Dataset Information

Variability and effectiveness of comparator group interventions in smoking cessation trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: AIMS:To examine variability and effectiveness of interventions provided to comparator (control) groups in smoking cessation trials. METHODS:Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioral interventions for smoking cessation, with or without stop-smoking medication. We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for RCTs with objective outcomes measured at ? 6 months. Study authors were contacted to obtain comprehensive descriptions of their comparator interventions. Meta-regression analyses examined the relationships of smoking cessation rates with stop-smoking medication and behavior change techniques. RESULTS:One hundred and four of 142 eligible comparator groups (n = 23?706) had complete data and were included in analyses. There was considerable variability in the number of behavior change techniques delivered [mean = 15.97, standard deviation (SD) = 13.54, range = 0-45] and the provision of smoking cessation medication (43% of groups received medication) throughout and within categories of comparator groups (e.g. usual care, brief advice). Higher smoking cessation rates were predicted by provision of medication [B = 0.334, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.030-0.638, P = 0.031] and number of behavior change techniques included (B = 0.020, 95% CI = 0.008-0.032, P < 0.001). Modelled cessation rates in comparator groups that received the most intensive support were 15 percentage points higher than those that received the least (23 versus 8%). CONCLUSIONS:Interventions delivered to comparator groups in smoking cessation randomized controlled trials vary considerably in content, and cessation rates are strongly predicted by stop-smoking medication and number of behavior change techniques delivered.

SUBMITTER: Black N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7496125 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Variability and effectiveness of comparator group interventions in smoking cessation trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Black Nicola N Eisma Maarten C MC Viechtbauer Wolfgang W Johnston Marie M West Robert R Hartmann-Boyce Jamie J Michie Susan S de Bruin Marijn M

Addiction (Abingdon, England) 20200211 9

<h4>Aims</h4>To examine variability and effectiveness of interventions provided to comparator (control) groups in smoking cessation trials.<h4>Methods</h4>Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioral interventions for smoking cessation, with or without stop-smoking medication. We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register for RCTs with objective outcomes measured at ≥ 6 months. Study authors were contacted to obtain comprehensi ...[more]

PMID: 32043675

Similar Datasets

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: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:Objective:The authors carried out a systematic review and a meta-analysis on smoking cessation interventions on health -care workers to clarify the state of the art interventions and to identify the best one. Materials and Methods:This review was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42019130117. The databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL were searched until December 2018. Quality of all studies included in the systematic review was assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) on cohort or cross-sectional studies and to the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials. Meta-analysis and meta-regression analyses were also carried out for cohort studies (quasi-experimental or a before-after studies design) and clinical trials. Results:Twenty-four studies have been included in the analysis: four before-after, 13 cross-sectional, three quasi-experimental studies and four clinical trials. Articles were heterogeneous (P for homogeneity <0.01), but they have all shown positive results since they reached the goal of smoking cessation among health-care workers, even if with different proportions. Meta-analysis was performed on 10 studies (six cohort studies and four clinical trials), showing a 21% of success rate from the application of smoking cessation interventions, either pharmacological or behavioral ones. The resulted pooled RR (Risk Ratio) was 1.21 (95% CI [1.06-1.38]), being 24% of success rate from clinical trials (pooled RR 1.244; 95% CI [1.099-1.407]) and 19% of success rate from cohort studies (pooled RR 1.192; 0.996-1.426). However, two studies have confidence intervals which include unity and one study has a wide confidence interval; as a consequence, the meta-analysis for its results depends heavily on one single study. Meta-regression analysis revealed that results were influenced by the number of participants. Conclusion:Both policy and pharmaceutical interventions can obtain positive results in quitting smoking among health-care workers. However, as shown by our review, combination approaches can produce better results in terms of cessation percentages and smoking abstinence.

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:Hospitalization is a unique opportunity for smoking cessation, but prior interventions have measured efficacy with narrowly defined populations. The objective of this study was to enroll smokers admitted to two "safety net" hospitals and compare the effectiveness of two post-discharge cessation interventions.A randomized comparative effectiveness trial was conducted.At two New York City public hospitals, every hospitalized patient identified as a smoker (based on admission records) was approached. Inclusion criteria were: smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days; spoke English, Spanish, or Mandarin; had a U.S. phone number; not discharged to an institution where follow-up or smoking was limited; and not pregnant/breastfeeding. Of 18,797 patients identified as current smokers between July 2011 and April 2014, a total of 3,047 (16%) were discharged before being approached, 3,273 (17%) were not current smokers, 4,026 (21%) had no U.S. phone number, 2,831 (15%) were ineligible for other reasons, and 3,983 (21%) refused participation. In total, 1,618 (9%) participants enrolled in the study. During follow-up, 69% of participants were reached at 2 months and 68% at 6 months.At discharge, participants were randomized to multisession telephone counseling from study staff (n=804) or referral to the state quitline for proactive outreach and counseling (n=814).Self-reported abstinence at 6 months was measured. Analyses were conducted in late 2015.One quarter of participants were homeless or in unstable housing, 60% had a history of substance abuse, 43% reported current hazardous drinking, and half had a psychiatric diagnosis other than substance abuse. At follow-up, the rate of abstinence (30-day point prevalence) was higher in the intensive counseling arm than the quitline arm at 2 months (29.0% vs 20.7%; relative risk=1.40; 95% CI=1.13, 1.73) and 6 months (37.4% vs 31.5%; relative risk=1.19; 95% CI=1.01, 1.40).Intensive counseling was more effective than referral to the state quitline. Long-term abstinence was excellent in both groups. Many patients were not eligible for enrollment despite minimal exclusion criteria.This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01363245.

Dataset Information

Variability and effectiveness of comparator group interventions in smoking cessation trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Variability and effectiveness of comparator group interventions in smoking cessation trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure