Dataset Information

Systematic review evaluating randomized controlled trials of smoking and alcohol cessation interventions in people with head and neck cancer and oral dysplasia.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Smoking and alcohol increase the risk of head and neck cancer and affect treatment outcomes. Interventions modifying these behaviors may improve posttreatment outcomes and survival. We systematically reviewed evidence of the effectiveness of smoking/alcohol interventions in head and neck cancer and oral dysplasia. METHODS:The AMED, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of smoking/alcohol interventions in people with head and neck cancer. A qualitative synthesis of the studies was conducted. RESULTS:Three RCTs were identified: 2 smoking interventions and 1 smoking and alcohol intervention. One intervention, which was comprised of a smoking intervention based on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and pharmacologic management compared to usual care, reduced smoking prevalence. CONCLUSION:Further research is required into the underlying mechanisms that lead to cessation and interventions that include both pharmacological and behavioral therapy. Future RCTs should include suitable control conditions and sufficient power to assess clinical outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Shingler E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6120449 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review evaluating randomized controlled trials of smoking and alcohol cessation interventions in people with head and neck cancer and oral dysplasia.

Shingler Ellie E Robles Luke A LA Perry Rachel R Penfold Chris C Ness Andy R AR Thomas Steve S Lane J Athene JA Martin Richard M RM

Head & neck 20180330 8

<h4>Background</h4>Smoking and alcohol increase the risk of head and neck cancer and affect treatment outcomes. Interventions modifying these behaviors may improve posttreatment outcomes and survival. We systematically reviewed evidence of the effectiveness of smoking/alcohol interventions in head and neck cancer and oral dysplasia.<h4>Methods</h4>The AMED, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of smoking/alcohol interventions ...[more]

PMID: 29603464

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLung cancer is one of the most common causes of death from cancer worldwide. Smoking induces and aggravates many health problems, including vascular diseases, respiratory illnesses and cancers. Tobacco smoking constitutes the most important risk factor for lung cancer. Most people with lung cancer are still active smokers at diagnosis or frequently relapse after smoking cessation. Quitting smoking is the most effective way for smokers to reduce the risk of premature death and disability. People with lung cancer may benefit from stopping smoking. Whether smoking cessation interventions are effective for people with lung cancer and whether one method of quitting is more effective than any other has not been systematically reviewed.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness of smoking cessation programmes for people with lung cancer.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (accessed via PubMed) and Embase up to 22 December 2018. We also searched the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting proceedings, the lung cancer sections of the proceedings of the ESMO Congress, the lung cancer sections of the proceedings of the European Conference of Clinical Oncology (ECCO) Congress, the World Conference on Lung Cancer proceedings, the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting from 2013, the Food and Drug Administration website, the European Medicine Agency for drug registration website, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) to 30 December 2018. We applied no restriction on language of publication.Selection criteriaWe planned to include any randomised controlled trial (RCT) of any psychosocial or pharmacological smoking cessation intervention or combinations of both, compared with no intervention, a different psychosocial or pharmacological (or both) intervention or placebo for pharmacological interventions in people with lung cancer.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently screened the studies from the initial search for potential trials for inclusion. We planned to use standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We found no trials that met the inclusion criteria.Main resultsWe identified no RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. Among the 1817 records retrieved using our search strategy, we retrieved 19 studies for further investigation. We excluded 15 trials: ten trials because we could not distinguish people with lung cancer from the other participants, or the participants were not people with lung cancer, four because they were not randomised, or RCTs. We excluded one trial because, though it was completed in 2004, no results are available. We assessed four ongoing trials for inclusion when data become available.Authors' conclusionsThere were no RCTs that determined the effectiveness of any type of smoking cessation programme for people with lung cancer. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether smoking cessation interventions are effective for people with lung cancer and whether one programme is more effective than any other. People with lung cancer should be encouraged to quit smoking and offered smoking cessation interventions. However, due to the lack of RCTs, the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions for people with lung cancer cannot be evaluated and concluded. This systematic review identified a need for RCTs to explore these.

Project description:To systematically review the effectiveness of community pharmacy-delivered interventions for alcohol reduction, smoking cessation and weight management.Systematic review and meta-analyses. 10 electronic databases were searched from inception to May 2014.randomised and non-randomised controlled trials; controlled before/after studies, interrupted times series.any relevant intervention set in a community pharmacy, delivered by the pharmacy team. No restrictions on duration, country, age, or language.19 studies were included: 2 alcohol reduction, 12 smoking cessation and 5 weight management. Study quality rating: 6 'strong', 4 'moderate' and 9 'weak'. 8 studies were conducted in the UK, 4 in the USA, 2 in Australia, 1 each in 5 other countries. Evidence from 2 alcohol-reduction interventions was limited. Behavioural support and/or nicotine replacement therapy are effective and cost-effective for smoking cessation: pooled OR was 2.56 (95% CI 1.45 to 4.53) for active intervention vs usual care. Pharmacy-based interventions produced similar weight loss compared with active interventions in other primary care settings; however, weight loss was not sustained longer term in a range of primary care and commercial settings compared with control. Pharmacy-based weight management interventions have similar provider costs to those delivered in other primary care settings, which are greater than those delivered by commercial organisations. Very few studies explored if and how sociodemographic or socioeconomic variables moderated intervention effects. Insufficient information was available to examine relationships between effectiveness and behaviour change strategies, implementation factors, or organisation and delivery of interventions.Community pharmacy-delivered interventions are effective for smoking cessation, and demonstrate that the pharmacy is a feasible option for weight management interventions. Given the potential reach, effectiveness and associated costs of these interventions, commissioners should consider using community pharmacies to help deliver public health services.

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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Alcohol and nicotine dependence frequently co-occur, and quitting smoking might enhance long-term alcohol abstinence. Topiramate appears to help non-alcohol-dependent individuals quit smoking, and our pilot work suggested efficacy only in men. It also prevents relapse to alcohol in recently detoxified alcoholics. We evaluated topiramate in abstinent alcohol-dependent men to assess whether this medication (i) promotes smoking cessation and (ii) prevents alcohol and other drug relapse in the context of smoking cessation treatment. METHODS:One hundred and twenty-nine alcohol-abstinent (mean ~6 months) alcohol-dependent male smokers (80% with other substance use disorders) participated in this 12-week randomized, double blind, parallel group comparison of topiramate (up to 200 mg/d) and placebo with a 24-week nontreatment follow-up period. The study was carried out sequentially at 2 academic centers in the Midwest and Southern California between March 23, 2009 and November 20, 2014. All participants received manual-guided smoking cessation counseling combined with medication-focused compliance enhancement therapy. Randomization was block designed by the research pharmacist in a 1:1 ratio. Participants, investigators, and research personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary smoking end point was biochemically confirmed 4-week continuous abstinence from smoking during weeks 9 to 12, while the secondary end point was relapse to any drinking or drug use during the entire 36-week evaluation period. Logistic regression was used to determine the effects of topiramate on quitting smoking and alcohol relapse, controlling for relevant covariates. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00802412) and is now closed. RESULTS:Only a small proportion (7.9%) of topiramate-treated participants were able to quit smoking, and this cessation rate was similar to placebo (10.6%; odds ratio = 1.60; 95% confidence interval 0.4, 6.5; p = 0.51). Roughly 30% of the sample had a documented relapse to drinking or drug use during the study, and these rates were similar in the topiramate (20/63; 31.8%) and placebo groups (18/66; 27.3%; p = 0.58). Results of a longitudinal logistic regression model examining time to any alcohol relapse revealed no medication effect. CONCLUSIONS:Topiramate at a daily dosage of up to 200 mg per day, combined with smoking cessation and medication adherence counseling, had no effects on smoking cessation or the prevention of alcohol or drug relapse in male smokers who were in early or sustained full remission from alcohol and motivated to make a quit attempt. Alternative approaches for treating this high-risk, dually dependent population are needed.

Project description:BackgroundIn the United States, eighty percent of the adult homeless population smokes cigarettes compared to 15 percent of the general population. In 2017 Power to Quit 2 (PTQ2), a randomized clinical trial, was implemented in two urban homeless shelters in the Upper Midwest to address concurrent smoking cessation and alcohol treatment among people experiencing homelessness. A subset of this study population were interviewed to assess their experiences of study intervention. The objective of this study was to use participants' experiences with the intervention to inform future implementation efforts of combined smoking cessation and alcohol abstinence interventions, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).MethodsQualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 40 PTQ2 participants between 2016-2017 and analyzed in 2019. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a socially constructivist approach to grounded theory.ResultsParticipants described the PTQ2 intervention in positive terms. Participants valued the opportunity to obtain both counseling and nicotine-replacement therapy products (intervention characteristics) and described forming a bond with the PTQ2 staff and reliance on them for emotional support and encouragement (characteristics of individuals). However, the culture of alcohol use and cigarette smoking around the shelter environment presented a serious challenge (outer setting). The study setting and the multiple competing needs of participants were reported as the most challenging barriers to implementation (implementation process).ConclusionThere are unique challenges in addressing smoking cessation with people experiencing homelessness. For those in shelters there can be the difficulty of pro-smoking norms in and around the shelter itself. Considering pairing cessation with policy level interventions targeting smoke-free spaces, or pairing cessation with housing support efforts may be worthwhile.. Participants described a discord in their personal goals of reduction compared with the study goals of complete abstinence, which may pose a challenge to the ways in which success is defined for people experiencing homelessness.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT01932996 , registered 08/30/2013.

Dataset Information

Systematic review evaluating randomized controlled trials of smoking and alcohol cessation interventions in people with head and neck cancer and oral dysplasia.

Publications

Systematic review evaluating randomized controlled trials of smoking and alcohol cessation interventions in people with head and neck cancer and oral dysplasia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets