Dataset Information

Effectiveness of smoking cessation therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Wu P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1764891 | biostudies-other | 2006

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of smoking cessation therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wu Ping P Wilson Kumanan K Dimoulas Popey P Mills Edward J EJ

BMC public health 20061211

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched 10 electronic medical databases (inception to Sept. 2006) and bibliographies of published reviews. We selected rand ...[more]

PMID: 17156479

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRapid advancements in eHealth and mobile health (mHealth) technologies have driven researchers to design and evaluate numerous technology-based interventions to promote smoking cessation. The evolving nature of cessation interventions emphasizes a strong need for knowledge synthesis.ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize recent evidence from randomized controlled trials regarding the effectiveness of eHealth-based smoking cessation interventions in promoting abstinence and assess nonabstinence outcome indicators, such as cigarette consumption and user satisfaction, via narrative synthesis.MethodsWe searched for studies published in English between 2017 and June 30, 2022, in 4 databases: PubMed (including MEDLINE), PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers performed study screening, data extraction, and quality assessment based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework. We pooled comparable studies based on the population, follow-up time, intervention, and control characteristics. Two researchers performed an independent meta-analysis on smoking abstinence using the Sidik-Jonkman random-effects model and log risk ratio (RR) as the effect measurement. For studies not included in the meta-analysis, the outcomes were narratively synthesized.ResultsA total of 464 studies were identified through an initial database search after removing duplicates. Following screening and full-text assessments, we deemed 39 studies (n=37,341 participants) eligible for this review. Of these, 28 studies were shortlisted for meta-analysis. According to the meta-analysis, SMS or app text messaging can significantly increase both short-term (3 months) abstinence (log RR=0.50, 95% CI 0.25-0.75; I2=0.72%) and long-term (6 months) abstinence (log RR=0.77, 95% CI 0.49-1.04; I2=8.65%), relative to minimal cessation support. The frequency of texting did not significantly influence treatment outcomes. mHealth apps may significantly increase abstinence in the short term (log RR=0.76, 95% CI 0.09-1.42; I2=88.02%) but not in the long term (log RR=0.15, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.48; I2=80.06%), in contrast to less intensive cessation support. In addition, personalized or interactive interventions showed a moderate increase in cessation for both the short term (log RR=0.62, 95% CI 0.30-0.94; I2=66.50%) and long term (log RR=0.28, 95% CI 0.04-0.53; I2=73.42%). In contrast, studies without any personalized or interactive features had no significant impact. Finally, the treatment effect was similar between trials that used biochemically verified or self-reported abstinence. Among studies reporting outcomes besides abstinence (n=20), a total of 11 studies reported significantly improved nonabstinence outcomes in cigarette consumption (3/14, 21%) or user satisfaction (8/19, 42%).ConclusionsOur review of 39 randomized controlled trials found that recent eHealth interventions might promote smoking cessation, with mHealth being the dominant approach. Despite their success, the effectiveness of such interventions may diminish with time. The design of more personalized interventions could potentially benefit future studies.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022347104; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=347104.

Project description:IntroductionConversational agents (CAs; computer programs that use artificial intelligence to simulate a conversation with users through natural language) have evolved considerably in recent years to support healthcare by providing autonomous, interactive, and accessible services, making them potentially useful for supporting smoking cessation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide an overarching evaluation of their effectiveness and acceptability to inform future development and adoption.Aims and methodsPsycInfo, Web of Science, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Medline, EMBASE, Communication and Mass Media Complete, and CINAHL Complete were searched for studies examining the use of CAs for smoking cessation. Data from eligible studies were extracted and used for random-effects meta-analyses.ResultsThe search yielded 1245 publications with 13 studies eligible for systematic review (total N = 8236) and six studies for random-effects meta-analyses. All studies reported positive effects on cessation-related outcomes. A meta-analysis with randomized controlled trials reporting on abstinence yielded a sample-weighted odds ratio of 1.66 (95% CI = 1.33% to 2.07%, p < .001), favoring CAs over comparison groups. A narrative synthesis of all included studies showed overall high acceptability, while some barriers were identified from user feedback. Overall, included studies were diverse in design with mixed quality, and evidence of publication bias was identified. A lack of theoretical foundations was noted, as well as a clear need for relational communication in future designs.ConclusionsThe effectiveness and acceptability of CAs for smoking cessation are promising. However, standardization of reporting and designing of the agents is warranted for a more comprehensive evaluation.ImplicationsThis is the first systematic review to provide insight into the use of CAs to support smoking cessation. Our findings demonstrated initial promise in the effectiveness and user acceptability of these agents. We also identified a lack of theoretical and methodological limitations to improve future study design and intervention delivery.

Project description:Background The success of pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation in real-life remains limited, with a significant number of long-term relapses. Despite first promising results, the duration of the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes is still unknown. Our objective was to assess the duration of the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes on smoking cessation and reduction in daily smokers. Methods The databases EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov and PUBMED were consulted until March 23, 2022. We selected only randomized controlled trials with daily adult smokers. The intervention was the nicotinic electronic cigarette vs. non-nicotine electronic cigarette or other validated pharmacotherapies (varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy). The minimum duration of the intervention was 3 months, with a follow-up of at least 6 months. Two independent reviewers used the PRISMA guidelines. The primary endpoint was smoking cessation at the end of the intervention and follow-up periods confirmed by a reduction in expired CO < 10 ppm. The reduction was defined as at least 50% of the initial consumption or by a decrease of daily mean cigarette consumption at the end of the intervention and follow-up periods. Results Abstinence at the end of the intervention and follow-up periods was significantly higher in the nicotine electronic cigarette group, compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) [respectively: RR: 1.37 (CI 95%: 1.32–2.93) and RR: 1.49 (CI 95%: 1.14–1.95)] and to the non-nicotine electronic cigarette condition [respectively: RR: 1.97 (CI 95%: 1.18–2.68) and RR: 1.66 (CI 95%: 1.01–2.73)]. With regard to smoking reduction, the electronic cigarette with nicotine is significantly more effective than NRT at the end of the intervention and follow-up periods [respectively RR: 1.48 (CI 95%: 1.04–2.10) and RR: 1.47 (CI 95%: 1.18–1.82)] and non-nicotine electronic cigarette in the long term [RR: 1.31 (CI 95%: 1.02–1.68)]. Conclusions This meta-analysis shows the duration of the effectiveness of the nicotine electronic cigarette vs. non-nicotine electronic cigarette and NRT on smoking cessation and reduction. There are still uncertainties about the risks of its long-term use and its potential role as a gateway into smoking, particularly among young people.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate change in mental health after smoking cessation compared with continuing to smoke.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.Data sourcesWeb of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO for relevant studies from inception to April 2012. Reference lists of included studies were hand searched, and authors were contacted when insufficient data were reported.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesLongitudinal studies of adults that assessed mental health before smoking cessation and at least six weeks after cessation or baseline in healthy and clinical populations.Results26 studies that assessed mental health with questionnaires designed to measure anxiety, depression, mixed anxiety and depression, psychological quality of life, positive affect, and stress were included. Follow-up mental health scores were measured between seven weeks and nine years after baseline. Anxiety, depression, mixed anxiety and depression, and stress significantly decreased between baseline and follow-up in quitters compared with continuing smokers: the standardised mean differences (95% confidence intervals) were anxiety -0.37 (95% confidence interval -0.70 to -0.03); depression -0.25 (-0.37 to -0.12); mixed anxiety and depression -0.31 (-0.47 to -0.14); stress -0.27 (-0.40 to -0.13). Both psychological quality of life and positive affect significantly increased between baseline and follow-up in quitters compared with continuing smokers 0.22 (0.09 to 0.36) and 0.40 (0.09 to 0.71), respectively). There was no evidence that the effect size differed between the general population and populations with physical or psychiatric disorders.ConclusionsSmoking cessation is associated with reduced depression, anxiety, and stress and improved positive mood and quality of life compared with continuing to smoke. The effect size seems as large for those with psychiatric disorders as those without. The effect sizes are equal or larger than those of antidepressant treatment for mood and anxiety disorders.

Project description:ObjectivesDespite the aggressive marketing of electronic nicotine device systems (ENDS) as smoking cessation tools, the evidence of their effectiveness is mixed. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials to determine the effect of ENDS on cigarette smoking cessation, as compared with other types of nicotine replacement therapies (NRT).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, the CENTRAL Trials Registry of the Cochrane Collaboration using the Ovid interface, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform trials registries were searched through 17 June 2020.Eligibility criteria for studiesRandomised controlled trials in which any type of ENDS was compared with any type of NRT, in traditional cigarette users.Data extraction and synthesisThe primary outcome was smoking cessation, defined as abstinence from traditional cigarette smoking for any time period, as reported in each included study, regardless of whether abstinence is self-reported or biochemically validated. Secondary outcomes included smoking reduction, harms, withdrawal and acceptance of therapy. A random-effect model was used, and data were pooled in meta-analyses where appropriate.ResultsSix studies were retained from 270. Most outcomes were judged to be at high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was graded as 'low' or 'very low'. Pooled results showed no difference in smoking cessation (rate ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.09), proportion of participants reducing smoking consumption (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.98), mean reduction in cigarettes smoked per day (mean difference 1.11, 95% CI -0.41 to 2.63), or harms (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.20), between groups.ConclusionWe found no difference in smoking cessation, harms and smoking reduction between e-cigarette and NRT users. However, the quality of the evidence was low. Further research is needed before widespread recommendations are made with regard to the use of ENDS.Prospero registration numberSystematic review registration number: protocol registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on February 27th, 2020; CRD42020169416.

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:BackgroundE-cigarettes are currently being debated regarding their possible role in smoking cessation and as they are becoming increasingly popular, the research to date requires investigation.ObjectivesTo investigate whether the use of e-cigarettes is associated with smoking cessation or reduction, and whether there is any difference in efficacy of e-cigarettes with and without nicotine on smoking cessation.Data sourcesA systematic review of articles with no limit on publication date was conducted by searching PubMed, Web of Knowledge and Scopus databases.MethodsPublished studies, those reported smoking abstinence or reduction in cigarette consumption after the use of e-cigarettes, were included. Studies were systematically reviewed, and meta-analyses were conducted using Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect and random-effects models. Degree of heterogeneity among studies and quality of the selected studies were evaluated.ResultsSix studies were included involving 7,551 participants. Meta-analyses included 1,242 participants who had complete data on smoking cessation. Nicotine filled e-cigarettes were more effective for cessation than those without nicotine (pooled Risk Ratio 2.29, 95%CI 1.05-4.97). Amongst 1,242 smokers, 224 (18%) reported smoking cessation after using nicotine-enriched e-cigarettes for a minimum period of six months. Use of such e-cigarettes was positively associated with smoking cessation with a pooled Effect Size of 0.20 (95%CI 0.11-0.28). Use of e-cigarettes was also associated with a reduction in the number of cigarettes used.LimitationsIncluded studies were heterogeneous, due to different study designs and gender variation. Whilst we were able to comment on the efficacy of nicotine vs. non-nicotine e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, we were unable to comment on the efficacy of e-cigarettes vs. other interventions for cessation, given the lack of comparator groups in the studies included in this meta-analysis.ConclusionsUse of e-cigarettes is associated with smoking cessation and reduction. More randomised controlled trials are needed to assess effectiveness against other cessation methods.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of smoking cessation therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Effectiveness of smoking cessation therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets