Dataset Information

Smoking cessation in adults with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To evaluate the effects of more intensive smoking cessation interventions compared to less intensive interventions on smoking cessation in people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

Design

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of smoking cessation interventions was conducted. Electronic searches were carried out on the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO to September 2013. Searches were supplemented by review of trial registries and references from identified trials. Citations and full-text articles were screened by two reviewers. A random-effect Mantel-Haenszel model was used to pool data.

Setting

Primary, secondary and tertiary care.

Participants

Adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

Interventions

Smoking cessation interventions or medication (more intensive interventions) compared to usual care, counselling or optional medication (less intensive interventions).

Outcome measures

Biochemically verified smoking cessation was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were adverse events and effects on glycaemic control. We also carried out a pooled analysis of self-reported smoking cessation outcomes.

Results

We screened 1783 citations and reviewed seven articles reporting eight trials in 872 participants. All trials were of 6 months duration. Three trials included pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. The risk ratio of biochemically verified smoking cessation was 1.32 (95% CI 0.23 to 7.43) for the more intensive interventions compared to less intensive interventions with significant heterogeneity (I(2)=76%). Only one trial reported measures of glycaemic control.

Conclusions

There is an absence of evidence of efficacy for more intensive smoking cessation interventions in people with diabetes. The more intensive strategies tested in trials to date include interventions used in the general population, adding in diabetes-specific education about increased risk. Future research should focus on multicomponent smoking cessation interventions carried out over a period of at least 1 year, and also assess impact on glycaemic control.

SUBMITTER: Nagrebetsky A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3948637 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Smoking cessation in adults with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomised controlled trials.

Nagrebetsky Alexander A Brettell Rachel R Roberts Nia N Farmer Andrew A

BMJ open 20140306 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>To evaluate the effects of more intensive smoking cessation interventions compared to less intensive interventions on smoking cessation in people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.<h4>Design</h4>A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of smoking cessation interventions was conducted. Electronic searches were carried out on the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO to September 2013. Searches were supplemented by review of trial registries an ...[more]

PMID: 24604481

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionWe evaluate the effectiveness and safety of transdermal acupuncture by needles for smoking cessation.MethodsA literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed in seven electronic databases from inception to February 2017. Meta-analysis was conducted using Revman 5.3.0 software. We used either a random effects model (REM) or a fixed effects model (FEM) for pooling data according to the result of a heterogeneity test (defined as significant if I2>75%). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was applied by TSA 0.9.5.10 Beta software.ResultsTwenty-four trials involving 3984 participants were included. The methodological quality was generally low. With regard to smoking abstinence, meta-analysis showed acupuncture was more effective compared to no intervention/waiting list for short-term (4 weeks) cessation (1 trial, RR=2.37, 95% 1.41, 3.97) and long-term (longer than 6 months) (2 trials, RR=2.66, 95% CI: 1.50, 4.70). Compared to acupuncture/auricular acupressure alone, acupuncture plus auricular acupressure showed more benefit for short-term cessation (3 trials, RR=1.52, 95% CI: 1.03, 2.25). Acupuncture plus auricular acupressure was more effective compared to sham acupuncture plus sham auricular acupressure for short-term cessation (3 trials, RR=2.50, 95% CI: 1.44, 4.33) and long-term (2 trials, RR=3.61, 95% CI: 1.37, 9.48). Acupuncture in combination with counseling, educational smoking cessation program or moxibustion had more benefit compared to acupuncture for short-term cessation (3 trials, RR=0.75, 95% 0.63, 0.91) and long-term (2 trials, RR=0.77, 95% CI: 0.56, 1.05), and TSA illustrated the cumulative Z-curve of this comparison for long-term across the traditional boundary of 5% significance and monitoring boundaries. No serious adverse events occurred.ConclusionsAcupuncture combined with counseling, educational smoking cessation program or moxibustion was more effective than acupuncture as monotherapy with regard to long-term smoking cessation. Further, high quality trials are needed to confirm the result.

