce this harm and many people would like to stop. There are a number of medicines licenced to help people quit globally, and e-cigarettes are used for this purpose in many countries. Typically treatments work by reducing cravings to smoke, thus aiding initial abstinence and preventing relapse. More information on comparative effects of these treatments is needed to inform treatment decisions and policies. OBJECTIVES To investigate the comparative benefits, harms and tolerability of different smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and e-cigarettes, when used to help people stop smoking tobacco. SEARCH METHODS We identified studies from recent updates of Cochrane Reviews investigating our interventions of interest. We updated the searches for each review using the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group (TAG) specialised register to 29 April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and factorial RCTs, which measured smoking cessation at six months or longer, recruited adults who smoked combustible cigarettes at enrolment (excluding pregnant people) and randomised them to approved pharmacotherapies and technologies used for smoking cessation worldwide (varenicline, cytisine, nortriptyline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and e-cigarettes) versus no pharmacological intervention, placebo (control) or another approved pharmacotherapy. Studies providing co-interventions (e.g. behavioural support) were eligible if the co-intervention was provided equally to study arms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening, data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment (using the RoB 1 tool). Primary outcome measures were smoking cessation at six months or longer, and the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs). We also measured withdrawals due to treatment. We used Bayesian component network meta-analyses (cNMA) to examine intervention type, delivery mode, dose, duration, timing in relation to quit day and tapering of nicotine dose, using odds ratios (OR) and 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). We calculated an effect estimate for combination NRT using an additive model. We evaluated the influence of population and study characteristics, provision of behavioural support and control arm rates using meta-regression. We evaluated certainty using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS Of our 332 eligible RCTs, 319 (835 study arms, 157,179 participants) provided sufficient data to be included in our cNMA. Of these, we judged 51 to be at low risk of bias overall, 104 at high risk and 164 at unclear risk, and 118 reported pharmaceutical or e-cigarette/tobacco industry funding. Removing studies at high risk of bias did not change our interpretation of the results. Benefits We found high-certainty evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes (OR 2.37, 95% CrI 1.73 to 3.24; 16 RCTs, 3828 participants), varenicline (OR 2.33, 95% CrI 2.02 to 2.68; 67 RCTs, 16,430 participants) and cytisine (OR 2.21, 95% CrI 1.66 to 2.97; 7 RCTs, 3848 participants) were associated with higher quit rates than control. In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional eight (95% CrI 4 to 13), eight (95% CrI 6 to 10) and seven additional quitters per 100 (95% CrI 4 to 12), respectively. These interventions appeared to be more effective than the other interventions apart from combination NRT (patch and a fast-acting form of NRT), which had a lower point estimate (calculated additive effect) but overlapping 95% CrIs (OR 1.93, 95% CrI 1.61 to 2.34). There was also high-certainty evidence that nicotine patch alone (OR 1.37, 95% CrI 1.20 to 1.56; 105 RCTs, 37,319 participants), fast-acting NRT alone (OR 1.41, 95% CrI 1.29 to 1.55; 120 RCTs, 31,756 participants) and bupropion (OR 1.43, 95% CrI 1.26 to 1.62; 71 RCTs, 14,759 participants) were more effective than control, resulting in two (95% CrI 1 to 3), three (95% CrI 2 to 3) and three (95% CrI 2 to 4) additional quitters per 100 respectively. Nortriptyline is probably associated with higher quit rates than control (OR 1.35, 95% CrI 1.02 to 1.81; 10 RCTs, 1290 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), resulting in two (CrI 0 to 5) additional quitters per 100. Non-nicotine/placebo e-cigarettes (OR 1.16, 95% CrI 0.74 to 1.80; 8 RCTs, 1094 participants; low-certainty evidence), equating to one additional quitter (95% CrI -2 to 5), had point estimates favouring the intervention over control, but CrIs encompassed the potential for no difference and harm. There was low-certainty evidence that tapering the dose of NRT prior to stopping treatment may improve effectiveness; however, 95% CrIs also incorporated the null (OR 1.14, 95% CrI 1.00 to 1.29; 111 RCTs, 33,156 participants). This might lead to an additional one quitter per 100 (95% CrI 0 to 2). Harms There were insufficient data to include nortriptyline and non-nicotine EC in the final SAE model. Overall rates of SAEs for the remaining treatments were low (average 3%). Low-certainty evidence did not show a clear difference in the number of people reporting SAEs for nicotine e-cigarettes, varenicline, cytisine or NRT when compared to no pharmacotherapy/e-cigarettes or placebo. Bupropion may slightly increase rates of SAEs, although the CrI also incorporated no difference (moderate certainty). In absolute terms bupropion may cause one more person in 100 to experience an SAE (95% CrI 0 to 2). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The most effective interventions were nicotine e-cigarettes, varenicline and cytisine (all high certainty), as well as combination NRT (additive effect, certainty not rated). There was also high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of nicotine patch, fast-acting NRT and bupropion. Less certain evidence of benefit was present for nortriptyline (moderate certainty), non-nicotine e-cigarettes and tapering of nicotine dose (both low certainty). There was moderate-certainty evidence that bupropion may slightly increase the frequency of SAEs, although there was also the possibility of no increased risk. There was no clear evidence that any other tested interventions increased SAEs. Overall, SAE data were sparse with very low numbers of SAEs, and so further evidence may change our interpretation and certainty. Future studies should report SAEs to strengthen certainty in this outcome. More head-to-head comparisons of the most effective interventions are needed, as are tests of combinations of these. Future work should unify data from behavioural and pharmacological interventions to inform approaches to combined support for smoking cessation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - José M Ordóñez-Mena
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Alex J Sutton
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | | | - Anisa Hajizadeh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sufen Zhu
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Paul Aveyard
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Suzanne C Freeman
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Sanjay Agrawal
- Department of Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, Lindson N. Assessing and minimizing risk of bias in randomized controlled trials of tobacco cessation interventions: Guidance from the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group. Addiction 2023; 118:1811-1816. [PMID: 37132075 DOI: 10.1111/add.16220] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/24/2022] [Accepted: 04/13/2023] [Indexed: 05/04/2023]
Abstract
The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group has created risk of bias tools, which are topic-agnostic. In 2012 the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group created guidance specific to considerations for reviews of randomized controlled trials of tobacco cessation interventions, building on existing Cochrane tools. The guidance covers issues relating to selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias and selective reporting. In this paper, we set out to make this guidance publicly available, so that others can use and cite it. We provide advice for using this tool to appraise trials critically as a systematic reviewer. We also provide guidance for triallists on ways to use this tool to improve trial design and reporting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Theodoulou A, Chepkin SC, Ye W, Fanshawe TR, Bullen C, Hartmann-Boyce J, Livingstone-Banks J, Hajizadeh A, Lindson N. Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 6:CD013308. [PMID: 37335995 PMCID: PMC10278922 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013308.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This helps to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and ease the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. Although there is high-certainty evidence that NRT is effective for achieving long-term smoking abstinence, it is unclear whether different forms, doses, durations of treatment or timing of use impacts its effects. OBJECTIVES To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords, most recently in April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded studies that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of fewer than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Separate reviews cover studies comparing NRT to control, or to other pharmacotherapies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking abstinence after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and study withdrawals due to treatment. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 68 completed studies with 43,327 participants, five of which are new to this update. Most completed studies recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. We judged 28 of the 68 studies to be at high risk of bias. Restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results for any comparisons apart from the preloading comparison, which tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day whilst still smoking. There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form plus patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.37; I2 = 12%; 16 studies, 12,169 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg patches are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; I2 = 38%; 5 studies, 1655 participants), and that 21 mg patches are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08; 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3446 participants). Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4395 participants). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 3319 participants). We found no clear evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); or fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence). Cardiac AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no clear evidence of an effect on these outcomes, and rates were low overall. More withdrawals due to treatment were reported in people using nasal spray compared to patches in one study (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46; 1 study, 922 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in people using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two studies (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 544 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum can result in an increase in the chances of successfully stopping smoking. Due to imprecision, evidence was of moderate certainty for patch dose comparisons. There is some indication that the lower-dose nicotine patches and gum may be less effective than higher-dose products. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT before quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is limited. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are reported.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Samantha C Chepkin
- NHS Hertfordshire and West Essex Integrated Care Board, Welwyn Garden City, UK
| | - Weiyu Ye
- Oxford University Clinical Academic Graduate School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Chris Bullen
- National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Anisa Hajizadeh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Hajizadeh A, Howes S, Theodoulou A, Klemperer E, Hartmann-Boyce J, Livingstone-Banks J, Lindson N. Antidepressants for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 5:CD000031. [PMID: 37230961 PMCID: PMC10207863 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd000031.pub6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/27/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied. However, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco: nicotine withdrawal can produce short-term low mood that antidepressants may relieve; and some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction. OBJECTIVES To assess the evidence for the efficacy, harms, and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, most recently on 29 April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people who smoked, comparing antidepressant medications with placebo or no pharmacological treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used differently. We excluded trials with fewer than six months of follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length for our analyses of harms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months' follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Our secondary outcomes were harms and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropouts due to treatment. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS We included a total of 124 studies (48,832 participants) in this review, with 10 new studies added to this update version. Most studies recruited adults from the community or from smoking cessation clinics; four studies focused on adolescents (with participants between 12 and 21 years old). We judged 34 studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not change clinical interpretation of the results. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased smoking cessation rates when compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.49 to 1.72; I2 = 16%; 50 studies, 18,577 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that a combination of bupropion and varenicline may have resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I2 = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence to establish whether a combination of bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; I2 = 43%; 15 studies, 4117 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was moderate-certainty evidence that participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs than those taking placebo or no pharmacological treatment. However, results were imprecise and the CI also encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 23 studies, 10,958 participants). Results were also imprecise when comparing SAEs between people randomised to a combination of bupropion and NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.89; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 657 participants) and randomised to bupropion plus varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.42; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1268 participants). In both cases, we judged evidence to be of low certainty. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to AEs than placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.65; I2 = 2%; 25 studies, 12,346 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence that bupropion combined with NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 737 participants) or bupropion combined with varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.45; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1230 participants) had an impact on the number of dropouts due to treatment. In both cases, imprecision was substantial (we judged the evidence to be of low certainty for both comparisons). Bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.80; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7564 participants), and to combination NRT (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 720 participants). However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and single-form NRT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 7613 participants). We also found evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I2 = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), and some evidence that bupropion resulted in superior quit rates to nortriptyline (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants), although this result was subject to imprecision. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion may increase SAEs (moderate-certainty evidence when compared to placebo/no pharmacological treatment). There is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with people receiving placebo or no pharmacological treatment. Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo, although bupropion may be more effective. Evidence also suggests that bupropion may be as successful as single-form NRT in helping people to quit smoking, but less effective than combination NRT and varenicline. In most cases, a paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions regarding harms and tolerability. Further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over other licensed smoking cessation treatments; namely, NRT and varenicline. However, it is important that future studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation measure and report on harms and tolerability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anisa Hajizadeh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Seth Howes
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Elias Klemperer
- Departments of Psychological Sciences & Psychiatry, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Redvers N, Wright K, Hartmann-Boyce J, Tonkin-Crine S. Physicians' views of patient-planetary health co-benefit prescribing: a mixed methods systematic review. Lancet Planet Health 2023; 7:e407-e417. [PMID: 37164517 DOI: 10.1016/s2542-5196(23)00050-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2022] [Revised: 02/24/2023] [Accepted: 02/28/2023] [Indexed: 05/12/2023]
Abstract
Health professionals are increasingly called to become partners in planetary health. Using patient-planetary health (P-PH) co-benefit prescribing framing, we did a mixed methods systematic review to identify barriers and facilitators to adopting P-PH co-benefit prescribing by physicians and mapped these onto the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behaviour (COM-B) model and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We searched electronic databases from inception until October, 2022, and did a content analysis of the included articles (n=12). Relevant categories were matched to items in the COM-B model and TDF. Nine barriers and eight facilitators were identified. Barriers included an absence of, or little, knowledge of how to change practice and time to implement change; facilitators included having policy statements and guidelines from respected associations. More diverse study designs that include health professionals, patients, and health-care system stakeholders are needed to ensure a more holistic understanding of the individual, system, and policy levers involved in implementing clinical work informed by planetary health.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole Redvers
- Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada; Department for Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | - Kyla Wright
- School of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sarah Tonkin-Crine
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, Theodoulou A, Oke JL, Butler AR, Bastounis A, Dunnigan A, Byadya R, Cobiac LJ, Scarborough P, Hobbs FR, Sniehotta FF, Jebb SA, Aveyard P. Long-Term Effect of Weight Regain Following Behavioral Weight Management Programs on Cardiometabolic Disease Incidence and Risk: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2023; 16:e009348. [PMID: 36974678 PMCID: PMC10106109 DOI: 10.1161/circoutcomes.122.009348] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2022] [Accepted: 01/13/2023] [Indexed: 03/29/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Behavioral weight management programs (BWMPs) enhance weight loss in the short term, but longer term cardiometabolic effects are uncertain as weight is commonly regained. We assessed the impact of weight regain after BWMPs on cardiovascular risk factors, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. METHODS Trial registries, 11 databases, and forward-citation searching (latest search, December 19) were used to identify articles published in English, from any geographical region. Randomized trials of BWMPs in adults with overweight/obesity reporting cardiometabolic outcomes at ≥12 months at and after program end were included. Differences between more intensive interventions and comparator groups were synthesized using mixed-effects, meta-regression, and time-to-event models to assess the impact of weight regain on cardiovascular disease incidence and risk. RESULTS One hundred twenty-four trials reporting on ≥1 cardiometabolic outcomes with a median follow-up of 28 (range, 11-360) months after program end were included. Median baseline participant body mass index was 33 kg/m2; median age was 51 years. Eight and 15 study arms (7889 and 4202 participants, respectively) examined the incidence of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, respectively, with imprecise evidence of a lower incidence for at least 5 years. Weight regain in BWMPs relative to comparators reduced these differences. One and 5 years after program end, total cholesterol/HDL (high-density lipoprotein) ratio was 1.5 points lower at both times (82 studies; 19 003 participants), systolic blood pressure was 1.5 mm mercury and 0.4 mm lower (84 studies; 30 836 participants), and HbA1c (%) 0.38 lower at both times (94 studies; 28 083 participants). Of the included studies, 22% were judged at high risk of bias; removing these did not meaningfully change results. CONCLUSIONS Despite weight regain, BWMPs reduce cardiometabolic risk factors with effects lasting at least 5 years after program end and dwindling with weight regain. Evidence that they reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease or diabetes is less certain. Few studies followed participants for ≥5 years. REGISTRATION URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifier: CRD42018105744.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (J.H.-B., A.T., A.R.B., A.B., R.B., F.D.R.H., S.A.J., P.A.), University of Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (J.H.-B., A.T., A.R.B., A.B., R.B., F.D.R.H., S.A.J., P.A.), University of Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Jason L. Oke
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom (J.L.O.)
| | - Ailsa R. Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (J.H.-B., A.T., A.R.B., A.B., R.B., F.D.R.H., S.A.J., P.A.), University of Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Anastasios Bastounis
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (J.H.-B., A.T., A.R.B., A.B., R.B., F.D.R.H., S.A.J., P.A.), University of Oxford, United Kingdom
- Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom (A.B.)
| | - Anna Dunnigan
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom (A.D.)
- Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom (A.D.)
| | - Rimu Byadya
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (J.H.-B., A.T., A.R.B., A.B., R.B., F.D.R.H., S.A.J., P.A.), University of Oxford, United Kingdom
- United Nations World Food Programme, Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, India (R.B.)
| | - Linda J. Cobiac
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, Centre on Population Approaches for Non-Communicable Disease Prevention (L.J.C.), University of Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Peter Scarborough
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (P.S.), University of Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - F.D. Richard Hobbs
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (J.H.-B., A.T., A.R.B., A.B., R.B., F.D.R.H., S.A.J., P.A.), University of Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Falko F. Sniehotta
- Faculty of Medical Sciences, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, United Kingdom (F.F.S.)
| | - Susan A. Jebb
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (J.H.-B., A.T., A.R.B., A.B., R.B., F.D.R.H., S.A.J., P.A.), University of Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Paul Aveyard
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (J.H.-B., A.T., A.R.B., A.B., R.B., F.D.R.H., S.A.J., P.A.), University of Oxford, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Murali M, Gumber L, Jethwa H, Ganesh D, Hartmann-Boyce J, Sood H, Zaccardi F, Khunti K. Ethnic minority representation in UK COVID-19 trials: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med 2023; 21:111. [PMID: 36978166 PMCID: PMC10049782 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-023-02809-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/28/2022] [Accepted: 02/27/2023] [Indexed: 03/30/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted health disparities affecting ethnic minority communities. There is growing concern about the lack of diversity in clinical trials. This study aimed to assess the representation of ethnic groups in UK-based COVID-19 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken. A search strategy was developed for MEDLINE (Ovid) and Google Scholar (1st January 2020-4th May 2022). Prospective COVID-19 RCTs for vaccines or therapeutics that reported UK data separately with a minimum of 50 participants were eligible. Search results were independently screened, and data extracted into proforma. Percentage of ethnic groups at all trial stages was mapped against Office of National Statistics (ONS) statistics. Post hoc DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis of percentages and a meta-regression assessing recruitment over time were conducted. Due to the nature of the review question, risk of bias was not assessed. Data analysis was conducted in Stata v17.0. A protocol was registered (PROSPERO CRD42021244185). RESULTS In total, 5319 articles were identified; 30 studies were included, with 118,912 participants. Enrolment to trials was the only stage consistently reported (17 trials). Meta-analysis showed significant heterogeneity across studies, in relation to census-expected proportions at study enrolment. All ethnic groups, apart from Other (1.7% [95% CI 1.1-2.8%] vs ONS 1%) were represented to a lesser extent than ONS statistics, most marked in Black (1% [0.6-1.5%] vs 3.3%) and Asian (5.8% [4.4-7.6%] vs 7.5%) groups, but also apparent in White (84.8% [81.6-87.5%] vs 86%) and Mixed 1.6% [1.2-2.1%] vs 2.2%) groups. Meta-regression showed recruitment of Black participants increased over time (p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS Asian, Black and Mixed ethnic groups are under-represented or incorrectly classified in UK COVID-19 RCTs. Reporting by ethnicity lacks consistency and transparency. Under-representation in clinical trials occurs at multiple levels and requires complex solutions, which should be considered throughout trial conduct. These findings may not apply outside of the UK setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mayur Murali
- Division of Anaesthetics, Pain Medicine & Intensive Care, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
| | - Leher Gumber
- Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Northumberland, UK
| | - Hannah Jethwa
- London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | | | - Kamlesh Khunti
- Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Butler AR, Lindson N, Fanshawe TR, Theodoulou A, Begh R, Hajek P, McRobbie H, Bullen C, Notley C, Rigotti NA, Hartmann-Boyce J. Corrigendum to "Longer-term use of electronic cigarettes when provided as a stop smoking aid: Systematic review with meta-analyses" [Preventive Medicine, Volume 165, Part B, December 2022, 1-12/107182]. Prev Med 2023; 167:107406. [PMID: 36610807 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107406] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Ailsa R Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Rachna Begh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter Hajek
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts, The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Hayden McRobbie
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Chris Bullen
- National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Caitlin Notley
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Nancy A Rigotti
- Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, Cobiac LJ, Theodoulou A, Oke JL, Butler AR, Scarborough P, Bastounis A, Dunnigan A, Byadya R, Hobbs FDR, Sniehotta FF, Amies-Cull B, Aveyard P, Jebb SA. Weight regain after behavioural weight management programmes and its impact on quality of life and cost effectiveness: Evidence synthesis and health economic analyses. Diabetes Obes Metab 2023; 25:526-535. [PMID: 36239137 PMCID: PMC10092406 DOI: 10.1111/dom.14895] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/11/2022] [Revised: 09/26/2022] [Accepted: 10/09/2022] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
AIMS We used data from a recent systematic review to investigate weight regain after behavioural weight management programmes (BWMPs, sometimes referred to as lifestyle modification programmes) and its impact on quality-of-life and cost-effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS Trial registries, databases and forward-citation searching (latest search December 2019) were used to identify randomized trials of BWMPs in adults with overweight/obesity reporting outcomes at ≥12 months, and after programme end. Two independent reviewers screened records. One reviewer extracted data and a second checked them. The differences between intervention and control groups were synthesized using mixed-effect, meta-regression and time-to-event models. We examined associations between weight difference and difference in quality-of-life. Cost-effectiveness was estimated from a health sector perspective. RESULTS In total, 155 trials (n > 150 000) contributed to analyses. The longest follow-up was 23 years post-programme. At programme end, intervention groups achieved -2.8 kg (95%CI -3.2 to -2.4) greater weight loss than controls. Weight regain after programme end was 0.12-0.32 kg/year greater in intervention relative to control groups, with a between-group difference evident for at least 5 years. Quality-of-life increased in intervention groups relative to control at programme end and thereafter returned to control as the difference in weight between groups diminished. BWMPs with this initial weight loss and subsequent regain would be cost-effective if delivered for under £560 (£8.80-£3900) per person. CONCLUSIONS Modest rates of weight regain, with persistent benefits for several years, should encourage health care practitioners and policymakers to offer obesity treatments that cost less than our suggested thresholds as a cost-effective intervention to improve long-term weight management. REGISTRATION The review is registered on PROSPERO, CRD42018105744.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Radcliffe Primary Care Building, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Linda J Cobiac
- School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Jason L Oke
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Ailsa R Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter Scarborough
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Anastasios Bastounis
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Anna Dunnigan
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
- Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Rimu Byadya
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- United Nations World Food Programme, Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh
| | - F D Richard Hobbs
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Falko F Sniehotta
- Faculty of Medical Sciences, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Ben Amies-Cull
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Paul Aveyard
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Susan A Jebb
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Leitão M, Hartmann-Boyce J, Pérez-López FR, Marôco J, Pimenta F. Weight management strategies in Middle-Aged Women (MAW): Development and validation of a questionnaire based on the Oxford Food and Activity Behaviors Taxonomy (OxFAB-MAW) in a Portuguese sample. Front Psychol 2023; 13:1069775. [PMID: 36687937 PMCID: PMC9846507 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1069775] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/14/2022] [Accepted: 12/01/2022] [Indexed: 01/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The Oxford Food and Activity Behaviors (OxFAB) taxonomy systematize the cognitive-behavioral strategies adopted by individuals who are attempting to manage their weight. The present study aimed to (1) develop a questionnaire based on the OxFAB taxonomy, specifically adapted for middle-aged women-the OxFAB-MAW-stage of life and sex, which present a high incidence of obesity, (2) assess the psychometric properties of this tool, and (3) evaluate the discriminative power of the OxFAB-MAW (normal weight vs. obesity). Methods Overall, 1,367 Portuguese middle-aged women between 45 and 65 years (M = 52.3, SD = 5.15) filled in a sociodemographic, health, and menopause-related questionnaire, as well as the OxFAB-MAW. Results Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated an acceptable model fit (comparative fit index = 0.928, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.913, root mean square error of approximation = 0.072, and standardized root mean square residual = 0.054). Five domains with one item were grouped into other domains, and the Weight Management Aids domain was also removed. The OxFAB-MAW showed factorial, convergent, discriminant, and external validity, as well as composite reliability. Conclusion The OxFAB-MAW questionnaire is a valid, reliable, and theory-driven tool for assessing weight management strategies in middle-aged women, being able to discriminate between clinical and non-clinical groups (normal weight vs. obesity) in several domains. This instrument can be used to gather valid and reliable data, useful in both research and clinical settings (especially focused on structuring interventions and preventive obesity programs within this specific life cycle stage).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mafalda Leitão
- William James Center for Research, Ispa – Instituto Universitário, Lisbon, Portugal,*Correspondence: Mafalda Leitão,
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Faustino R. Pérez-López
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain
| | - João Marôco
- William James Center for Research, Ispa – Instituto Universitário, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Filipa Pimenta
- William James Center for Research, Ispa – Instituto Universitário, Lisbon, Portugal
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Butler AR, Lindson N, Fanshawe TR, Theodoulou A, Begh R, Hajek P, McRobbie H, Bullen C, Notley C, Rigotti NA, Hartmann-Boyce J. Longer-term use of electronic cigarettes when provided as a stop smoking aid: Systematic review with meta-analyses. Prev Med 2022; 165:107182. [PMID: 35933001 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107182] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2022] [Revised: 06/22/2022] [Accepted: 07/30/2022] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
Moderate certainty evidence supports use of nicotine electronic cigarettes to quit smoking combustible cigarettes. However, there is less certainty regarding how long people continue to use e-cigarettes after smoking cessation attempts. We set out to synthesise data on the proportion of people still using e-cigarettes or other study products at 6 months or longer in studies of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. We updated Cochrane searches (November 2021). For the first time, we meta-analysed prevalence of continued e-cigarette use among individuals allocated to e-cigarette conditions, and among those individuals who had successfully quit smoking. We updated meta-analyses comparing proportions continuing product use among individuals allocated to use nicotine e-cigarettes and other treatments. We included 19 studies (n = 7787). The pooled prevalence of continued e-cigarette use at 6 months or longer was 54% (95% CI: 46% to 61%, I2 86%, N = 1482) in participants assigned to e-cigarette conditions. Of participants who had quit combustible cigarettes overall 70% were still using e-cigarettes at six months or longer (95% CI: 53% to 82%, I2 73%, N = 215). Heterogeneity in direction of effect precluded meta-analysis comparing long-term use of nicotine e-cigarettes with NRT. More people were using nicotine e-cigarettes at longest follow-up compared to non-nicotine e-cigarettes, but CIs included no difference (risk ratio 1.15, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.41, n = 601). The levels of continued e-cigarette use observed may reflect the success of e-cigarettes as a quitting tool. Further research is needed to establish drivers of variation in and implications of continued use of e-cigarettes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ailsa R Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | - Rachna Begh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter Hajek
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts, The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
| | - Hayden McRobbie
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
| | - Chris Bullen
- National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
| | - Caitlin Notley
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
| | - Nancy A Rigotti
- Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, Lindson N, Butler AR, McRobbie H, Bullen C, Begh R, Theodoulou A, Notley C, Rigotti NA, Turner T, Fanshawe TR, Hajek P. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 11:CD010216. [PMID: 36384212 PMCID: PMC9668543 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010216.pub7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, although some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review. OBJECTIVES To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2022, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants, or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS We included 78 completed studies, representing 22,052 participants, of which 40 were RCTs. Seventeen of the 78 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 50 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was high certainty that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.04; I2 = 10%; 6 studies, 2378 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6). There was moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1702 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.52; I2 = 34%; 5 studies, 2411 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1272 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.65; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 3126 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional two quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 3). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; I2 = 38%; 9 studies, 1993 participants). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Ailsa R Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Hayden McRobbie
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Chris Bullen
- National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Rachna Begh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Caitlin Notley
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Nancy A Rigotti
- Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Tari Turner
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter Hajek
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Braznell S, Van Den Akker A, Metcalfe C, Taylor GMJ, Hartmann-Boyce J. Critical appraisal of interventional clinical trials assessing heated tobacco products: a systematic review. Tob Control 2022:tc-2022-057522. [PMID: 36347620 DOI: 10.1136/tc-2022-057522] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/09/2022] [Accepted: 10/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
ObjectiveTo critically assess the methodological characteristics and quality of interventional clinical trials investigating the effects of heated tobacco products (HTPs).Data sourcesWeb of Science (Core collection and MEDLINE), Scopus, MedRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP trial databases and transnational HTP manufacturer online publication libraries were searched for clinical trials on HTPs published between January 2010 and April 2022.Study selectionInterventional clinical trials of any design, in which at least one group of adult participants used a currently marketed HTP, were selected by two reviewers with good or very good agreement.Data extractionData relating to trial characteristics and effects of intervention on primary outcomes were extracted using a predesigned form. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane’s Risk of Bias tool v1.Data synthesis40 trials were included, 29 of which were tobacco industry affiliated. Methodological characteristics, such as registration, design, setting, comparator interventions, participants, outcomes and analyses, varied between trials, though there were few significant differences between industry-affiliated and independent trials. Of the 40 trials, 33 were judged to be at high risk of bias and 6 at unclear risk of bias. Trial findings were not significantly associated with either affiliation or risk of bias.ConclusionsThe conduct and reporting of HTP interventional clinical trials were poor in many respects and limited to investigating effects of short-term exposure. These trials fall short of what is needed to determine whether HTPs are beneficial to public health, meaning they may not be a sound basis for tobacco control policy decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Chris Metcalfe
- Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Gemma M J Taylor
- Addiction and Mental Health Group (AIM), Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford Division of Public Health and Primary Health Care, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Vieth SJ, Hartmann-Boyce J, Maass N, Jani A. Survey of young women's state of knowledge and perceptions about oral contraceptives in Germany. AJOG Glob Rep 2022; 2:100119. [PMID: 36338537 PMCID: PMC9633744 DOI: 10.1016/j.xagr.2022.100119] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In Germany, we see a decline in the use of the oral contraceptive pill. Although there have been studies showing a lack of knowledge about the mode of action of the pill and alternative methods, the number of German women who feel well informed about the pill increased over recent years. At the same time, a trend to increasingly cover negative aspects of oral contraception has emerged in German journalism and social media. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to consider the relationship between the source of information about the pill, subjective and objective knowledge, and how their interaction influences perceptions of the pill. STUDY DESIGN An online survey was conducted of 18- to 29-year-old women to test their objective and subjective knowledge, their perception of oral contraceptives, and their trust in gynecologists. The recruitment took place online and in gynecologic practices. The survey opened in September 2020 and closed in April 2021. RESULTS A total of 2470 women completed the survey. The most common sources of information were the internet (80%), the gynecologist (47%), and friends and family (47%). Women reporting the internet as a source of information were more likely to have lower perception and trust rates, and less likely to overestimate their own knowledge. The findings suggest that school or university as a source of information has a positive effect on decision-making and general attitude toward information received by gynecologists about oral contraceptives. Those with higher confidence in their knowledge are likely to have a more positive attitude and higher levels of trust. CONCLUSION A feeling of uncertainty, instead of fixed assumptions gathered from unsophisticated sources, affects perception regarding oral contraceptives and trust toward gynecologists negatively. Gynecologists and educators should hence increase efforts to meet potential needs for discussing uncertainties to prevent further loss of confidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stella Juliane Vieth
- Department for Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- Corresponding author.
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield-Department of Primary Care Health Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Nicolai Maass
- Klinik für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, Campus Kiel, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
| | - Anant Jani
- Nuffield-Department of Primary Care Health Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Otunla A, Rees K, Dennison P, Hobbs R, Suklan J, Schofield E, Gunnell J, Mighiu A, Hartmann-Boyce J. Risks of infection, hospital and ICU admission, and death from COVID-19 in people with asthma: systematic review and meta-analyses. BMJ Evid Based Med 2022; 27:263-273. [PMID: 34933924 DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111788] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/29/2021] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To determine if and to what degree asthma may predispose to worse COVID-19 outcomes in order to inform treatment and prevention decisions, including shielding and vaccine prioritisation. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING Electronic databases were searched (October 2020) for clinical studies reporting at least one of the following stratified by asthma status: risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2; hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission or mortality with COVID-19. PARTICIPANTS Adults and children who tested positive for or were suspected to have COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Main outcome measures were the following stratified by asthma status: risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2; hospitalisation, ICU admission or mortality with COVID-19. We pooled odds ratios (ORs) and presented these with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Certainty was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations). RESULTS 30 (n=112 420) studies were included (12 judged high quality, 15 medium, 3 low). Few provided indication of asthma severity. Point estimates indicated reduced risks in people with asthma for all outcomes, but in all cases the evidence was judged to be of very low certainty and 95% CIs all included no difference and the possibility of increased risk (death: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.13, I2=58%; hospitalisation: OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.26; ICU admission: OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.24). Findings on hospitalisation are also limited by substantial unexplained statistical heterogeneity. Within people with asthma, allergic asthma was associated with less COVID-19 risk and concurrent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was associated with increased risk. In some studies, corticosteroids were associated with increased risk, but this may reflect increased risk in people with more severe asthma. CONCLUSIONS Though absence of evidence of a clear association between asthma and worse outcomes from COVID-19 should not be interpreted as evidence of absence, the data reviewed indicate that risks from COVID-19 in people with asthma, as a whole, may be less than originally anticipated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Karen Rees
- Freelance systematic reviewer, Warwickshire, UK
| | - Paddy Dennison
- University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Richard Hobbs
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Jana Suklan
- NIHR Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
| | - Ella Schofield
- Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - James Gunnell
- Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, Ordóñez-Mena JM, Theodoulou A, Butler AR, Freeman SC, Sutton AJ, Jebb SA, Aveyard P. Impact of program characteristics on weight loss in adult behavioral weight management interventions: systematic review and component network meta-analysis. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2022; 30:1778-1786. [PMID: 35918886 PMCID: PMC9546221 DOI: 10.1002/oby.23505] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/14/2022] [Revised: 05/05/2022] [Accepted: 05/06/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Behavioral weight management programs (BWMPs) for adults lead to greater weight loss at 12 months than minimal-intervention control treatments. However, there is considerable heterogeneity in the content of BWMPs and outcomes of treatment. This study assessed the contribution of individual components of BWMPs, using Bayesian component network meta-analysis. METHODS Randomized controlled trials of BWMPs in adults were identified (latest search: December 2019) and arms coded for presence or absence of 29 intervention components grouped by type, content, provider, mode of delivery, and intensity. RESULTS A total of 169 studies (41 judged at high risk of bias) were included in the main analysis. Six components had effect estimates indicating clinically significant benefit and credible intervals (CrIs) excluding no difference: change in diet (mean difference [MD] = -1.84 kg, 95% CrI: -2.91 to -0.80); offering partial (MD = -2.12 kg, 95% CrI: -3.39 to -0.89) or total meal replacements (MD = -2.63 kg, 95% CrI: -4.58 to -0.73); delivery by a psychologist/counselor (MD = -1.45 kg, 95% CrI: -2.81 to -0.06) or dietitian (MD = -1.31 kg, 95% CrI: -2.40 to -0.24); and home setting (MD = -1.05 kg, 95% CrI: -2.02 to -0.09). CONCLUSIONS Future program development should consider including these components; other approaches continue to warrant evaluation of effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - José M Ordóñez-Mena
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Ailsa R Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Suzanne C Freeman
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Alex J Sutton
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Susan A Jebb
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Paul Aveyard
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Gao M, Aveyard P, Lindson N, Hartmann-Boyce J, Watkinson P, Young D, Coupland C, Clift AK, Harrison D, Gould D, Pavord ID, Smith M, Hippisley-Cox J. Association between smoking, e-cigarette use and severe COVID-19: a cohort study. Int J Epidemiol 2022; 51:1062-1072. [PMID: 35179598 PMCID: PMC8903448 DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyac028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2021] [Accepted: 02/03/2022] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Smoking is a risk factor for most respiratory infections, but it may protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection. The objective was to assess whether smoking and e-cigarette use were associated with severe COVID-19. METHODS This cohort ran from 24 January 2020 until 30 April 2020 at the height of the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in England. It comprised 7 869 534 people representative of the population of England with smoking status, demographic factors and diseases recorded by general practitioners in the medical records, which were linked to hospital and death data. The outcomes were COVID-19-associated hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death. The associations between smoking and the outcomes were assessed with Cox proportional hazards models, with sequential adjustment for confounding variables and indirect causal factors (body mass index and smoking-related disease). RESULTS Compared with never smokers, people currently smoking were at lower risk of COVID-19 hospitalization, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.64 (95% confidence intervals 0.60 to 0.69) for <10 cigarettes/day, 0.49 (0.41 to 0.59) for 10-19 cigarettes/day, and 0.61 (0.49 to 0.74) for ≥20 cigarettes/day. For ICU admission, the corresponding HRs were 0.31 (0.24 to 0.40), 0.15 (0.06 to 0.36), and 0.35 (0.17 to 0.74) and death were: 0.79 (0.70 to 0.89), 0.66 (0.48 to 0.90), and 0.77 (0.54 to 1.09) respectively. Former smokers were at higher risk of severe COVID-19: HRs: 1.07 (1.03 to 1.11) for hospitalization, 1.17 (1.04 to 1.31) for ICU admission, and 1.17 (1.10 to 1.24) for death. All-cause mortality was higher for current smoking than never smoking, HR 1.42 (1.36 to 1.48). Among e-cigarette users, the adjusted HR for e-cigarette use and hospitalization with COVID-19 was 1.06 (0.88 to 1.28), for ICU admission was 1.04 (0.57 to 1.89, and for death was 1.12 (0.81 to 1.55). CONCLUSIONS Current smoking was associated with a reduced risk of severe COVID-19 but the association with e-cigarette use was unclear. All-cause mortality remained higher despite this possible reduction in death from COVID-19 during an epidemic of SARS-CoV-2. Findings support investigating possible protective mechanisms of smoking for SARS-CoV-2 infection, including the ongoing trials of nicotine to treat COVID-19.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Min Gao
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
- School of Public Health, Peking University Health Science Centre, Beijing, China
| | - Paul Aveyard
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter Watkinson
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
- Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Duncan Young
- Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Carol Coupland
- Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Ashley K Clift
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - David Harrison
- Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre (ICNARC), Napier House, London, UK
| | - Doug Gould
- Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre (ICNARC), Napier House, London, UK
| | - Ian D Pavord
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
- Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Margaret Smith
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Julia Hippisley-Cox
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Wu AD, Lindson N, Hartmann-Boyce J, Wahedi A, Hajizadeh A, Theodoulou A, Thomas ET, Lee C, Aveyard P. Smoking cessation for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 8:CD014936. [PMID: 35938889 PMCID: PMC9358996 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd014936.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Smoking is a leading cause of cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly coronary heart disease (CHD). However, quitting smoking may prevent secondary CVD events in people already diagnosed with CHD. OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of smoking cessation on death from CVD and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), in people with incident CHD. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the trials registries clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We ran all searches from database inception to 15 April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cohort studies, and both cluster- and individually randomised controlled trials of at least six months' duration. We treated all included studies as cohort studies and analysed them by smoking status at follow-up. Eligible studies had to recruit adults (> 18 years) with diagnosed CHD and who smoked tobacco at diagnosis, and assess whether they quit or continued smoking during the study. Studies had to measure at least one of our included outcomes with at least six months' follow-up. Our primary outcomes were death from CVD and MACE. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, new-onset angina and change in quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. We assessed the risk of bias for the primary outcomes using the ROBINS-I tool. We compared the incidence of death from CVD and of MACE (primary outcomes) between participants who quit smoking versus those who continued to smoke for each included study that reported these outcomes. We also assessed differences in all-cause mortality, incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction, incidence of non-fatal stroke and new onset angina. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). For our outcome, change in quality of life, we calculated the pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for the difference in change in quality of life from baseline to follow-up between those who had quit smoking and those who had continued to smoke. For all meta-analyses we used a generic inverse variance random-effects model and quantified statistical heterogeneity using the I²statistic. We assessed the certainty of evidence for our primary outcomes using the eight GRADE considerations relevant to non-randomised studies. MAIN RESULTS We included 68 studies, consisting of 80,702 participants. For both primary outcomes, smoking cessation was associated with a decreased risk compared with continuous smoking: CVD death (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.75; I² = 62%; 18 studies, 17,982 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and MACE (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.71; I² = 84%; 15 studies, 20,290 participants; low-certainty evidence). These findings were robust to our planned sensitivity analyses. Through subgroup analysis, for example comparing adjusted versus non-adjusted estimates, we found no evidence of differences in the effect size. While there was substantial heterogeneity, this was primarily in magnitude rather than the direction of the effect estimates. Overall, we judged 11 (16%) studies to be at moderate risk of bias and 18 (26%) at serious risk, primarily due to possible confounding. There was also some evidence of funnel plot asymmetry for MACE outcomes. For these reasons, we rated our certainty in the estimates for CVD death as moderate and MACE as low. For our secondary outcomes, smoking cessation was associated with a decreased risk in all-cause mortality (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.66; I² = 58%; 48 studies, 59,354 participants), non-fatal myocardial infarction (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.72; I² = 2%; 24 studies, 23,264 participants) and non-fatal stroke (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.90; I² = 0%; 9 studies, 11,352 participants). As only one study reported new onset of angina, we did not conduct meta-analysis, but this study reported a lower risk in people who stopped smoking. Quitting smoking was not associated with a worsening of quality of life and suggested improvement in quality of life, with the lower bound of the CI also consistent with no difference (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.24; I² = 48%; 8 studies, 3182 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that smoking cessation is associated with a reduction of approximately one-third in the risk of recurrent cardiovascular disease in people who stop smoking at diagnosis. This association may be causal, based on the link between smoking cessation and restoration of endothelial and platelet function, where dysfunction of both can result in increased likelihood of CVD events. Our results provide evidence that there is a decreased risk of secondary CVD events in those who quit smoking compared with those who continue, and that there is a suggested improvement in quality of life as a result of quitting smoking. Additional studies that account for confounding, such as use of secondary CVD prevention medication, would strengthen the evidence in this area.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angela Difeng Wu
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Anisa Hajizadeh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Elizabeth T Thomas
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Charlotte Lee
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Paul Aveyard
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, Ordóñez-Mena JM, Livingstone-Banks J, Fanshawe TR, Lindson N, Freeman SC, Sutton AJ, Theodoulou A, Aveyard P. Behavioural programmes for cigarette smoking cessation: investigating interactions between behavioural, motivational and delivery components in a systematic review and component network meta-analysis. Addiction 2022; 117:2145-2156. [PMID: 34985167 DOI: 10.1111/add.15791] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2021] [Accepted: 12/07/2021] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]
Abstract
AIMS To investigate the comparative and combined effectiveness of four types of components of behavioural interventions for cigarette smoking cessation: behavioural (e.g. counselling), motivational (e.g. focus on reasons to quit), delivery mode (e.g. phone) and provider (e.g. nurse). DESIGN Systematic review and component network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials identified from Cochrane reviews. Interventions included behavioural interventions for smoking cessation (including all non-pharmacological interventions, e.g. counselling, exercise, hypnotherapy, self-help materials), compared with another behavioural intervention or no support. Building on a 2021 review (CD013229), we conducted three analyses, investigating: comparative effectiveness of the components, whether models that allowed interactions between components gave different results to models assuming additivity, and predicted effect estimates for combined effects of components that had showed promise but where there were few trials. SETTING Community and health-care settings. PARTICIPANTS Adults who smoke tobacco. MEASUREMENTS Smoking cessation at ≥6 months, preferring sustained, biochemically validated outcomes where available. FINDINGS Three hundred and twelve trials (250 563 participants) were included. Fifty were at high risk of bias using Cochrane risk of bias tool, V1 (ROB1); excluding these studies did not change findings. Head-to-head comparisons of components suggested that support via text message (SMS) compared with telephone (OR 1.48, 95% CrI 1.13-1.94) or print materials (OR 1.44, 95% CrI 1.14-1.83) was more effective, and individual delivery was less effective than delivery as part of a group (OR 0.78, 95% CrI 0.64-0.95). There was no conclusive evidence of synergistic or antagonistic interactions when combining components that were commonly used together. Adding multiple components that are commonly used in behavioural counselling suggested clinically relevant and statistically conclusive evidence of benefit. Components with the largest effects that could be combined, but rarely have been, were estimated to increase the odds of quitting between two and threefold. For example, financial incentives delivered via SMS, with tailoring and a focus on how to quit, had an estimated OR of 2.94 (95% CrI 1.91-4.52). CONCLUSIONS Among the components of behavioural support for smoking cessation, behavioural counselling and guaranteed financial incentives are associated with the greatest success. Incorporating additional components associated with effectiveness may further increase benefit, with delivery via text message showing particular promise.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - José M Ordóñez-Mena
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.,NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Suzanne C Freeman
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Alex J Sutton
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Paul Aveyard
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.,NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Javornik N, Powell DJH, Eisma MC, Johnston M, Campbell MK, Hartmann-Boyce J, Michie S, West R, Black N, de Bruin M. Pragmatic evaluation of methods for retrieving unpublished information on comparator interventions in a systematic review of smoking cessation trials. Psychol Health 2022; 39:1-17. [PMID: 35876093 PMCID: PMC10911680 DOI: 10.1080/08870446.2022.2081688] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2021] [Revised: 03/23/2022] [Accepted: 04/06/2022] [Indexed: 10/16/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Reporting of the content and delivery characteristics of comparator interventions in published articles is often incomplete. This study examines the feasibility and validity of two methods for collecting additional information on comparator interventions from trial authors. METHODS & MEASURES In a systematic review of smoking cessation trials (IC-Smoke), all trial authors were asked to send unpublished comparator intervention materials and complete a specially-developed comparator intervention checklist. All published and additionally obtained information from authors were coded for behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and other characteristics (type of comparator, provider, provider training, delivery mode and treatment duration). To assess representativeness, we assessed the amount of additional information obtained from trial authors compared with the amount that was published. We examined known-group and convergent validity of comparator intervention data when using only published or also unpublished information. RESULTS Additional information were obtained from 91/136 (67%) of trial authors. Representativeness, known-group and convergent validity improved substantially based on the data collected by means of the comparator intervention checklist, but not by requesting authors to send any existing comparator materials. CONCLUSIONS Requesting authors for unpublished comparator intervention data, using specially-developed checklists and unpublished materials, substantially improves the quality of data available for systematic reviews.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neža Javornik
- Health Psychology Group, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
| | - Daniel J. H. Powell
- Health Psychology Group, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
- Rowett Institute, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
| | - Maarten C. Eisma
- Department of Clinical Psychology and Experimental Psychopathology, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Marie Johnston
- Health Psychology Group, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
| | - Marion K. Campbell
- Health Services Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences and National Institute of Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Susan Michie
- Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Robert West
- Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Nicola Black
- Health Psychology Group, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
- Technology Addiction Team, Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Australia
| | - Marijn de Bruin
- Health Psychology Group, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
- Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ Healthcare, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, Rees K, Perring JC, Kerneis SA, Morris EM, Goyder C, Otunla AA, James OE, Syam NR, Seidu S, Khunti K. Erratum. Risks of and From SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 in People With Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Reviews. Diabetes Care 2021;44:2790-2811. Diabetes Care 2022; 45:1489. [PMID: 35263419 PMCID: PMC9210517 DOI: 10.2337/dc22-er06] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
|
32
|
Livingstone-Banks J, Lindson N, Hartmann-Boyce J, Aveyard P. Effects of interventions to combat tobacco addiction: Cochrane update of 2019 and 2020 reviews. Addiction 2022; 117:1573-1588. [PMID: 34859525 DOI: 10.1111/add.15769] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/20/2021] [Accepted: 11/15/2021] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]
Abstract
AIMS To summarize evidence on tobacco addiction interventions published by the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group (CTAG) from 2019 to 2020. METHODS Narrative summary of all new and updated Cochrane Reviews published by CTAG in 2019 and 2020, outlining key results and promising avenues for future research. RESULTS CTAG published six new reviews and updated 15 reviews. There is high-certainty evidence that combining fast-acting nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) with transdermal patches helped more people to quit than single-form NRT [risk ratio (RR) = 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.15-1.36, 14 studies, n = 11 356; I2 = 4%] and moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT before quitting can increase quit rates more than using NRT from quit day onwards (RR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.08-1.44, nine studies, n = 4395; I2 = 0%). Reducing smoking in order to quit completely results in similar quit rates to abrupt quitting (RR = 1.01, 95% CI= 0.87-1.17; I2 = 29%; 22 studies, n = 9219; moderate-certainty). Electronic cigarettes may help more people quit than NRT (RR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.21-1.93; I2 = 0%; four studies, n = 1924; moderate certainty), nicotine-free electronic cigarettes (RR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.21-3.13; I2 = 0%; five studies, n = 1447; moderate-certainty) and behavioural/no support (RR = 2.61, 95% CI = 1.44-4.74; I2 = 0%; six studies, n = 2886; very low-certainty). Varenicline may help prevent relapse in abstainers (RR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.08-1.41; I2 = 82%; 11 studies, n = 1297; moderate-certainty), but behavioural support did not prevent relapse (RR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.87-1.11; I2 = 52%; 11 studies, n = 5523; moderate-certainty). Financial incentives increased quit rates in the general population (RR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.28-1.73; I2 = 33%; 30 studies, adjusted n = 20 097; high-certainty) and during pregnancy (RR = 2.38, 95% CI = 1.54-3.69; I2 = 41%; nine studies, n = 2273; moderate-certainty). This overview also provides detail on a wider range of interventions. CONCLUSIONS There is high certainty that using nicotine replacement therapy from quit day increases smoking abstinence and no further research is required. Evidence is less certain that nicotine replacement increases abstinence when used in higher doses tailored to particular groups of smokers or use prior to quit day, and further research would be helpful. There is moderate-certainty evidence to support the use of e-cigarettes as cessation aids, but research on their role in preventing relapse would be particularly helpful.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Paul Aveyard
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Lindson N, Theodoulou A, Livingstone-Banks J, Aveyard P, Fanshawe TR, Ordóñez-Mena JM, Sutton AJ, Freeman SC, Agrawal S, Hartmann-Boyce J. Pharmacological and electronic cigarette interventions for smoking cessation in adults: component network meta-analyses. Hippokratia 2022. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd015226] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences; University of Oxford; Oxford UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences; University of Oxford; Oxford UK
| | | | - Paul Aveyard
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences; University of Oxford; Oxford UK
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences; University of Oxford; Oxford UK
| | - José M Ordóñez-Mena
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences; University of Oxford; Oxford UK
| | - Alex J Sutton
- Department of Health Sciences; University of Leicester; Leicester UK
| | - Suzanne C Freeman
- Department of Health Sciences; University of Leicester; Leicester UK
| | - Sanjay Agrawal
- Department of Respiratory Sciences; University of Leicester; Leicester UK
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences; University of Oxford; Oxford UK
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Abstract
IMPORTANCE More deaths in the US are attributed to cigarette smoking each year than to any other preventable cause. Approximately 34 million people and an estimated 14% of adults in the US smoke cigarettes. If they stopped smoking, they could reduce their risk of tobacco-related morbidity and mortality and potentially gain up to 10 years of life. OBSERVATIONS Tobacco smoking is a chronic disorder maintained by physical nicotine dependence and learned behaviors. Approximately 70% of people who smoke cigarettes want to quit smoking. However, individuals who attempt to quit smoking make an average of approximately 6 quit attempts before achieving long-term abstinence. Both behavioral counseling and pharmacotherapy while using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products, varenicline, or bupropion are effective treatments when used individually, but they are most effective when combined. In a meta-analysis including 19 488 people who smoked cigarettes, the combination of medication and behavioral counseling was associated with a quit rate of 15.2% over 6 months compared with a quit rate of 8.6% with brief advice or usual care. The EAGLES trial, a randomized double-blind clinical trial of 8144 people who smoked, directly compared the efficacy and safety of varenicline, bupropion, nicotine patch, and placebo and found a significantly higher 6-month quit rate for varenicline (21.8%) than for bupropion (16.2%) and the nicotine patch (15.7%). Each therapy was more effective than placebo (9.4%). Combining a nicotine patch with other NRT products is more effective than use of a single NRT product. Combining drugs with different mechanisms of action, such as varenicline and NRT, has increased quit rates in some studies compared with use of a single product. Brief or intensive behavioral support can be delivered effectively in person or by telephone, text messages, or the internet. The combination of a clinician's brief advice to quit and assistance to obtain tobacco cessation treatment is effective when routinely administered to tobacco users in virtually all health care settings. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Approximately 34 million people in the US smoke cigarettes and could potentially gain up to a decade of life expectancy by stopping smoking. First-line therapy should include both pharmacotherapy and behavioral support, with varenicline or combination NRT as preferred initial interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nancy A Rigotti
- Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Mongan Institute, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Gina R Kruse
- Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Mongan Institute, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Bricca A, Swithenbank Z, Scott N, Treweek S, Johnston M, Black N, Hartmann-Boyce J, West R, Michie S, de Bruin M. Predictors of recruitment and retention in randomized controlled trials of behavioural smoking cessation interventions: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Addiction 2022; 117:299-311. [PMID: 34159677 DOI: 10.1111/add.15614] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2020] [Revised: 04/06/2021] [Accepted: 06/09/2021] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
AIM To investigate predictors of participant eligibility, recruitment and retention in behavioural randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for smoking cessation. METHOD Systematic review and pre-specified meta-regression analysis of behavioural RCTs for smoking cessation including adult (≥ 18-year-old) smokers. The pre-specified predictors were identified through a literature review and experts' consultation and included participant, trial and intervention characteristics and recruitment and retention strategies. Outcome measures included eligibility rates (proportion of people eligible for the trials), recruitment rates, retention rates and differential retention rates. RESULTS A total of 172 RCTs with 89 639 participants. Eligibility [median 57.6%; interquartile range (IQR) = 34.7-83.7], recruitment (median 66.4%; IQR = 42.7-85.2) and retention rates (median 80.5%; IQR = 68.5-89.5) varied considerably across studies. For eligibility rates, the recruitment strategy appeared not to be associated with eligibility rates. For recruitment rates, use of indirect recruitment strategies (e.g. public announcements) [odds ratio (OR) = 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.11-0.82] and self-help interventions (OR = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.03-0.67) were associated with lower recruitment rates. For retention rates, higher retention was seen if the sample had ongoing physical health condition/s (OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.04-2.63), whereas lower retention was seen amongst primarily female samples (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.71-0.98) and those motivated to quit smoking (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.55-0.99) when indirect recruitment methods were used (OR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.38-0.97) and at longer follow-up assessments (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.79-0.87). For differential retention, higher retention in the intervention group occurred when the intervention but not comparator group received financial incentives for smoking cessation (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.02-1.77). CONCLUSIONS In randomized controlled trials of behavioural smoking cessation interventions, recruitment and retention rates appear to be higher for smoking cessation interventions that include a person-to-person rather than at-a-distance contact; male participants, smokers with chronic conditions, smokers not initially motivated to quit and shorter follow-up assessments seems to be associated with improved retention; financial incentive interventions improve retention in groups receiving them relative to comparison groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alessio Bricca
- Health Psychology Group, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
- Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Function and Physiotherapy, Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
- The Research Unit PROgrez, Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Naestved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals, Slagelse, Denmark, Slagelse, Denmark
| | - Zoe Swithenbank
- Health Psychology Group, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
- Public Health Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK
| | - Neil Scott
- Medical Statistics Team, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
| | - Shaun Treweek
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
| | - Marie Johnston
- Health Psychology Group, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
| | - Nicola Black
- Health Psychology Group, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
- Technology Addiction Team, Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences and National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Robert West
- Health Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Susan Michie
- Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK
| | - Marijn de Bruin
- Health Psychology Group, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
- Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Tattan-Birch H, Hartmann-Boyce J, Kock L, Simonavicius E, Brose L, Jackson S, Shahab L, Brown J. Heated tobacco products for smoking cessation and reducing smoking prevalence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 1:CD013790. [PMID: 34988969 PMCID: PMC8733777 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013790.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Heated tobacco products (HTPs) are designed to heat tobacco to a high enough temperature to release aerosol, without burning it or producing smoke. They differ from e-cigarettes because they heat tobacco leaf/sheet rather than a liquid. Companies who make HTPs claim they produce fewer harmful chemicals than conventional cigarettes. Some people report stopping smoking cigarettes entirely by switching to using HTPs, so clinicians need to know whether they are effective for this purpose and relatively safe. Also, to regulate HTPs appropriately, policymakers should understand their impact on health and on cigarette smoking prevalence. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of HTPs for smoking cessation and the impact of HTPs on smoking prevalence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and six other databases for relevant records to January 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors and relevant groups. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people who smoked cigarettes were randomised to switch to exclusive HTP use or a control condition. Eligible outcomes were smoking cessation, adverse events, and selected biomarkers. RCTs conducted in clinic or in an ambulatory setting were deemed eligible when assessing safety, including those randomising participants to exclusively use HTPs, smoke cigarettes, or attempt abstinence from all tobacco. Time-series studies were also eligible for inclusion if they examined the population-level impact of heated tobacco on smoking prevalence or cigarette sales as an indirect measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking at the longest follow-up point available, adverse events, serious adverse events, and changes in smoking prevalence or cigarette sales. Other outcomes included biomarkers of harm and exposure to toxicants/carcinogens (e.g. NNAL and carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb)). We used a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences on the log-transformed scale (LMD) with 95% CIs. We pooled data across studies using meta-analysis where possible. MAIN RESULTS We included 13 completed studies, of which 11 were RCTs assessing safety (2666 participants) and two were time-series studies. We judged eight RCTs to be at unclear risk of bias and three at high risk. All RCTs were funded by tobacco companies. Median length of follow-up was 13 weeks. No studies reported smoking cessation outcomes. There was insufficient evidence for a difference in risk of adverse events between smokers randomised to switch to heated tobacco or continue smoking cigarettes, limited by imprecision and risk of bias (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.15; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 1713 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether risk of serious adverse events differed between groups due to very serious imprecision and risk of bias (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.94; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1472 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence for lower NNAL and COHb at follow-up in heated tobacco than cigarette smoking groups, limited by risk of bias (NNAL: LMD -0.81, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.55; I2 = 92%; 10 studies, 1959 participants; COHb: LMD -0.74, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.52; I2 = 96%; 9 studies, 1807 participants). Evidence for additional biomarkers of exposure are reported in the main body of the review. There was insufficient evidence for a difference in risk of adverse events in smokers randomised to switch to heated tobacco or attempt abstinence from all tobacco, limited by risk of bias and imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.46; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 237 participants). Five studies reported that no serious adverse events occurred in either group (533 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that urine concentrations of NNAL at follow-up were higher in the heated tobacco use compared with abstinence group (LMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.66; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 382 participants). In addition, there was very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision, for higher COHb in the heated tobacco use compared with abstinence group for intention-to-treat analyses (LMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.31; 3 studies, 212 participants), but lower COHb in per-protocol analyses (LMD -0.32, 95% CI -1.04 to 0.39; 2 studies, 170 participants). Evidence concerning additional biomarkers is reported in the main body of the review. Data from two time-series studies showed that the rate of decline in cigarette sales accelerated following the introduction of heated tobacco to market in Japan. This evidence was of very low-certainty as there was risk of bias, including possible confounding, and cigarette sales are an indirect measure of smoking prevalence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS No studies reported on cigarette smoking cessation, so the effectiveness of heated tobacco for this purpose remains uncertain. There was insufficient evidence for differences in risk of adverse or serious adverse events between people randomised to switch to heated tobacco, smoke cigarettes, or attempt tobacco abstinence in the short-term. There was moderate-certainty evidence that heated tobacco users have lower exposure to toxicants/carcinogens than cigarette smokers and very low- to moderate-certainty evidence of higher exposure than those attempting abstinence from all tobacco. Independently funded research on the effectiveness and safety of HTPs is needed. The rate of decline in cigarette sales accelerated after the introduction of heated tobacco to market in Japan but, as data were observational, it is possible other factors caused these changes. Moreover, falls in cigarette sales may not translate to declining smoking prevalence, and changes in Japan may not generalise elsewhere. To clarify the impact of rising heated tobacco use on smoking prevalence, there is a need for time-series studies that examine this association.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Harry Tattan-Birch
- Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Loren Kock
- Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Erikas Simonavicius
- Department of Addictions, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Leonie Brose
- Department of Addictions, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Sarah Jackson
- Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Lion Shahab
- Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Jamie Brown
- Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Theodoulou A, Lindson N, Fanshawe TR, Thomas J, Nollen N, Ahluwalia JS, Leavens E, Hartmann-Boyce J. The effect of individual-level smoking cessation interventions on socioeconomic inequalities in tobacco smoking. Hippokratia 2021. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd015120] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences; University of Oxford; Oxford UK
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences; University of Oxford; Oxford UK
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences; University of Oxford; Oxford UK
| | - James Thomas
- EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education; University College London; London UK
| | - Nicole Nollen
- Department of Population Health; University of Kansas School of Medicine; Kansas City Kansas USA
| | - Jasjit S Ahluwalia
- Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences; Brown University School of Public Health and Department of Medicine, Alpert Medical School; Providence Rhode Island USA
| | - Eleanor Leavens
- Department of Population Health; University of Kansas School of Medicine; Kansas City Kansas USA
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences; University of Oxford; Oxford UK
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, Rees K, Perring JC, Kerneis SA, Morris EM, Goyder C, Otunla AA, James OA, Syam NR, Seidu S, Khunti K. Risks of and From SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 in People With Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Reviews. Diabetes Care 2021; 44:2790-2811. [PMID: 34711637 PMCID: PMC8669527 DOI: 10.2337/dc21-0930] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/30/2021] [Accepted: 09/10/2021] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This review was commissioned by the World Health Organization and presents a summary of the latest research evidence on the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on people with diabetes (PWD). PURPOSE To review the evidence regarding the extent to which PWD are at increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and/or of suffering its complications, including associated mortality. DATA SOURCES We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Embase, MEDLINE, and LitCOVID on 3 December 2020. STUDY SELECTION Systematic reviews synthesizing data on PWD exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection, reporting data on confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, admission to hospital and/or to intensive care unit (ICU) with COVID-19, and death with COVID-19 were used. DATA EXTRACTION One reviewer appraised and extracted data; data were checked by a second. DATA SYNTHESIS Data from 112 systematic reviews were narratively synthesized and displayed using effect direction plots. Reviews provided consistent evidence that diabetes is a risk factor for severe disease and death from COVID-19. Fewer data were available on ICU admission, but where available, these data also signaled increased risk. Within PWD, higher blood glucose levels both prior to and during COVID-19 illness were associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. Type 1 diabetes was associated with worse outcomes than type 2 diabetes. There were no appropriate data for discerning whether diabetes was a risk factor for acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection. LIMITATIONS Due to the nature of the review questions, the majority of data contributing to included reviews come from retrospective observational studies. Reviews varied in the extent to which they assessed risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS There are no data on whether diabetes predisposes to infection with SARS-CoV-2. Data consistently show that diabetes increases risk of severe COVID-19. As both diabetes and worse COVID-19 outcomes are associated with socioeconomic disadvantage, their intersection warrants particular attention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K.
| | - Karen Rees
- Freelance systematic reviewer, Warwickshire, U.K
| | - James C Perring
- Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K
| | - Sven A Kerneis
- Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K
| | - Elizabeth M Morris
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K
| | - Clare Goyder
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K
| | | | - Olivia A James
- Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K
| | - Nandana R Syam
- Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K
| | - Samuel Seidu
- Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, U.K
| | - Kamlesh Khunti
- Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, U.K
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, Theodoulou A, Farley A, Hajek P, Lycett D, Jones LL, Kudlek L, Heath L, Hajizadeh A, Schenkels M, Aveyard P. Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 10:CD006219. [PMID: 34611902 PMCID: PMC8493442 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006219.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Most people who stop smoking gain weight. This can discourage some people from making a quit attempt and risks offsetting some, but not all, of the health advantages of quitting. Interventions to prevent weight gain could improve health outcomes, but there is a concern that they may undermine quitting. OBJECTIVES To systematically review the effects of: (1) interventions targeting post-cessation weight gain on weight change and smoking cessation (referred to as 'Part 1') and (2) interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that plausibly affect post-cessation weight gain (referred to as 'Part 2'). SEARCH METHODS Part 1 - We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; latest search 16 October 2020. Part 2 - We searched included studies in the following 'parent' Cochrane reviews: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, e-cigarettes, and exercise interventions for smoking cessation published in Issue 10, 2020 of the Cochrane Library. We updated register searches for the review of nicotine receptor partial agonists. SELECTION CRITERIA Part 1 - trials of interventions that targeted post-cessation weight gain and had measured weight at any follow-up point or smoking cessation, or both, six or more months after quit day. Part 2 - trials included in the selected parent Cochrane reviews reporting weight change at any time point. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. Change in weight was expressed as difference in weight change from baseline to follow-up between trial arms and was reported only in people abstinent from smoking. Abstinence from smoking was expressed as a risk ratio (RR). Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the inverse variance method for weight, and Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking. MAIN RESULTS Part 1: We include 37 completed studies; 21 are new to this update. We judged five studies to be at low risk of bias, 17 to be at unclear risk and the remainder at high risk. An intermittent very low calorie diet (VLCD) comprising full meal replacement provided free of charge and accompanied by intensive dietitian support significantly reduced weight gain at end of treatment compared with education on how to avoid weight gain (mean difference (MD) -3.70 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.82 to -2.58; 1 study, 121 participants), but there was no evidence of benefit at 12 months (MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI -3.49 to 0.89; 1 study, 62 participants). The VLCD increased the chances of abstinence at 12 months (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73; 1 study, 287 participants). However, a second study found that no-one completed the VLCD intervention or achieved abstinence. Interventions aimed at increasing acceptance of weight gain reported mixed effects at end of treatment, 6 months and 12 months with confidence intervals including both increases and decreases in weight gain compared with no advice or health education. Due to high heterogeneity, we did not combine the data. These interventions increased quit rates at 6 months (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.96; 4 studies, 619 participants; I2 = 21%), but there was no evidence at 12 months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.06; 2 studies, 496 participants; I2 = 26%). Some pharmacological interventions tested for limiting post-cessation weight gain (PCWG) reduced weight gain at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine, phenylpropanolamine, naltrexone). The effects of ephedrine and caffeine combined, lorcaserin, and chromium were too imprecise to give useful estimates of treatment effects. There was very low-certainty evidence that personalized weight management support reduced weight gain at end of treatment (MD -1.11 kg, 95% CI -1.93 to -0.29; 3 studies, 121 participants; I2 = 0%), but no evidence in the longer-term 12 months (MD -0.44 kg, 95% CI -2.34 to 1.46; 4 studies, 530 participants; I2 = 41%). There was low to very low-certainty evidence that detailed weight management education without personalized assessment, planning and feedback did not reduce weight gain and may have reduced smoking cessation rates (12 months: MD -0.21 kg, 95% CI -2.28 to 1.86; 2 studies, 61 participants; I2 = 0%; RR for smoking cessation 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90; 2 studies, 522 participants; I2 = 0%). Part 2: We include 83 completed studies, 27 of which are new to this update. There was low certainty that exercise interventions led to minimal or no weight reduction compared with standard care at end of treatment (MD -0.25 kg, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.29; 4 studies, 404 participants; I2 = 0%). However, weight was reduced at 12 months (MD -2.07 kg, 95% CI -3.78 to -0.36; 3 studies, 182 participants; I2 = 0%). Both bupropion and fluoxetine limited weight gain at end of treatment (bupropion MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.67; 10 studies, 1098 participants; I2 = 3%); (fluoxetine MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.53; 2 studies, 144 participants; I2 = 38%; low- and very low-certainty evidence, respectively). There was no evidence of benefit at 12 months for bupropion, but estimates were imprecise (bupropion MD -0.26 kg, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.78; 7 studies, 471 participants; I2 = 0%). No studies of fluoxetine provided data at 12 months. There was moderate-certainty that NRT reduced weight at end of treatment (MD -0.52 kg, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.05; 21 studies, 2784 participants; I2 = 81%) and moderate-certainty that the effect may be similar at 12 months (MD -0.37 kg, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.11; 17 studies, 1463 participants; I2 = 0%), although the estimates are too imprecise to assess long-term benefit. There was mixed evidence of the effect of varenicline on weight, with high-certainty evidence that weight change was very modestly lower at the end of treatment (MD -0.23 kg, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.06; 14 studies, 2566 participants; I2 = 32%); a low-certainty estimate gave an imprecise estimate of higher weight at 12 months (MD 1.05 kg, 95% CI -0.58 to 2.69; 3 studies, 237 participants; I2 = 0%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Overall, there is no intervention for which there is moderate certainty of a clinically useful effect on long-term weight gain. There is also no moderate- or high-certainty evidence that interventions designed to limit weight gain reduce the chances of people achieving abstinence from smoking.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Amanda Farley
- Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Peter Hajek
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Deborah Lycett
- Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Coventry, UK
| | - Laura L Jones
- Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Laura Kudlek
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Laura Heath
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Anisa Hajizadeh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Paul Aveyard
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Potter C, Bastounis A, Hartmann-Boyce J, Stewart C, Frie K, Tudor K, Bianchi F, Cartwright E, Cook B, Rayner M, Jebb SA. The Effects of Environmental Sustainability Labels on Selection, Purchase, and Consumption of Food and Drink Products: A Systematic Review. Environ Behav 2021; 53:891-925. [PMID: 34456340 PMCID: PMC8384304 DOI: 10.1177/0013916521995473] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
This review assessed the effects of environmental labels on consumers' demand for more sustainable food products. Six electronic databases were searched for experimental studies of ecolabels and food choices. We followed standard Cochrane methods and results were synthesized using vote counting. Fifty-six studies (N = 42,768 participants, 76 interventions) were included. Outcomes comprised selection (n = 14), purchase (n = 40) and consumption (n = 2). The ecolabel was presented as text (n = 36), logo (n = 13) or combination (n = 27). Message types included: organic (n = 25), environmentally sustainable (n = 27), greenhouse gas emissions (n = 17), and assorted "other" message types (n = 7). Ecolabels were tested in actual (n = 15) and hypothetical (n = 41) environments. Thirty-nine studies received an unclear or high RoB rating. Sixty comparisons favored the intervention and 16 favored control. Ecolabeling with a variety of messages and formats was associated with the selection and purchase of more sustainable food products.
Collapse
|
41
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, McRobbie H, Butler AR, Lindson N, Bullen C, Begh R, Theodoulou A, Notley C, Rigotti NA, Turner T, Fanshawe TR, Hajek P. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 9:CD010216. [PMID: 34519354 PMCID: PMC8438601 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010216.pub6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 63] [Impact Index Per Article: 21.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update conducted as part of a living systematic review. OBJECTIVES To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 May 2021, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. We screened abstracts from the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) 2021 Annual Meeting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS We included 61 completed studies, representing 16,759 participants, of which 34 were RCTs. Five of the 61 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated seven (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 42 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1924 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 6). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90: I2 = 0; 4 studies, 1424 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.38; I2 = 0; 5 studies, 792 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.74; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 2886 participants). In absolute terms this represents an additional six quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 15). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants), and again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.24; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 1303 participants). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Hayden McRobbie
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Ailsa R Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Chris Bullen
- National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Rachna Begh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Caitlin Notley
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Nancy A Rigotti
- Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Tari Turner
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter Hajek
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, Theodoulou A, Oke JL, Butler AR, Scarborough P, Bastounis A, Dunnigan A, Byadya R, Hobbs FDR, Sniehotta FF, Jebb SA, Aveyard P. Association between characteristics of behavioural weight loss programmes and weight change after programme end: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2021; 374:n1840. [PMID: 34404631 PMCID: PMC8369384 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n1840] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine if the characteristics of behavioural weight loss programmes influence the rate of change in weight after the end of the programme. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES Trial registries, 11 electronic databases, and forward citation searching (from database inception; latest search December 2019). Randomised trials of behavioural weight loss programmes in adults with overweight or obesity, reporting outcomes at ≥12 months, including at the end of the programme and after the end of the programme. REVIEW METHODS Studies were screened by two independent reviewers with discrepancies resolved by discussion. 5% of the studies identified in the searches met the inclusion criteria. One reviewer extracted the data and a second reviewer checked the data. Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane's risk of bias tool (version 1). The rate of change in weight was calculated (kg/month; converted to kg/year for interpretability) after the end of the programme in the intervention versus control groups by a mixed model with a random intercept. Associations between the rate of change in weight and prespecified variables were tested. RESULTS Data were analysed from 249 trials (n=59 081) with a mean length of follow-up of two years (longest 30 years). 56% of studies (n=140) had an unclear risk of bias, 21% (n=52) a low risk, and 23% (n=57) a high risk of bias. Regain in weight was faster in the intervention versus the no intervention control groups (0.12-0.32 kg/year) but the difference between groups was maintained for at least five years. Each kilogram of weight lost at the end of the programme was associated with faster regain in weight at a rate of 0.13-0.19 kg/year. Financial incentives for weight loss were associated with faster regain in weight at a rate of 1-1.5 kg/year. Compared with programmes with no meal replacements, interventions involving partial meal replacements were associated with faster regain in weight but not after adjustment for weight loss during the programme. Access to the programme outside of the study was associated with slower regain in weight. Programmes where the intensity of the interaction reduced gradually were also associated with slower regain in weight in the multivariable analysis, although the point estimate suggested that the association was small. Other characteristics did not explain the heterogeneity in regain in weight. CONCLUSION Faster regain in weight after weight loss was associated with greater initial weight loss, but greater initial weight loss was still associated with reduced weight for at least five years after the end of the programme, after which data were limited. Continued availability of the programme to participants outside of the study predicted a slower regain in weight, and provision of financial incentives predicted faster regain in weight; no other clear associations were found. STUDY REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42018105744.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Jason L Oke
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Ailsa R Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter Scarborough
- Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Big Data Institute, Oxford, UK
| | - Anastasios Bastounis
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Anna Dunnigan
- Royal Free Hospital, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Rimu Byadya
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- United Nations World Food Programme, Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh
| | - F D Richard Hobbs
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Falko F Sniehotta
- Faculty of Medical Sciences, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
- Faculty of Behavioural, Management, and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands
| | - Susan A Jebb
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Paul Aveyard
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Aveyard P, Gao M, Lindson N, Hartmann-Boyce J, Watkinson P, Young D, Coupland CAC, Tan PS, Clift AK, Harrison D, Gould DW, Pavord ID, Hippisley-Cox J. Association between pre-existing respiratory disease and its treatment, and severe COVID-19: a population cohort study. Lancet Respir Med 2021; 9:909-923. [PMID: 33812494 PMCID: PMC8016404 DOI: 10.1016/s2213-2600(21)00095-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 155] [Impact Index Per Article: 51.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2020] [Revised: 02/08/2021] [Accepted: 02/08/2021] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Previous studies suggested that the prevalence of chronic respiratory disease in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 was lower than its prevalence in the general population. The aim of this study was to assess whether chronic lung disease or use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) affects the risk of contracting severe COVID-19. METHODS In this population cohort study, records from 1205 general practices in England that contribute to the QResearch database were linked to Public Health England's database of SARS-CoV-2 testing and English hospital admissions, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and deaths for COVID-19. All patients aged 20 years and older who were registered with one of the 1205 general practices on Jan 24, 2020, were included in this study. With Cox regression, we examined the risks of COVID-19-related hospitalisation, admission to ICU, and death in relation to respiratory disease and use of ICS, adjusting for demographic and socioeconomic status and comorbidities associated with severe COVID-19. FINDINGS Between Jan 24 and April 30, 2020, 8 256 161 people were included in the cohort and observed, of whom 14 479 (0·2%) were admitted to hospital with COVID-19, 1542 (<0·1%) were admitted to ICU, and 5956 (0·1%) died. People with some respiratory diseases were at an increased risk of hospitalisation (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] hazard ratio [HR] 1·54 [95% CI 1·45-1·63], asthma 1·18 [1·13-1·24], severe asthma 1·29 [1·22-1·37; people on three or more current asthma medications], bronchiectasis 1·34 [1·20-1·50], sarcoidosis 1·36 [1·10-1·68], extrinsic allergic alveolitis 1·35 [0·82-2·21], idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis 1·59 [1·30-1·95], other interstitial lung disease 1·66 [1·30-2·12], and lung cancer 2·24 [1·89-2·65]) and death (COPD 1·54 [1·42-1·67], asthma 0·99 [0·91-1·07], severe asthma 1·08 [0·98-1·19], bronchiectasis 1·12 [0·94-1·33], sarcoidosis 1·41 [0·99-1·99), extrinsic allergic alveolitis 1·56 [0·78-3·13], idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis 1·47 [1·12-1·92], other interstitial lung disease 2·05 [1·49-2·81], and lung cancer 1·77 [1·37-2·29]) due to COVID-19 compared with those without these diseases. Admission to ICU was rare, but the HR for people with asthma was 1·08 (0·93-1·25) and severe asthma was 1·30 (1·08-1·58). In a post-hoc analysis, relative risks of severe COVID-19 in people with respiratory disease were similar before and after shielding was introduced on March 23, 2020. In another post-hoc analysis, people with two or more prescriptions for ICS in the 150 days before study start were at a slightly higher risk of severe COVID-19 compared with all other individuals (ie, no or one ICS prescription): HR 1·13 (1·03-1·23) for hospitalisation, 1·63 (1·18-2·24) for ICU admission, and 1·15 (1·01-1·31) for death. INTERPRETATION The risk of severe COVID-19 in people with asthma is relatively small. People with COPD and interstitial lung disease appear to have a modestly increased risk of severe disease, but their risk of death from COVID-19 at the height of the epidemic was mostly far lower than the ordinary risk of death from any cause. Use of inhaled steroids might be associated with a modestly increased risk of severe COVID-19. FUNDING National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and the Wellcome Trust.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Aveyard
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
| | - Min Gao
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK; School of Public Health, Peking University Health Science Centre, Beijing, China
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter Watkinson
- Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Duncan Young
- Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Carol A C Coupland
- University of Nottingham, Division of Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University Park, Nottingham, UK
| | - Pui San Tan
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Ashley K Clift
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - David Harrison
- Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, London, UK
| | - Doug W Gould
- Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, London, UK
| | - Ian D Pavord
- Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Julia Hippisley-Cox
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Bastounis A, Buckell J, Hartmann-Boyce J, Cook B, King S, Potter C, Bianchi F, Rayner M, Jebb SA. The Impact of Environmental Sustainability Labels on Willingness-to-Pay for Foods: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments. Nutrients 2021; 13:2677. [PMID: 34444837 PMCID: PMC8398923 DOI: 10.3390/nu13082677] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2021] [Revised: 07/12/2021] [Accepted: 07/23/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Food production is a major contributor to environmental damage. More environmentally sustainable foods could incur higher costs for consumers. In this review, we explore whether consumers are willing to pay (WTP) more for foods with environmental sustainability labels ('ecolabels'). Six electronic databases were searched for experiments on consumers' willingness to pay for ecolabelled food. Monetary values were converted to Purchasing Power Parity dollars and adjusted for country-specific inflation. Studies were meta-analysed and effect sizes with confidence intervals were calculated for the whole sample and for pre-specified subgroups defined as meat-dairy, seafood, and fruits-vegetables-nuts. Meta-regressions tested the role of label attributes and demographic characteristics on participants' WTP. Forty-three discrete choice experiments (DCEs) with 41,777 participants were eligible for inclusion. Thirty-five DCEs (n = 35,725) had usable data for the meta-analysis. Participants were willing to pay a premium of 3.79 PPP$/kg (95%CI 2.7, 4.89, p ≤ 0.001) for ecolabelled foods. WTP was higher for organic labels compared to other labels. Women and people with lower levels of education expressed higher WTP. Ecolabels may increase consumers' willingness to pay more for environmentally sustainable products and could be part of a strategy to encourage a transition to more sustainable diets.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anastasios Bastounis
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK; (A.B.); (J.B.); (J.H.-B.); (S.K.); (C.P.); (F.B.); (S.A.J.)
- Division of Epidemiology & Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, City Hospital, Hucknall Road, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK
| | - John Buckell
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK; (A.B.); (J.B.); (J.H.-B.); (S.K.); (C.P.); (F.B.); (S.A.J.)
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK;
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK; (A.B.); (J.B.); (J.H.-B.); (S.K.); (C.P.); (F.B.); (S.A.J.)
| | - Brian Cook
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK; (A.B.); (J.B.); (J.H.-B.); (S.K.); (C.P.); (F.B.); (S.A.J.)
| | - Sarah King
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK; (A.B.); (J.B.); (J.H.-B.); (S.K.); (C.P.); (F.B.); (S.A.J.)
| | - Christina Potter
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK; (A.B.); (J.B.); (J.H.-B.); (S.K.); (C.P.); (F.B.); (S.A.J.)
| | - Filippo Bianchi
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK; (A.B.); (J.B.); (J.H.-B.); (S.K.); (C.P.); (F.B.); (S.A.J.)
| | - Mike Rayner
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK;
| | - Susan A. Jebb
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK; (A.B.); (J.B.); (J.H.-B.); (S.K.); (C.P.); (F.B.); (S.A.J.)
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Dudareva M, Hotchen A, McNally M, Hartmann-Boyce J, Scarborough M, Collins G. Systematic review of risk prediction studies in bone and joint infection: are modifiable prognostic factors useful in predicting recurrence? J Bone Jt Infect 2021; 6:257-271. [PMID: 34285868 PMCID: PMC8283517 DOI: 10.5194/jbji-6-257-2021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2021] [Accepted: 04/29/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Classification systems for orthopaedic infection include patient health status, but there is no consensus about which comorbidities affect prognosis. Modifiable factors including substance use, glycaemic control, malnutrition and obesity may predict post-operative recovery from infection. Aim: This systematic review aimed (1) to critically appraise clinical prediction models for individual prognosis following surgical treatment for orthopaedic infection where an implant is not retained; (2) to understand the usefulness of modifiable prognostic factors for predicting treatment success. Methods: EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched for clinical prediction and prognostic studies in adults with orthopaedic infections. Infection recurrence or re-infection after at least 6 months was the primary outcome. The estimated odds ratios for the primary outcome in participants with modifiable prognostic factors were extracted and the direction of the effect reported. Results: Thirty-five retrospective prognostic cohort studies of 92 693 patients were included, of which two reported clinical prediction models. No studies were at low risk of bias, and no externally validated prediction models were identified. Most focused on prosthetic joint infection. A positive association was reported between body mass index and infection recurrence in 19 of 22 studies, similarly in 8 of 14 studies reporting smoking history and 3 of 4 studies reporting alcohol intake. Glycaemic control and malnutrition were rarely considered. Conclusion: Modifiable aspects of patient health appear to predict outcomes after surgery for orthopaedic infection. There is a need to understand which factors may have a causal effect. Development and validation of clinical prediction models that include participant health status will facilitate treatment decisions for orthopaedic infections.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Dudareva
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics,
Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Bone Infection Unit, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University
Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Andrew Hotchen
- Division of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Addenbrooke's Hospital,
Cambridge University Hospitals, Cambridge, UK
- Bone Infection Unit, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University
Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Martin A. McNally
- Bone Infection Unit, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University
Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health
Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Matthew Scarborough
- Bone Infection Unit, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University
Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Gary Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics,
Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, McRobbie H, Lindson N, Bullen C, Begh R, Theodoulou A, Notley C, Rigotti NA, Turner T, Butler AR, Fanshawe TR, Hajek P. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 4:CD010216. [PMID: 33913154 PMCID: PMC8092424 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010216.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 81] [Impact Index Per Article: 27.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update of a review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 February 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS We included 56 completed studies, representing 12,804 participants, of which 29 were RCTs. Six of the 56 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated five (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 41 at high risk overall (including the 25 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.81; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1057 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 11). These trials mainly used older EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.44; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioral support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.26; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2561 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of seven per 100 (95% CI 2 to 17). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs differed, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants; SAEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.09; I2 = 5%; 6 studies, 1011 participants, very low certainty). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the size of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, though evidence indicated no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The evidence is limited mainly by imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Hayden McRobbie
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Chris Bullen
- National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Rachna Begh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Caitlin Notley
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Nancy A Rigotti
- Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Tari Turner
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Ailsa R Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter Hajek
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Affiliation(s)
- Angela Difeng Wu
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences; University of Oxford; Oxford UK
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences; University of Oxford; Oxford UK
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences; University of Oxford; Oxford UK
| | - Paul Aveyard
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences; University of Oxford; Oxford UK
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, Lindson N. Commentary on Taylor et al. : Nicotine replacement therapy in pregnancy-amalgamating and contextualising evidence from different study designs. Addiction 2021; 116:278-279. [PMID: 33225508 DOI: 10.1111/add.15303] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2020] [Accepted: 10/19/2020] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, Livingstone-Banks J, Ordóñez-Mena JM, Fanshawe TR, Lindson N, Freeman SC, Sutton AJ, Theodoulou A, Aveyard P. Behavioural interventions for smoking cessation: an overview and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 1:CD013229. [PMID: 33411338 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013229.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Smoking is a leading cause of disease and death worldwide. In people who smoke, quitting smoking can reverse much of the damage. Many people use behavioural interventions to help them quit smoking; these interventions can vary substantially in their content and effectiveness. OBJECTIVES To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews that assessed the effect of behavioural interventions designed to support smoking cessation attempts and to conduct a network meta-analysis to determine how modes of delivery; person delivering the intervention; and the nature, focus, and intensity of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation influence the likelihood of achieving abstinence six months after attempting to stop smoking; and whether the effects of behavioural interventions depend upon other characteristics, including population, setting, and the provision of pharmacotherapy. To summarise the availability and principal findings of economic evaluations of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation, in terms of comparative costs and cost-effectiveness, in the form of a brief economic commentary. METHODS This work comprises two main elements. 1. We conducted a Cochrane Overview of reviews following standard Cochrane methods. We identified Cochrane Reviews of behavioural interventions (including all non-pharmacological interventions, e.g. counselling, exercise, hypnotherapy, self-help materials) for smoking cessation by searching the Cochrane Library in July 2020. We evaluated the methodological quality of reviews using AMSTAR 2 and synthesised data from the reviews narratively. 2. We used the included reviews to identify randomised controlled trials of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation compared with other behavioural interventions or no intervention for smoking cessation. To be included, studies had to include adult smokers and measure smoking abstinence at six months or longer. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. We synthesised data using Bayesian component network meta-analysis (CNMA), examining the effects of 38 different components compared to minimal intervention. Components included behavioural and motivational elements, intervention providers, delivery modes, nature, focus, and intensity of the behavioural intervention. We used component network meta-regression (CNMR) to evaluate the influence of population characteristics, provision of pharmacotherapy, and intervention intensity on the component effects. We evaluated certainty of the evidence using GRADE domains. We assumed an additive effect for individual components. MAIN RESULTS We included 33 Cochrane Reviews, from which 312 randomised controlled trials, representing 250,563 participants and 845 distinct study arms, met the criteria for inclusion in our component network meta-analysis. This represented 437 different combinations of components. Of the 33 reviews, confidence in review findings was high in four reviews and moderate in nine reviews, as measured by the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool. The remaining 20 reviews were low or critically low due to one or more critical weaknesses, most commonly inadequate investigation or discussion (or both) of the impact of publication bias. Of note, the critical weaknesses identified did not affect the searching, screening, or data extraction elements of the review process, which have direct bearing on our CNMA. Of the included studies, 125/312 were at low risk of bias overall, 50 were at high risk of bias, and the remainder were at unclear risk. Analyses from the contributing reviews and from our CNMA showed behavioural interventions for smoking cessation can increase quit rates, but effectiveness varies on characteristics of the support provided. There was high-certainty evidence of benefit for the provision of counselling (odds ratio (OR) 1.44, 95% credibility interval (CrI) 1.22 to 1.70, 194 studies, n = 72,273) and guaranteed financial incentives (OR 1.46, 95% CrI 1.15 to 1.85, 19 studies, n = 8877). Evidence of benefit remained when removing studies at high risk of bias. These findings were consistent with pair-wise meta-analyses from contributing reviews. There was moderate-certainty evidence of benefit for interventions delivered via text message (downgraded due to unexplained statistical heterogeneity in pair-wise comparison), and for the following components where point estimates suggested benefit but CrIs incorporated no clinically significant difference: individual tailoring; intervention content including motivational components; intervention content focused on how to quit. The remaining intervention components had low-to very low-certainty evidence, with the main issues being imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence to suggest an increase in harms in groups receiving behavioural support for smoking cessation. Intervention effects were not changed by adjusting for population characteristics, but data were limited. Increasing intensity of behavioural support, as measured through the number of contacts, duration of each contact, and programme length, had point estimates associated with modestly increased chances of quitting, but CrIs included no difference. The effect of behavioural support for smoking cessation appeared slightly less pronounced when people were already receiving smoking cessation pharmacotherapies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Behavioural support for smoking cessation can increase quit rates at six months or longer, with no evidence that support increases harms. This is the case whether or not smoking cessation pharmacotherapy is also provided, but the effect is slightly more pronounced in the absence of pharmacotherapy. Evidence of benefit is strongest for the provision of any form of counselling, and guaranteed financial incentives. Evidence suggested possible benefit but the need of further studies to evaluate: individual tailoring; delivery via text message, email, and audio recording; delivery by lay health advisor; and intervention content with motivational components and a focus on how to quit. We identified 23 economic evaluations; evidence did not consistently suggest one type of behavioural intervention for smoking cessation was more cost-effective than another. Future reviews should fully consider publication bias. Tools to investigate publication bias and to evaluate certainty in CNMA are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - José M Ordóñez-Mena
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Suzanne C Freeman
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Alex J Sutton
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Paul Aveyard
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Tattan-Birch H, Jackson S, Shahab L, Hartmann-Boyce J, Kock L, Simonavicius E, Brose L, Brown J. Heated tobacco products for smoking cessation and reducing smoking prevalence. Hippokratia 2020. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013790] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Harry Tattan-Birch
- Department of Behavioural Science and Health; University College London; London UK
| | - Sarah Jackson
- Department of Behavioural Science and Health; University College London; London UK
| | - Lion Shahab
- Department of Behavioural Science and Health; University College London; London UK
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences; University of Oxford; Oxford UK
| | - Loren Kock
- Department of Behavioural Science and Health; University College London; London UK
| | - Erikas Simonavicius
- Department of Addictions, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience; King's College London; London UK
| | - Leonie Brose
- Department of Addictions, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience; King's College London; London UK
| | - Jamie Brown
- Department of Behavioural Science and Health; University College London; London UK
| |
Collapse
|