Dataset Information

Interventions for tobacco use cessation in people living with HIV and AIDS.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Tobacco use is highly prevalent amongst people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) and has a substantial impact on morbidity and mortality.

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness of interventions to motivate and assist tobacco use cessation for people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), and to evaluate the risks of any harms associated with those interventions.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO in June 2015. We also searched EThOS, ProQuest, four clinical trial registries, reference lists of articles, and searched for conference abstracts using Web of Science and handsearched speciality conference databases.

Selection criteria

Controlled trials of behavioural or pharmacological interventions for tobacco cessation for PLWHA.

Data collection and analysis

Two review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised electronic data collection form. They extracted data on the nature of the intervention, participants, and proportion achieving abstinence and they contacted study authors to obtain missing information. We collected data on long-term (greater than or equal to six months) and short-term (less than six months) outcomes. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis and estimated the pooled effects using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method. Two authors independently assessed and reported the risk of bias according to prespecified criteria.

Main results

We identified 14 studies relevant to this review, of which we included 12 in a meta-analysis (n = 2087). All studies provided an intervention combining behavioural support and pharmacotherapy, and in most studies this was compared to a less intensive control, typically comprising a brief behavioural intervention plus pharmacotherapy.There was moderate quality evidence from six studies for the long-term abstinence outcome, which showed no evidence of effect for more intense cessation interventions: (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.39) with no evidence of heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%). The pooled long-term abstinence was 8% in both intervention and control conditions. There was very low quality evidence from 11 studies that more intense tobacco cessation interventions were effective in achieving short-term abstinence (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.00); there was moderate heterogeneity (I(2) = 42%). Abstinence in the control group at short-term follow-up was 8% (n = 67/848) and in the intervention group was 13% (n = 118/937). The effect of tailoring the intervention for PLWHA was unclear. We further investigated the effect of intensity of behavioural intervention via number of sessions and total duration of contact. We failed to detect evidence of a difference in effect according to either measure of intensity, although there were few studies in each subgroup. It was not possible to perform the planned analysis of adverse events or HIV outcomes since these were not reported in more than one study.

Authors' conclusions

There is moderate quality evidence that combined tobacco cessation interventions provide similar outcomes to controls in PLWHA in the long-term. There is very low quality evidence that combined tobacco cessation interventions were effective in helping PLWHA achieve short-term abstinence. Despite this, tobacco cessation interventions should be offered to PLWHA, since even non-sustained periods of abstinence have proven benefits. Further large, well designed studies of cessation interventions for PLWHA are needed.

SUBMITTER: Pool ER

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8604206 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and short messaging service (SMS)-based tobacco cessation interventions have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing tobacco use in many populations, but evidence is needed on which tailored treatments are most efficacious in meeting the complex medical and psychosocial factors confronting people living with HIV (PLWH) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). This paper describes the protocol of a study to test the efficacy of both NRT and a tailored SMS-based tobacco use cessation intervention among PLWH in Uganda and Zambia.MethodsIn a randomized controlled trial, 800 adult PLWH who use tobacco will be recruited by health care professionals at HIV treatment centers where they are receiving care. Participants will be randomized to one of the four study arms: (1) standard of care [SOC; brief clinician advice to quit combined with HIV education and information aimed at encouraging HIV treatment adherence (with no mention of tobacco) delivered via text messages]; (2) SOC + 12 weeks of NRT; (3) SOC + 6 weeks of SMS text messages to support quitting tobacco use (SMS); or (4) SOC + NRT + SMS. Participants will receive a cell phone and solar panel with power bank for charging the phone. The main outcome is cessation of tobacco use by study participants verified by urinary cotinine (< 15 ng/mL) at 6 months post-enrollment. As a secondary tobacco use outcome, we will measure 7-day point-prevalence abstinence (7 consecutive days of no tobacco use) measured by self-report and biochemically-verified at 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 3 months post enrollment.DiscussionOur study will provide insight into the efficacy, feasibility and applicability of delivering tobacco cessation interventions through health care professionals combined with tailored tobacco cessation SMS text messaging in two countries with different tobacco use patterns, policy environments, and health care resources and provide needed information to providers and policymakers looking for cost-effective tobacco cessation interventions. The previously tested SMS-platform to be used in our study is uniquely positioned to be scaled in low- and middle-income countries worldwide, in which case evidence of even modest success in reducing the prevalence of tobacco consumption among PLWH could confer enormous health and economic benefits.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT05487807. Registered August 4, 2022, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT05487807.

Project description:BackgroundThe prevalence of smoking among people living with HIV (PLHIV) is higher than that reported in the general population, and it is a significant risk factor for noncommunicable diseases in this group. Mobile phone interventions to promote healthier behaviors (mobile health, mHealth) have the potential to reach a large number of people at a low cost. It has been hypothesized that mHealth interventions may not be as effective as face-to-face strategies in achieving smoking cessation, but there is no systematic evidence to support this, especially among PLHIV.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare two modes of intervention delivery (mHealth vs face-to-face) for smoking cessation among PLHIV.MethodsLiterature on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating effects of mHealth or face-to-face intervention strategies on short-term (4 weeks to <6 months) and long-term (≥6 months) smoking abstinence among PLHIV was sought. We systematically reviewed relevant RCTs and conducted pairwise meta-analyses to estimate relative treatment effects of mHealth and face-to-face interventions using standard care as comparison. Given the absence of head-to-head trials comparing mHealth with face-to-face interventions, we performed adjusted indirect comparison meta-analyses to compare these interventions.ResultsA total of 10 studies involving 1772 PLHIV met the inclusion criteria. The average age of the study population was 45 years, and women comprised about 37%. In the short term, mHealth-delivered interventions were significantly more efficacious in increasing smoking cessation than no intervention control (risk ratio, RR, 2.81, 95% CI 1.44-5.49; n=726) and face-to-face interventions (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.13-4.72; n=726). In the short term, face-to-face interventions were no more effective than no intervention in increasing smoking cessation (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.94-1.58; n=1144). In terms of achieving long-term results among PLHIV, there was no significant difference in the rates of smoking cessation between those who received mHealth-delivered interventions, face-to-face interventions, or no intervention. Trial sequential analysis showed that only 15.16% (726/1304) and 5.56% (632/11,364) of the required information sizes were accrued to accept or reject a 25% relative risk reduction for short- and long-term smoking cessation treatment effects. In addition, sequential monitoring boundaries were not crossed, indicating that the cumulative evidence may be unreliable and inconclusive.ConclusionsCompared with face-to-face interventions, mHealth-delivered interventions can better increase smoking cessation rate in the short term. The evidence that mHealth increases smoking cessation rate in the short term is encouraging but not sufficient to allow a definitive conclusion presently. Future research should focus on strategies for sustaining smoking cessation treatment effects among PLHIV in the long term.