Lindsay F Stead

Effectiveness of interventions to help people stop smoking: findings from the Cochrane Library

Peto estimates that current cigarette smoking will cause about 450 million deaths worldwide in the next 50 years. Reducing current smoking by 50% would avoid 20–30 million premature deaths in the first quarter of the century and about 150 million in the second quarter.1 Preventing young people from starting smoking would cut the number of deaths related to tobacco, but not until after 2050. Quitting by current smokers is therefore the only way in which tobacco related mortality can be reduced in the medium term. There is evidence that some form of treatment aids an increasing number of successful attempts to quit.2 This review aims to summarise evidence for the effectiveness of the available interventions. #### Summary points Advice from doctors, structured interventions from nurses, and individual and group counselling are effective interventions Generic self help materials are no better than brief advice but more effective than doing nothing; personalised materials are more effective than standard materials All forms of nicotine replacement therapy are effective The antidepressants bupropion and nortriptyline increased quit rates in a small number of trials; the usefulness of the antihypertensive drug clonidine is limited by side effects Anxiolytics and lobeline are ineffective The effectiveness of aversion therapy, mecamylamine, acupuncture, hypnotherapy, and exercise is uncertain The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review group identifies and summarises the evidence for interventions to reduce and prevent tobacco use; it produces and maintains systematic reviews to inform policymakers, clinicians, and individuals wishing to stop smoking. Twenty systematic reviews are available in the Cochrane Library and have contributed to the evidence base for smoking cessation guidelines.3 Details of the methods and results of each review are available in the Cochrane Library (abstracts at www.update-software.com/ccweb/cochrane/revabstr/g160index.htm). The reviews summarise results from randomised controlled trials with at least six …

Smoking Cessation Interventions for Hospitalized Smokers: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND A hospital admission provides an opportunity to help people stop smoking. Providing smoking cessation advice, counseling, or medication is now a quality-of-care measure for US hospitals. We assessed the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions initiated during a hospital stay. METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Groups register for randomized and quasirandomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions (behavioral counseling and/or pharmacotherapy) that began during hospitalization and had a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. Two authors independently extracted data from each article, with disagreements resolved by consensus. RESULTS Thirty-three trials met inclusion criteria. Smoking counseling that began during hospitalization and included supportive contacts for more than 1 month after discharge increased smoking cessation rates at 6 to 12 months (pooled odds ratio [OR], 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.44-1.90). No benefit was found for interventions with less postdischarge contact. Counseling was effective when offered to all hospitalized smokers and to the subset admitted for cardiovascular disease. Adding nicotine replacement therapy to counseling produced a trend toward efficacy over counseling alone (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.92-2.35). One study added bupropion hydrochloride to counseling, which had a nonsignificant result (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.79-3.06). CONCLUSIONS Offering smoking cessation counseling to all hospitalized smokers is effective as long as supportive contacts continue for more than 1 month after discharge. Adding nicotine replacement therapy to counseling may further increase smoking cessation rates and should be offered when clinically indicated, especially to hospitalized smokers with nicotine withdrawal symptoms.

A systematic review of interventions for smokers who contact quitlines

Objective: To evaluate the effect of different types of adjunctive support to stop smoking for individuals contacting telephone “quitlines,” including call-back counselling, different counselling techniques and provision of self help materials. Data sources: This review includes quitline studies identified as part of Cochrane reviews of telephone counselling and self help materials for smoking cessation. We updated the searches for this review. Study selection: We included studies that were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of any quitline or related service with follow-up of at least six months. Data extraction: Data were extracted by one author and checked by a second. The cessation outcome was numbers quit at longest follow-up taking the strictest definition of abstinence available, and assuming participants lost to follow-up continued to smoke. Data synthesis: We identified 14 relevant studies. Eight studies (18 500 participants) comparing multiple call-backs to a single contact increased quitting in the intervention group (Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect odds ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 1.27 to 1.57). Two unpublished studies without sufficient data to include in the meta-analysis also reported positive effects. Three call-back trials compared two schedules of multiple calls. Two found a significant dose-response effect and one did not detect a difference. We did not find consistent differences in comparisons between counselling approaches (two trials) or between different types of self help materials supplied following quitline contact (three trials). Conclusions: Multiple call-back counselling improves long term cessation for smokers who contact quitline services. Offering more calls may improve success rates. We failed to detect an effect of the type of counselling or the type of self help materials supplied as adjuncts to quitline counselling.

Tobacco Addiction: Diagnosis and Treatment

Tobacco use is associated with 5 million deaths per year worldwide and is regarded as one of the leading causes of premature death. Comprehensive programmes for tobacco control can substantially reduce the frequency of tobacco use. An important component of a comprehensive programme is the provision of treatment for tobacco addiction. Treatment involves targeting several aspects of addiction including the underlying neurobiology and behavioural processes. Furthermore, building an infrastructure in health systems that encourages and helps with cessation, as well as expansion of the accessibility of treatments, is necessary. Although pharmacological and behavioural treatments are effective in improving cessation success, the rate of relapse to smoking remains high, emphasising the strong addictive nature of nicotine. The future of treatment resides in improvement in patient matching to treatment, combination or novel drugs, and viewing nicotine addiction as a chronic disorder that might need long-term treatment.

Efficacy of interventions to combat tobacco addiction: Cochrane update of 2012 reviews.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS The Cochrane Collaboration is an international not-for-profit organization which produces and disseminates systematic reviews of health-care interventions. This paper is the first in a series of annual updates of Cochrane reviews on tobacco addiction interventions. It also provides an up-to-date overview of review findings in this area to date and summary statistics for cessation reviews in which meta-analyses were conducted. METHODS In 2012, the Group published seven new reviews and updated 13 others. This update summarizes and comments on these reviews. It also summarizes key findings from all the other reviews in this area. RESULTS New reviews in 2012 found that in smokers using pharmacotherapy, behavioural support improves success rates [risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.09-1.24], and that combining behavioural support and pharmacotherapy aids cessation (RR 1.82, 95% CI = 1.66-2.00). Updated reviews established mobile phones as potentially helpful in aiding cessation (RR 1.71, 95% CI = 1.47-1.99), found that cytisine (RR 3.98, 95% CI = 2.01-7.87) and low-dose varenicline (RR 2.09, 95% CI = 1.56-2.78) aid smoking cessation, and found that training health professionals in smoking cessation improves patient cessation rates (RR 1.60, 95% CI = 1.26-2.03). The updated reviews confirmed the benefits of nicotine replacement therapy, standard dose varenicline and providing cessation treatment free of charge. Lack of demonstrated efficacy remained for partner support, expired-air carbon monoxide feedback and lung function feedback. CONCLUSIONS Cochrane systematic review evidence for the first time establishes the efficacy of behavioural support over and above pharmacotherapy, as well as the efficacy of cytisine, mobile phone technology, low-dose varenicline and health professional training in promoting smoking cessation.

Nortriptyline for smoking cessation : A review

This article reviews the efficacy of nortriptyline for smoking cessation based on a meta-analysis of the Cochrane Library. Six placebo-controlled trials have shown nortriptyline (75-100 mg) doubles quit rates (OR = 2.1). Between 4% and 12% of smokers dropped out because of adverse events, but no serious adverse events occurred. The efficacy of nortriptyline did not appear to be related to its antidepressant actions. Nortriptyline is an efficacious aid to smoking cessation with a magnitude of effect similar to that for bupropion and nicotine replacement therapies. Whether nortriptyline produces serious side effects at these doses in healthy, nondepressed smokers remains unclear because it has been tested in only 500 smokers. The finding that nortriptyline and bupropion are effective for smoking cessation but that selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors are not suggests that dopaminergic or adrenergic, but not serotonergic, activity is important for cessation efficacy. Until further studies can verify a low incidence of significant adverse events, nortriptyline should be a second-line treatment for smoking cessation.

A Preliminary Benefit-Risk Assessment of Varenicline in Smoking Cessation

Varenicline is a recently developed medication for smoking cessation, which has been available on prescription since 2006. It is a selective nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist, and is designed to reduce withdrawal symptoms and to lessen the rewards of continued smoking. Our objective in this article is to assess the efficacy of varenicline as an aid to smoking cessation and to weigh the potential benefits against the possible risks. We identified ten randomized controlled trials and one cohort study with historical controls. In total there were 7999 participants, 5112 of whom received varenicline. Eight of the trials compared varenicline with placebo for cessation, two compared it with nicotine replacement therapy and one tested extended use for relapse prevention. Three of the varenicline/placebo trials also included a bupropion arm. The recommended dosage of varenicline 1 mg twice daily more than doubled the chances of quitting at 6 months or longer, with a relative risk (RR) compared with placebo of 2.38 (95% CI 2.00, 2.84). It also outperformed bupropion (RR 1.52 [95% CI 1.22, 1.88]) and nicotine replacement (RR 1.31 [95%CI 1.01,1.71]). A reduced dosage regimen of 1 mg daily also increased cessation (RR 1.88 [95% CI 1.35, 2.60]). In the trials, varenicline significantly reduced craving and other withdrawal symptoms. The most frequent adverse event was nausea, occurring in 30–40% of varenicline users. However, this was generally reported at mild to moderate levels, diminished over time and was associated with attributable discontinuation rates of between 0.6% and 7.6%. Other commonly occurring adverse events included insomnia, abnormal dreams and headache. Serious adverse events were rare, with no treatment-related deaths during the treatment or follow-up phases.Postmarketing surveillance has raised new questions about the safety of varenicline. In February 2008, the US FDA issued a public health advisory note, reporting a possible association between varenicline and an increased risk of behaviour change, agitation, depressed mood, and suicidal ideation and behaviour. They have required the manufacturers to revise the labelling of varenicline and the Summary of Product Characteristics, and to issue a medication guide. It is arguable that much of the reported behavioural and mood changes may be associated with nicotine withdrawal, although some effects occurred in people who continued to smoke while taking the medication. In view of the potential, if unproven, risk that varenicline may be associated with serious neuropsychiatric adverse outcomes, patients attempting to quit smoking with varenicline, and their families and caregivers, should be alerted about the need to monitor for neuropsychiatric symptoms, including changes in behaviour, agitation, depressed mood, suicidal ideation and sui-cidal behaviour, and to report such symptoms immediately to the patient’s healthcare provider.

A systematic review of interventions for preventing tobacco sales to minors

OBJECTIVE To assess the effectiveness of interventions to reduce underage access to tobacco by deterring shopkeepers from making illegal sales. METHOD Systematic literature review. DATA SOURCES The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction group specialised register and Medline. Studies of interventions to alter retailer behaviour were identified. The terms used for searching combined terms for smoking and tobacco use with terms for minors, children or young people, and retailers, sales or commerce. STUDY SELECTION Studies in which there was an intervention with retailers of tobacco, either through education about, or enforcement of, local ordinances. The outcomes were changes in retailer compliance with legislation (assessed by test purchasing), changes in young peoples perceived ease of access to tobacco products, and changes in smoking behaviour. Controlled studies with or without random allocation of retail outlets or communities, and uncontrolled studies with pre- and post intervention assessment, were included. DATA EXTRACTION Two reviewers assessed studies for inclusion. One extracted data with checking by the second. DATA SYNTHESIS The results were synthesised qualitatively, with greater weight given to controlled studies. Thirteen of 27 included studies used controls. RESULTS Giving retailers information was less effective in reducing illegal sales than active enforcement and/or multicomponent educational strategies. No strategy achieved complete, sustained compliance. In three controlled trials, there was little effect of intervention on youth perceptions of access or prevalence of smoking. CONCLUSIONS Interventions with retailers can lead to large decreases in the number of outlets selling tobacco to youths. However, few of the communities studied in this review achieved sustained levels of high compliance. This may explain why there is limited evidence for an effect of intervention on youth perception of ease of access to tobacco, and on smoking behaviour.

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients: a systematic review

BACKGROUND An admission to hospital provides an opportunity to help people stop smoking. Individuals may be more open to help at a time of perceived vulnerability, and may find it easier to quit in an environment where smoking is restricted or prohibited. Providing smoking cessation services during hospitalisation may help more people to attempt and sustain an attempt to quit. The purpose of this paper is to systematically review the effectiveness of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients. METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register, CINAHL, and the Smoking and Health database for studies of interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of behavioural, pharmacological, or multi-component interventions to help patients stop smoking conducted with hospitalised patients who were current smokers or recent quitters were included. Studies of patients admitted for psychiatric disorders or substance abuse, those that did not report abstinence rates, and those with follow up of less than 6 months were excluded. Two of the authors extracted data independently for each paper, with assistance from others. RESULTS Intensive intervention (inpatient contact plus follow up for at least 1 month) was associated with a significantly higher cessation rate compared with controls (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.82, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.22). Any contact during hospitalisation followed by minimal follow up failed to detect a statistically significant effect on cessation rate, but did not rule out a 30% increase in smoking cessation (Peto OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.31). There was insufficient evidence to judge the effect of interventions delivered only during the hospital stay. Although the interventions increased quit rates irrespective of whether nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) was used, the results for NRT were compatible with other data indicating that it increases quit rates. There was no strong evidence that clinical diagnosis affected the likelihood of quitting. CONCLUSIONS High intensity behavioural interventions that include at least 1 month of follow up contact are effective in promoting smoking cessation in hospitalised patients.

Health-care interventions to promote and assist tobacco cessation: A review of efficacy, effectiveness and affordability for use in national guideline development

Abstract Aims This paper provides a concise review of the efficacy, effectiveness and affordability of health‐care interventions to promote and assist tobacco cessation, in order to inform national guideline development and assist countries in planning their provision of tobacco cessation support. Methods Cochrane reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of major health‐care tobacco cessation interventions were used to derive efficacy estimates in terms of percentage‐point increases relative to comparison conditions in 6–12‐month continuous abstinence rates. This was combined with analysis and evidence from ‘real world’ studies to form a judgement on the probable effectiveness of each intervention in different settings. The affordability of each intervention was assessed for exemplar countries in each World Bank income category (low, lower middle, upper middle, high). Based on World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, an intervention was judged as affordable for a given income category if the estimated extra cost of saving a life‐year was less than or equal to the per‐capita gross domestic product for that category of country. Results Brief advice from a health‐care worker given opportunistically to smokers attending health‐care services can promote smoking cessation, and is affordable for countries in all World Bank income categories (i.e. globally). Proactive telephone support, automated text messaging programmes and printed self‐help materials can assist smokers wanting help with a quit attempt and are affordable globally. Multi‐session, face‐to‐face behavioural support can increase quit success for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco and is affordable in middle‐ and high‐income countries. Nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, nortriptyline, varenicline and cytisine can all aid quitting smoking when given with at least some behavioural support; of these, cytisine and nortriptyline are affordable globally. Conclusions Brief advice from a health‐care worker, telephone helplines, automated text messaging, printed self‐help materials, cytisine and nortriptyline are globally affordable health‐care interventions to promote and assist smoking cessation. Evidence on smokeless tobacco cessation suggests that face‐to‐face behavioural support and varenicline can promote cessation.