Dataset Information

Effect of Sustained Smoking Cessation Counseling and Provision of Medication vs Shorter-term Counseling and Medication Advice on Smoking Abstinence in Patients Recently Diagnosed With Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Persistent smoking may cause adverse outcomes among patients with cancer. Many cancer centers have not fully implemented evidence-based tobacco treatment into routine care.

Objective

To determine the effectiveness of sustained telephone counseling and medication (intensive treatment) compared with shorter-term telephone counseling and medication advice (standard treatment) to assist patients recently diagnosed with cancer to quit smoking.

Design, setting, and participants

This unblinded randomized clinical trial was conducted at Massachusetts General Hospital/Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Adults who had smoked 1 cigarette or more within 30 days, spoke English or Spanish, and had recently diagnosed breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecological, head and neck, lung, lymphoma, or melanoma cancers were eligible. Enrollment occurred between November 2013 and July 2017; assessments were completed by the end of February 2018.

Interventions

Participants randomized to the intensive treatment (n = 153) and the standard treatment (n = 150) received 4 weekly telephone counseling sessions and medication advice. The intensive treatment group also received 4 biweekly and 3 monthly telephone counseling sessions and choice of Food and Drug Administration-approved cessation medication (nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, or varenicline).

Main outcome and measures

The primary outcome was biochemically confirmed 7-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were treatment utilization rates.

Results

Among 303 patients who were randomized (mean age, 58.3 years; 170 women [56.1%]), 221 (78.1%) completed the trial. Six-month biochemically confirmed quit rates were 34.5% (n = 51 in the intensive treatment group) vs 21.5% (n = 29 in the standard treatment group) (difference, 13.0% [95% CI, 3.0%-23.3%]; odds ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.13-3.27]; P < .02). The median number of counseling sessions completed was 8 (interquartile range, 4-11) in the intensive treatment group. A total of 97 intensive treatment participants (77.0%) vs 68 standard treatment participants (59.1%) reported cessation medication use (difference, 17.9% [95% CI, 6.3%-29.5%]; odds ratio, 2.31 [95% CI, 1.32-4.04]; P = .003). The most common adverse events in the intensive treatment and standard treatment groups, respectively, were nausea (n = 13 and n = 6), rash (n = 4 and n = 1), hiccups (n = 4 and n = 1), mouth irritation (n = 4 and n = 0), difficulty sleeping (n = 3 and n = 2), and vivid dreams (n = 3 and n = 2).

Conclusions and relevance

Among smokers recently diagnosed with cancer in 2 National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers, sustained counseling and provision of free cessation medication compared with 4-week counseling and medication advice resulted in higher 6-month biochemically confirmed quit rates. However, the generalizability of the study findings is uncertain and requires further research.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01871506.

SUBMITTER: Park ER

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8094414 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Abstinence reinforcement is efficacious for improving smoking treatment outcomes, but practical constraints related to the need for multiple in-person carbon monoxide (CO) breath tests daily to verify smoking abstinence have limited its use. This study tested an mHealth procedure to remotely monitor and reinforce smoking abstinence in individuals' natural environment.Eligible treatment-seeking smokers (N = 90) were randomized to (1) usual care and ecological monitoring with abstinence reinforcement (mHealth reinforcement) or (2) without reinforcement (mHealth monitoring). Usual care was 8 weeks of transdermal nicotine and twice-weekly telephone counseling. Following training, an interactive voice response system prompted participants to conduct CO tests 1-3 daily at pseudorandom times (7 am to 10 pm) for 4 weeks. When prompted, participants used a study cell phone and CO monitor to complete a CO self-test, video record the process, and submit videos using multimedia messaging. mHealth reinforcement participants could earn prizes for smoking-negative on-time CO tests. The interactive voice response generated preliminary earnings immediately. Earnings were finalized by comparing video records against participants' self-reports.mHealth reinforcement was associated with a greater proportion of smoking-negative CO tests, longest duration of prolonged abstinence, and point-prevalence abstinence during the monitoring/reinforcement phase compared to mHealth monitoring (p < .01, d = 0.8-1.3). Follow-up (weeks 4-24) analyses indicated main effects of reinforcement on point-prevalence abstinence and proportion of days smoked (p ? .05); values were comparable by week 24.mHealth reinforcement has short-term efficacy. Research on methods to enhance and sustain benefits is needed.This study suggests that mHealth abstinence reinforcement is efficacious and may present temporal and spatial opportunities to research, engage, and support smokers trying to quit that do not exist with conventional (not technology-based) reinforcement interventions.

Project description:ImportanceGiven the actions of varenicline tartrate and bupropion hydrochloride sustained-release (SR) on neurobiological targets related to affect and reward, it is thought that the modulation of nicotine withdrawal symptoms may contribute to their effectiveness.ObjectiveTo assess the relative efficacy of varenicline and bupropion SR plus intensive counseling on smoking cessation and emotional functioning.Design and settingPlacebo-controlled randomized clinical trial at a university medical center.ParticipantsIn total, 294 community volunteers who wanted to quit smoking.InterventionsTwelve weeks of varenicline, bupropion SR, or placebo plus intensive smoking cessation counseling (10 sessions, for a total of approximately 240 minutes of counseling).Main outcome measuresProlonged abstinence from smoking and weekly measures of depression, negative affect, and other symptoms of nicotine withdrawal.ResultsSignificant differences were found in abstinence at the end of treatment and through the 3-month postquit follow-up visit, favoring both active medications compared with placebo. At the 6-month postquit follow-up visit, only the varenicline vs placebo comparison remained significant. Varenicline use was also associated with a generalized suppression of depression and reduced smoking reward compared with the other treatments, while both active medications improved concentration, reduced craving, and decreased negative affect and sadness compared with placebo, while having little effect (increase or decrease) on anxiety and anger. No differences were noted in self-reported rates of neuropsychiatric adverse events.Conclusions and relevanceIn a community sample, varenicline exerts a robust and favorable effect on smoking cessation relative to placebo and may have a favorable (suppressive) effect on symptoms of depression and other affective measures, with no clear unfavorable effect on neuropsychiatric adverse events.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00507728.

Project description:ImportanceMillions of Americans are forced to quit smoking as they enter tobacco-free prisons and jails, but most return to smoking within days of release. Interventions are needed to sustain tobacco abstinence after release from incarceration.ObjectiveTo evaluate the extent to which the WISE intervention (Working Inside for Smoking Elimination), based on motivational interviewing (MI) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), decreases relapse to smoking after release from a smoke-free prison.DesignParticipants were recruited approximately 8 weeks prior to their release from a smoke-free prison and randomized to 6 weekly sessions of either education videos (control) or the WISE intervention.SettingA tobacco-free prison in the United States.ParticipantsA total of 262 inmates (35% female).Main outcome measureContinued smoking abstinence was defined as 7-day point-prevalence abstinence validated by urine cotinine measurement.ResultsAt the 3-week follow-up, 25% of participants in the WISE intervention (31 of 122) and 7% of the control participants (9 of 125) continued to be tobacco abstinent (odds ratio [OR], 4.4; 95% CI, 2.0-9.7). In addition to the intervention, Hispanic ethnicity, a plan to remain abstinent, and being incarcerated for more than 6 months were all associated with increased likelihood of remaining abstinent. In the logistic regression analysis, participants randomized to the WISE intervention were 6.6 times more likely to remain tobacco abstinent at the 3-week follow up than those randomized to the control condition (95% CI, 2.5-17.0). Nonsmokers at the 3-week follow-up had an additional follow-up 3 months after release, and overall 12% of the participants in the WISE intervention (14 of 122) and 2% of the control participants (3 of 125) were tobacco free at 3 months, as confirmed by urine cotinine measurement (OR, 5.3; 95% CI, 1.4-23.8).Conclusions and relevanceForced tobacco abstinence alone during incarceration has little impact on postrelease smoking status. A behavioral intervention provided prior to release greatly improves cotinine-confirmed smoking cessation in the community.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01122589.

Project description:BackgroundPeople with a serious mental illness are more likely to smoke more and to be more dependent smokers than the general population. This may be due to a wide range of factors that could include a common aetiology to both smoking and the illness, self medication, smoking to alleviate adverse effects of medications, boredom in the existing environment, or a combination of these factors. It is important to undertake this review to facilitate improvements in both the health and safety of people with serious mental illness who smoke, and to reduce the overall burden of costs (both financial and health) to the smoker and, eventually, to the taxpayer.ObjectivesTo review the effects of smoking cessation advice for people with serious mental illness.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Specialized Trials Register up to 2 April 2015, which is based on regular searches of CENTRAL, BIOSIS, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and trial registries. We also undertook unsystematic searches of a sample of the component databases (BNI, CINHAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO), up to 2 April 2015, and searched references of all identified studiesSelection criteriaWe planned to include all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that focussed on smoking cessation advice versus standard care or comparing smoking cessation advice with other more focussed methods of delivering care or information.Data collection and analysisThe review authors (PK, AC, and DB) independently screened search results but did not identify any trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review.Main resultsWe did not identify any RCTs that evaluated advice regarding smoking cessation for people with serious mental illness. The excluded studies illustrate that randomisation of packages of care relevant to smokers with serious mental illness is possible.Authors' conclusionsPeople with serious mental illness are more likely to smoke than the general population. Yet we could not find any high quality evidence to guide the smoking cessation advice healthcare professionals pass onto service users. This is an area where trials are possible and needed.

Project description:The focus on acute care, time pressure, and lack of resources hamper the delivery of smoking cessation interventions in the emergency department (ED). The aim of this study was to 1) determine the effect of an emergency nurse-initiated intervention on delivery of smoking cessation counseling based on the 5As framework (ask-advise-assess-assist-arrange) and 2) assess ED nurses' and physicians' perceptions of smoking cessation counseling.The authors conducted a pre-post trial in 789 adult smokers (five or more cigarettes/day) who presented to two EDs. The intervention focused on improving delivery of the 5As by ED nurses and physicians and included face-to-face training and an online tutorial, use of a charting/reminder tool, fax referral of motivated smokers to the state tobacco quitline for proactive telephone counseling, and group feedback to ED staff. To assess ED performance of cessation counseling, a telephone interview of subjects was conducted shortly after the ED visit. Nurses' and physicians' self-efficacy, role satisfaction, and attitudes toward smoking cessation counseling were assessed by survey. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the effect of the intervention on performance of the 5As, while adjusting for key covariates.Of 650 smokers who completed the post-ED interview, a greater proportion had been asked about smoking by an ED nurse (68% vs. 53%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.3 to 2.9), assessed for willingness to quit (31% vs. 9%, adjusted OR= 4.9, 95% CI = 2.9 to 7.9), and assisted in quitting (23% vs. 6%, adjusted OR = 5.1, 95% CI = 2.7 to 9.5) and had arrangements for follow-up cessation counseling (7% vs. 1%, adjusted OR = 7.1, 95% CI = 2.3 to 21) during the intervention compared to the baseline period. A similar increase was observed for emergency physicians (EPs). ED nurses' self-efficacy and role satisfaction in cessation counseling significantly improved following the intervention; however, there was no change in "pros" and "cons" attitudes toward smoking cessation in either ED nurses or physicians.Emergency department nurses and physicians can effectively deliver smoking cessation counseling to smokers in a time-efficient manner. This trial also provides empirical support for expert recommendations that call for nursing staff to play a larger role in delivering public health interventions in the ED.

Project description:ImportancePatients with cancer who smoke after diagnosis risk experiencing reductions in treatment effectiveness, survival rates, and quality of life, and increases in complications, cancer recurrence, and second primary cancers. Smoking cessation can significantly affect these outcomes, but to date comprehensive treatment is not widely implemented in the oncologic setting.ObjectivesTo describe a potential model tobacco treatment program (TTP) implemented in a cancer setting, report on its long-term outcomes, and highlight its importance to quality patient care.Design, setting, and participantsA prospective cohort of smokers was treated in the TTP at a comprehensive cancer center from January 1, 2006, to August 31, 2015. Data analysis was performed from November 2017 to December 2018. Participants included 3245 patients (2343 with current cancer; 309 with previous cancer; 593 with no cancer history) drawn from a population of 5061 smokers referred for treatment in the TTP. Reasons for exclusion included follow-up for a noncancerous disease, no medical consultation, smoked less than 1 cigarette per day; or died before the 9-month follow-up.ExposuresTreatment consisted of an in-person medical consultation, 6 to 8 in-person and telephone follow-up counseling sessions, and 10 to 12 weeks of pharmacotherapy.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was 9-month 7-day point-prevalence abstinence evaluated using time-specific (3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-ups) and longitudinal covariate-adjusted and unadjusted regression models with multiple imputation, intention-to-treat, and respondent-only approaches to missing data. The Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence was used as a measure of dependence (possible range, 0-10; higher numbers indicate greater dependence).ResultsOf the 3245 smokers, 1588 (48.9%) were men, 322 (9.9%) were of black race/ethnicity, 172 (5.3%) were of Hispanic race/ethnicity, and 2498 (76.0%) were of white race/ethnicity. Mean (SD) age was 54 (11.4) years; Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence score, 4.41 (2.2), number of cigarettes smoked per day, 17.1 (10.7); years smoked, 33 (13.2); and 1393 patients (42.9%) had at least 1 psychiatric comorbidity. Overall self-reported abstinence was 45.1% at 3 months, 45.8% at 6 months, and 43.7% at 9 months in the multiply imputed sample. Results across all models were consistent, suggesting that, in comparison with smokers with no cancer history, abstinence rates within this TTP program did not differ appreciably whether smokers had current cancer, were a cancer survivor, or had smoking-related cancers, with the exception of patients with head and neck cancer; the rates were higher at 9 months (relative risk, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.11-1.56; P = .001) and in longitudinal models (relative risk, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.42; P = .002).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, mean smoking abstinence rates did not differ significantly between patients with cancer and those without cancer. These findings suggest that providing comprehensive tobacco treatment in the oncologic setting can result in sustained high abstinence rates for all patients with cancer and survivors and should be included as standard of care to ensure the best possible cancer treatment outcomes.