Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Stead LF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10042551 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation.
Stead Lindsay F LF Koilpillai Priya P Fanshawe Thomas R TR Lancaster Tim T
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20160324
<h4>Background</h4>Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medicati ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionThe associations between smoking prevalence, socioeconomic group and lung cancer outcomes are well established. There is currently limited evidence for how inequalities could be addressed through specific smoking cessation interventions (SCIs) for a lung cancer screening eligible population. This systematic review aims to identify the behavioural elements of SCIs used in older adults from low socioeconomic groups, and to examine their impact on smoking abstinence and psychosocial variables.MethodSystematic searches of Medline, EMBASE, PsychInfo and CINAHL up to November 2018 were conducted. Included studies examined the characteristics of SCIs and their impact on relevant outcomes including smoking abstinence, quit motivation, nicotine dependence, perceived social influence and quit determination. Included studies were restricted to socioeconomically deprived older adults who are at (or approaching) eligibility for lung cancer screening. Narrative data synthesis was conducted.ResultsEleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was variable, with most studies using self-reported smoking cessation and varying length of follow-up. There were limited data to identify the optimal form of behavioural SCI for the target population. Intense multimodal behavioural counselling that uses incentives and peer facilitators, delivered in a community setting and tailored to individual needs indicated a positive impact on smoking outcomes.ConclusionTailored, multimodal behavioural interventions embedded in local communities could potentially support cessation among older, deprived smokers. Further high-quality research is needed to understand the effectiveness of SCIs in the context of lung screening for the target population.Prospero registration numberCRD42018088956.
| S-EPMC6830832 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Strategies for assisting smoking cessation include behavioural counselling to enhance motivation and to support attempts to quit and pharmacological intervention to reduce nicotine reinforcement and withdrawal from nicotine. Three drugs are currently used as first line pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation, nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion and varenicline. Compared with placebo, the drug effect varies from 2.27 (95% CI 2.02, 2.55) for varenicline, 1.69 (95% CI 1.53, 1.85) for bupropion and 1.60 (95% CI 1.53, 1.68) for any form of nicotine replacement therapy. Despite some controversy regarding the safety of bupropion and varenicline, regulatory agencies consider these drugs as having a favourable benefit/risk profile. However, given the high rate of psychiatric comorbidity in dependent smokers, practitioners should closely monitor patients for neuropsychiatric symptoms. Second-line pharmacotherapies include nortriptyline and clonidine. This review also offers an overview of pipeline developments and issues related to smoking cessation in special populations such as persons with psychiatric comorbidity and pregnant and adolescent smokers.
| S-EPMC4014023 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Rates of tobacco smoking are high in people with schizophrenia with greater difficulty of quitting smoking compared to the general population, which also relate to the increased cardiovascular and cancer risks in this co-occurring disorder. Therefore, effective smoking cessation pharmacotherapies addressing tobacco co-morbidity are imperative.Areas covered: In this review, the authors performed an extensive systematic electronic literature review examining the efficacy and safety of first-line pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation, including varenicline, sustained-release bupropion, and nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) using continuous abstinence rates over 10-12-week periods in smokers with schizophrenia. Twelve trials reporting smoking cessation outcomes using interventions in schizophrenia were included and risk ratio (RR) was used.Expert opinion: Our findings support the efficacy and safety of first-line pharmacotherapies for the treatment of tobacco use disorder in smokers with schizophrenia. Further research on the long-term effectiveness and safety of these agents in community samples is warranted. Smoking cessation pharmacotherapies may warrant the consideration of the emerging use of electronic nicotine delivery systems while neuromodulation techniques also offer promise.
| S-EPMC7183430 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealthcare professionals, including nurses, frequently advise people to improve their health by stopping smoking. Such advice may be brief, or part of more intensive interventions.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness of nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions in adults. To establish whether nursing-delivered smoking cessation interventions are more effective than no intervention; are more effective if the intervention is more intensive; differ in effectiveness with health state and setting of the participants; are more effective if they include follow-ups; are more effective if they include aids that demonstrate the pathophysiological effect of smoking.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register and CINAHL in January 2017.Selection criteriaRandomized trials of smoking cessation interventions delivered by nurses or health visitors with follow-up of at least six months.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors extracted data independently. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates if available. Where statistically and clinically appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model and reported the outcome as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).Main resultsFifty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria, nine of which are new for this update. Pooling 44 studies (over 20,000 participants) comparing a nursing intervention to a control or to usual care, we found the intervention increased the likelihood of quitting (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38); however, statistical heterogeneity was moderate (I2 = 50%) and not explained by subgroup analysis. Because of this, we judged the quality of evidence to be moderate. Despite most studies being at unclear risk of bias in at least one domain, we did not downgrade the quality of evidence further, as restricting the main analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the effect estimate. Subgroup analyses found no evidence that high-intensity interventions, interventions with additional follow-up or interventions including aids that demonstrate the pathophysiological effect of smoking are more effective than lower intensity interventions, or interventions without additional follow-up or aids. There was no evidence that the effect of support differed by patient group or across healthcare settings.Authors' conclusionsThere is moderate quality evidence that behavioural support to motivate and sustain smoking cessation delivered by nurses can lead to a modest increase in the number of people who achieve prolonged abstinence. There is insufficient evidence to assess whether more intensive interventions, those incorporating additional follow-up, or those incorporating pathophysiological feedback are more effective than one-off support. There was no evidence that the effect of support differed by patient group or across healthcare settings.
| S-EPMC6486227 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6819982 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6703145 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8413689 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsPeople with severe mental ill health smoke more and suffer greater smoking-related morbidity and mortality. Little is known about the effectiveness of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation in this group. This review evaluated randomized controlled trial evidence to measure the effectiveness of behavioural smoking cessation interventions (both digital and non-digital) in people with severe mental ill health.DesignSystematic review and random-effects meta-analysis. We searched between inception and January 2020 in Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Health Management Information Consortium and CENTRAL databases.Setting and participantsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of behavioural smoking cessation and reduction interventions in adults with severe mental ill health, conducted in any country, in either in-patient or community settings and published in English.MeasurementsThe primary outcome was biochemically verified smoking cessation. Smoking reduction and changes in mental health symptoms and body mass index (BMI) were included as secondary outcomes. Narrative data synthesis and meta-analysis were conducted and the quality of included studies was appraised using the risk of bias 2 (RoB2) tool.FindingsWe included 12 individual studies (16 articles) involving 1861 participants. The first meta-analysis (three studies, 921 participants) demonstrated effectiveness of bespoke face-to-face interventions compared with usual care across all time-points [medium-term: relative risk (RR) = 2.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.38-3.81; long-term: RR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.09-2.30]. The second (three studies, 275 participants) did not demonstrate any difference in effectiveness of bespoke digital on-line interventions compared with standard digital on-line interventions (medium-term: RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.17-4.46). A narrative overview revealed mixed results when comparing bespoke face-to-face interventions with other active interventions. The methodological quality of studies was mixed, with the majority having some concerns mainly around risk of selective reporting.ConclusionsFace-to-face bespoke smoking cessation interventions for adults with severe mental ill health appear to be effective when compared with treatment as usual, but evidence is equivocal when compared with other active interventions. There is limited evidence comparing bespoke digital interventions with generic interventions, and we found no studies comparing them with usual treatment.
| S-EPMC9298065 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSocioeconomic inequalities in smoking cessation have led to development of interventions that are specifically tailored for smokers from disadvantaged groups. We aimed to assess whether the effectiveness of interventions for disadvantaged groups is moderated by tailoring for socioeconomic position.MethodsFor this systematic review and meta-regression, we searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane Central Register, and Tobacco Addiction Register of Clinical Trials and the IC-SMOKE database from their inception until Aug 18, 2019, for randomised controlled trials of socioeconomic-position-tailored or non-socioeconomic-position-tailored individual-level behavioural interventions for smoking cessation at 6 months or longer of follow-up in disadvantaged groups. Studies measured socioeconomic position via income, eligibility for government financial assistance, occupation, and housing. Studies were excluded if they were delivered at the community or population level, did not report differential effects by socioeconomic position, did not report smoking cessation outcomes from 6 months or longer after the start of the intervention, were delivered at a group level, or provided pharmacotherapy with standard behavioural support compared with behavioural support alone. Individual patient-level data were extracted from published reports and from contacting study authors. Random-effects meta-analyses and mixed-effects meta-regression analyses were done to assess associations between tailoring of the intervention and effectiveness. Meta-analysis outcomes were summarised as risk ratios (RR). Certainty of evidence was assessed within each study using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 2 and the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach. The study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018103008.FindingsOf 2376 studies identified by our literature search, 348 full-text articles were retrieved and screened for eligibility. Of these, 42 studies (26 168 participants) were included in the systematic review. 30 (71%) of 42 studies were done in the USA, three (7%) were done in the UK, two (5%) each in the Netherlands and Australia, and one (2%) each in Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey, India, and China. 26 (62%) of 42 studies were trials of socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions and 16 (38%) were non-socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions. 17 (65%) of 26 socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions were in-person or telephone-delivered behavioural interventions, four (15%) were digital interventions, three (12%) involved financial incentives, and two (8%) were brief interventions. Individuals who participated in an intervention, irrespective of tailoring, were significantly more likely to quit smoking than were control participants (RR 1·56, 95% CI 1·39-1·75; I2=54·5%). Socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions did not yield better outcomes compared with non-socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions for disadvantaged groups (adjusted RR 1·01, 95% CI 0·81-1·27; β=0·011, SE=0·11; p=0·93). We observed similar effect sizes in separate meta-analyses of non-socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions using trial data from participants with high socioeconomic position (RR 2·00, 95% CI 1·36-2·93; I2=82·7%) and participants with low socioeconomic position (1·94, 1·31-2·86; I2=76·6%), although certainty of evidence from these studies was graded as low.InterpretationWe found evidence that individual-level interventions can assist disadvantaged smokers with quitting, but there were no large moderating effects of tailoring for disadvantaged smokers. Improvements in tailored intervention development might be necessary to achieve equity-positive smoking cessation outcomes.FundingCancer Research UK.
| S-EPMC7109520 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Evidence suggests that both the nicotinic receptor ?5 subunit (CHRNA5) and Cytochrome P450 2A6 (CYP2A6) genotypes influence smoking cessation success and response to pharmacotherapy. We examine the effect of CYP2A6 genotype on smoking cessation success and response to cessation pharmacotherapy, and combine these effects with those of CHRNA5 genotypes. DESIGN:Placebo-controlled randomized smoking cessation trial. SETTING:Ambulatory care facility in Wisconsin, USA. PARTICIPANTS:Smokers (n?=?709) of European ancestry were randomized to placebo, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy or combined bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy. MEASUREMENTS:Survival analysis was used to model time to relapse using nicotine metabolism derived from CYP2A6 genotype-based estimates. Slow metabolism is defined as the lowest quartile of estimated metabolic function. FINDINGS:CYP2A6-defined nicotine metabolic function moderated the effect of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy on smoking relapse over 90 days [hazard ratio (HR)?=?2.81, 95% confidence interval (CI)?=?1.32-5.99, P?=?0.0075], with pharmacotherapy significantly slowing relapse in fast (HR?=?0.39, 95% CI?=?0.28-0.55, P?=?1.97?×?10(-8)), but not slow metabolizers (HR?=?1.09, 95% CI?=?0.55-2.17, P?=?0.80). Further, only the effect of nicotine replacement, and not bupropion, varies with CYP2A6-defined metabolic function. The effect of nicotine replacement on continuous abstinence is moderated by the combined genetic risks from CYP2A6 and CHRNA5 (Wald?=?7.44, d.f.?=?1, P?=?0.0064). CONCLUSIONS:Nicotine replacement therapy is effective among individuals with fast, but not slow, CYP2A6-defined nicotine metabolism. The effect of bupropion on relapse likelihood is unlikely to be affected by nicotine metabolism as estimated from CYP2A6 genotype. The variation in treatment responses among smokers with genes may guide future personalized smoking cessation interventions.
| S-EPMC3946972 | biostudies-literature