Project description:BackgroundMany placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of individual pharmacotherapies approved for smoking cessation. However, few direct or indirect comparisons of such interventions have been conducted. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the treatment effects of 7 approved pharmacologic interventions for smoking cessation.MethodsWe searched the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Tobacco Information and Prevention database as well as MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for published reports of placebo-controlled, double-blind randomized controlled trials of pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation. We included studies that reported biochemically validated measures of abstinence at 6 and 12 months. We used a hierarchical Bayesian random-effects model to summarize the results for each intervention.ResultsWe identified 70 published reports of 69 trials involving a total of 32 908 patients. Six of the 7 pharmacotherapies studied were found to be more efficacious than placebo: varenicline (odds ratio [OR] 2.41, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.91-3.12), nicotine nasal spray (OR 2.37, 95% CrI 1.12-5.13), bupropion (OR 2.07, 95% CrI 1.73-2.55), transdermal nicotine (OR 2.07, 95% CrI 1.69-2.62), nicotine tablet (OR 2.06, 95% CrI 1.12-5.13) and nicotine gum (OR 1.71, 95% CrI 1.35-2.21). Similar results were obtained regardless of which measure of abstinence was used. Although the point estimate favoured nicotine inhaler over placebo (OR 2.17), these results were not conclusive because the credible interval included unity (95% CrI 0.95-5.43). When all 7 interventions were included in the same model, all were more efficacious than placebo. In our analysis of data from the varenicline trials that included bupropion control arms, we found that varenicline was superior to bupropion (OR 2.18, 95% CrI 1.09-4.08).InterpretationVarenicline, bupropion and the 5 nicotine replacement therapies were all more efficacious than placebo at promoting smoking abstinence at 6 and 12 months.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of a physical activity intervention for smoking cessation during pregnancy.DesignParallel group, randomised controlled, multicentre trial.Setting13 hospitals in England, April 2009 to January 2014.Participants789 pregnant smokers, aged 16-50 years and at 10-24 weeks' gestation, who smoked at least one cigarette daily and were prepared to quit smoking one week after enrollment were randomised (1:1); 785 were included in the intention to treat analyses, with 392 assigned to the physical activity group.InterventionsInterventions began one week before a target quit date. Participants were randomised to six weekly sessions of behavioural support for smoking cessation (control) or to this support plus 14 sessions combining supervised treadmill exercise and physical activity consultations.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was continuous smoking abstinence from the target quit date until end of pregnancy, validated by exhaled carbon monoxide or salivary cotinine levels. To assess adherence, levels of moderate-vigorous intensity physical activity were self reported and in a 11.5% (n=90) random subsample of participants, physical activity was objectively measured by an accelerometer.ResultsNo significant difference was found in rates of smoking abstinence at end of pregnancy between the physical activity and control groups (8% v 6%; odds ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 2.10). For the physical activity group compared with the control group, there was a 40% (95% confidence interval 13% to 73%), 34% (6% to 69%), and 46% (12% to 91%) greater increase in self reported minutes carrying out physical activity per week from baseline to one week, four weeks, and six weeks post-quit day, respectively. According to the accelerometer data there was no significant difference in physical activity levels between the groups. Participants attended a median of four treatment sessions in the intervention group and three in the control group. Adverse events and birth outcomes were similar between the two groups, except for significantly more caesarean births in the control group than in the physical activity group (29% v 21%, P=0.023).ConclusionAdding a physical activity intervention to behavioural smoking cessation support for pregnant women did not increase cessation rates at end of pregnancy. During pregnancy, physical activity is not recommended for smoking cessation but remains indicated for general health benefits. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48600346.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Smoking remains the leading preventable cause of premature deaths. Several pharmacological interventions now exist to aid smokers in cessation. These include Nicotine Replacement Therapy [NRT], bupropion, and varenicline. We aimed to assess their relative efficacy in smoking cessation by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched 10 electronic medical databases (inception to Sept. 2006) and bibliographies of published reviews. We selected randomized controlled trials [RCTs] evaluating interventions for smoking cessation at 1 year, through chemical confirmation. Our primary endpoint was smoking cessation at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included short-term smoking cessation (approximately 3 months) and adverse events. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression. We compared treatment effects across interventions using head-to-head trials and when these did not exist, we calculated indirect comparisons. RESULTS: We identified 70 trials of NRT versus control at 1 year, Odds Ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.55-1.88, P =< 0.0001). This was consistent when examining all placebo-controlled trials (49 RCTs, OR 1.78, 95% CI, 1.60-1.99), NRT gum (OR 1.60, 95% CI, 1.37-1.86) or patch (OR 1.63, 95% CI, 1.41-1.89). NRT also reduced smoking at 3 months (OR 1.98, 95% CI, 1.77-2.21). Bupropion trials were superior to controls at 1 year (12 RCTs, OR1.56, 95% CI, 1.10-2.21, P = 0.01) and at 3 months (OR 2.13, 95% CI, 1.72-2.64). Two RCTs evaluated the superiority of bupropion versus NRT at 1 year (OR 1.14, 95% CI, 0.20-6.42). Varenicline was superior to placebo at 1 year (4 RCTs, OR 2.96, 95% CI, 2.12-4.12, P =< 0.0001) and also at approximately 3 months (OR 3.75, 95% CI, 2.65-5.30). Three RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of varenicline versus bupropion at 1 year (OR 1.58, 95% CI, 1.22-2.05) and at approximately 3 months (OR 1.61, 95% CI, 1.16-2.21). Using indirect comparisons, varenicline was superior to NRT when compared to placebo controls (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.17-2.36, P = 0.004) or to all controls at 1 year (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.22-2.45, P = 0.001). This was also the case for 3-month data. Adverse events were not systematically different across studies. CONCLUSION: NRT, bupropion and varenicline all provide therapeutic effects in assisting with smoking cessation. Direct and indirect comparisons identify a hierarchy of effectiveness.

Project description:Background and aimsAlthough smoking cessation medications have shown effectiveness in increasing abstinence in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is unclear to what extent benefits persist over time. This paper assesses whether the benefits of smoking cessation medications decline over the first year.MethodsWe selected studies from three systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Collaboration. RCTs of first-line smoking cessation medications, with 6- and 12-month follow-up, were eligible for inclusion. Meta-analysis was used to synthesize information on sustained abstinence (SA) at 6 versus 12 months and 3 versus 6 months, using the risk difference (RD) ('net benefit') between intervention and control group quit rates, the relative risk (RR) and the odds ratio (OR).ResultsSixty-one studies (27 647 participants) were included. Fewer than 40% of intervention group participants were sustained abstinent at 3 months (bupropion: 37.1%; nicotine replacement therapy (NRT): 34.8%; varenicline: 39.3%); approximately a quarter were sustained abstinent at 6 months (bupropion: 25.9%; NRT: 26.6%; varenicline: 25.4%), and approximately a fifth were sustained abstinent at 12 months (bupropion: 19.9%; NRT: 19.8%%; varenicline: 18.7%). There was only a small decline in RR (3 months: 1.95 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.74-2.18, P < 0.0001]; 6 months: 1.87 (95% CI = 1.67-2.08 P < 0.0001); 12 months: 1.75 (95% CI = 1.56-1.95, P < 0.0001) between intervention and control groups over time, but a substantial decline in net benefit [3 months: RD = 17.3% (14.5-20.1%); 6 months: RD = 11.8% (10.0-13.7%); 12 months: RD = 8.2% (6.8-9.6%)]. The decline in net benefit was statistically significant between 3 and 6 [RD = 4.95% (95% CI = 3.49-6.41%), P < 0.0001] and 6 and 12 months [RD = 3.00% (95% CI = 2.36%-3.64%), P < 0.0001)] for medications combined and individual medications.ConclusionsThe proportion of smokers who use smoking cessation medications who benefit from doing so decreases during the course of the first year, but a net benefit still remains at 12 months.

Dataset Information

Smoking cessation in adults with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomised controlled trials.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Interventions

Outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Smoking cessation in adults with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets