A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to induce attempts to quit tobacco among adults not ready to quit

The prevalence of past-year smoking cessation remains below 10% in the U.S. Most who smoke are not ready to quit in the near future. Cessation requires both (a) initiating a quit attempt (QA) and (b) maintaining abstinence. Most research has focused on abstinence among people already motivated to quit. We systematically reviewed interventions to promote QAs among people not motivated to quit tobacco. We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, APA PsycInfo, Embase, and our personal libraries for randomized trials of tobacco interventions that reported QAs as an outcome among adults not ready to quit. We screened studies and extracted data in duplicate. We pooled findings of the 25 included studies using Mantel–Haenszel random effects meta-analyses when ≥ 2 studies tested the same intervention. Most (24) trials addressed cigarettes and one addressed smokeless tobacco. Substantial heterogeneity among trials resulted in a series of small meta-analyses. Findings indicate varenicline may increase QAs more than no varenicline, n = 320; RR = 1.4, 95% CI [1.1, 1.7]; I² = 0%, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) may increase QAs more than no NRT, n = 2,568; RR = 1.1, 95% CI [1.02, 1.3]; I² = 0%. Pooled effects for motivational counseling, reduction counseling, and very low nicotine content cigarettes showed no clear evidence of benefit or harm. The evidence was judged to be of medium to very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias, suggesting that further research is likely to change interpretation of our results. Findings demonstrate the need for more high-quality research on interventions to induce QAs among adults not ready to quit tobacco

Response to reduced nicotine content cigarettes among smokers differing in tobacco dependence severity

This study examines whether tobacco dependence severity moderates the acute effects of reducing nicotine content in cigarettes on the addiction potential of smoking, craving/withdrawal, or smoking topography. Participants (N = 169) were daily smokers with mild, moderate, or high tobacco-dependence severity using the Heaviness of Smoking Index. Following brief abstinence, participants smoked research cigarettes varying in nicotine content (0.4, 2.4, 5.2, 15.8 mg nicotine/g tobacco) in a within-subject design. Results were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of co-variance. No main effects of dependence severity or interactions with nicotine dose were noted in relative reinforcing effects in concurrent choice testing or subjective effects on the modified Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire. Demand for smoking in the Cigarette Purchase Task was greater among more dependent smokers, but reducing nicotine content decreased demand independent of dependence severity. Dependence severity did not significantly alter response to reduced nicotine content cigarettes on the Minnesota Tobacco Withdrawal Scale nor Questionnaire of Smoking Urges-brief (QSU) Factor-2 scale; dependence severity and dose interacted significantly on the QSU-brief Factor-1 scale, with reductions dependent on dose among highly but not mildly or moderately dependent smokers. Dependence severity and dose interacted significantly on only one of six measures of smoking topography (i.e., maximum flow rate), which increased as dose increased among mildly and moderately but not highly dependent smokers. These results suggest that dependence severity has no moderating influence on the ability of reduced nicotine content cigarettes to lower the addiction potential of smoking, and minimal effects on relief from craving/withdrawal or smoking topography

Association of Cigarette Use and Substance Use Disorders among US Adults with and without a Recent Diagnosis of Cancer

Background: Few studies have examined substance use disorders (SUDs) in cancer patients and it is unclear whether SUDs differentially impact cigarette smoking in patients with vs. without cancer. This study used epidemiological data to estimate current cigarette smoking prevalence and quit ratios among US adults with and without SUDs by cancer status. Methods: Data were drawn from the 2015–2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (n = 170,111). Weighted current smoking prevalence and quit ratios were estimated across survey years by SUDs (with vs. without) and by cancer status (with vs. without). Results: Among those with cancer, current smoking prevalence was higher for those with vs. without SUDs (47% vs. 13%, p < 0.001) and quit ratios lower for those with vs. without SUDs (45% vs. 71%, p = 0.002). A similar pattern was observed in adults without cancer, with higher smoking prevalence (56% vs. 21%, p < 0.001) and lower quit ratios (23% vs. 51%, p < 0.001) observed for those with vs. without SUDs, respectively. In adjusted logistic regressions, the SUD × cancer status interaction was not significant for smoking prevalence or quit ratios (AOR = 1.2; 95% CI: 0.7, 2.1, p = 0.56; AOR = 1.0; 95% CI: 0.5, 2.0, p = 0.91, respectively), though smoking prevalence was lower and quit ratios higher for adults with vs. without cancer (ps < 0.05). Conclusions: Among US adults with and without cancer, individuals with SUDs evidenced higher cigarette smoking and lower quit ratios than those without SUDs. Addressing SUDs and their impact on smoking cessation is critical in cancer patients with implications for improving health and treatment outcomes

Promoting smoking abstinence among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Initial feasibility

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death in the U.S., with the majority of COPD deaths attributable to cigarette smoking. Despite this, individuals with COPD have a higher prevalence of smoking, poorer quit rates, and higher relapse rates compared to smokers without a COPD diagnosis. We examined the feasibility of an incentives-based intervention for producing an initial period of biochemically-verified smoking abstinence among daily smokers with COPD. Participants were randomly assigned to a Contingent (n = 13) or Noncontingent (n = 16) incentives condition and visited the clinic for 14 consecutive days. Contingent participants earned vouchers with monetary value contingent on breath carbon monoxide (CO) levels during Study Days 1–5 and urinary cotinine during Days 6–14. Voucher earnings began at $9.00 and increased by$1.50 with each subsequent negative sample for maximum possible of $362.50. Noncontingent participants received vouchers of comparable value independent of smoking status. Differences between conditions varied across study days for daily smoking abstinence (X2 = 45.27, p < 0.0001), CO (F(13, 280) = 1.95, p = 0.025), and cotinine (F(13, 279) = 2.20, p = 0.010), with generally higher rates of abstinence and lower CO and cotinine levels observed in the Contingent vs. Noncontingent conditions. Results from this randomized pilot study support the potential efficacy of an incentives-based intervention for reducing cigarette smoking among individuals with COPD. Further research efforts should seek to promote and evaluate longer-term abstinence and associated changes in respiratory function. Keywords: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Smoking, Behavioral intervention, Financial incentives, Vouchers, Contingency management, Carbon monoxide, Cotinin

Preliminary feasibility of integrating tobacco treatment into SUD peer recovery coaching: a mixed-methods study of peer recovery coaches

Abstract Background Individuals with substance use disorder (SUD) have high prevalence of cigarette smoking and difficulty quitting. Peer recovery coaches (PRCs; individuals with lived SUD experience) facilitate SUD behavior change in recoverees but it is unknown if/how they address tobacco treatment in SUD recovery coaching. We assessed PRC’s tobacco-related practices and attitudes about tobacco treatment in SUD recovery. Methods The Tobacco use In Peer-recovery Study (TIPS) was a cross-sectional mixed-methods pilot survey (January–March 2022) of the 26 PRCs employed by a Massachusetts-based healthcare system’s 12 SUD treatment clinics/programs. PRCs completed a quantitative survey (n = 23/26; 88%) and a telephone-based qualitative interview (n = 20/26; 77%). Results One-third of PRCs reported current smoking, 50% reported former smoking, and 18% never smoked. Among PRCs, 61% reported accompanying recoverees outdoors to smoke, 26% smoked with recoverees, 17% had provided cigarettes to recoverees, 32% used smoking to help build peer-relationships, and 74% rated smoking as socially acceptable in SUD treatment. PRCs reported regularly talking to recoverees about tobacco treatment (65%), believed they should have a role in helping recoverees quit smoking (52%), and were interested in tobacco treatment training (65%). A majority of both nonsmoking and current smoking PRCs (73% vs. 57%) regularly talked to recoverees about quitting smoking. Conclusion PRCs’ attitudes about integrating tobacco treatment into SUD recovery coaching were generally positive and PRCs reported they could have a role in helping recoverees with tobacco treatment. Barriers to integrating tobacco treatment into SUD recovery include use of cigarettes as a peer-recovery tool and high prevalence and social acceptability of smoking in SUD recovery

Examining the effects of stress and psychological distress on smoking abstinence in cancer patients

Introduction: Cancer patients who smoke report more stress and psychological distress than patients who do not smoke. It is unclear how these emotional symptoms may modify smoking behavior in cancer patients. We examined the influence of a smoking cessation intervention for cancer patients on stress and distress, and the effects of these symptoms on smoking abstinence. Methods: Mixed-methods secondary analysis of data from the Smokefree Support Study, a two-site randomized controlled trial examining the efficacy of Intensive (IT; n = 153) vs. Standard Treatment (ST; n = 150) for smoking cessation in newly diagnosed cancer patients. Stress coping, perceived stress, distress, and anxiety were self-reported at baseline, 3, and 6 months. Abstinence was biochemically-confirmed at 6 months. A subset of patients (n = 72) completed qualitative exit-interviews. Results: Patients were on average, 58 years old, 56% female, and smoked a median of 10 cigarettes/day. There were no significant treatment group × time interactions or main effects of treatment group on stress or distress measures (p’s > 0.05), however there were significant main effects of time suggesting symptom improvements on each measure in both study groups (p’s < 0.05). In adjusted logistic regression models, lower levels anxiety at 3 months predicted confirmed smoking abstinence at 6 months (p = .03). Qualitatively, at 6 months, patients reported their stress and smoking were connected and that the cessation counseling was helpful. Conclusions: Cancer patients enrolled in a smoking cessation trial report decreases in stress, distress and anxiety over time, and anxiety symptoms may impact smoking cessation success at follow-up resulting in an important intervention target

Comparative effectiveness of post-discharge strategies for hospitalized smokers: study protocol for the Helping HAND 2 randomized controlled trial

Background: Smoking cessation interventions for hospitalized smokers are effective in promoting smoking cessation, but only if the tobacco dependence treatment continues after the patient leaves the hospital. Sustaining tobacco dependence treatment after hospital discharge is a challenge for health care systems. Our previous single-site randomized controlled trial demonstrated the effectiveness of an intervention that facilitated the delivery of comprehensive tobacco cessation treatment, including both medication and counseling, after hospital discharge. We subsequently streamlined the intervention model to increase its potential for dissemination. This new model is being tested in a larger multi-site trial with broader eligibility criteria in order to enroll a more representative sample of hospitalized smokers. This paper describes the trial design and contrasts it with the earlier study. Methods/Design A 2-arm, 3-site randomized controlled trial is testing the hypothesis that a multi-component Sustained Care intervention is more effective than Standard Care in helping hospitalized cigarette smokers stop smoking after hospital discharge. The trial enrolls adult daily cigarette smokers who are admitted to 1 of 3 participating hospitals in Massachusetts or Pennsylvania. Participants receive the same smoking cessation intervention in the hospital. They are randomly assigned to receive either Standard Care or Sustained Care after hospital discharge. Participants in the Sustained Care arm receive a free 3-month supply of FDA-approved smoking cessation medication and 5 interactive voice response calls that provide tailored motivational messages, medication refills, and access to a live tobacco treatment counselor. Participants in the Standard Care arm receive a smoking cessation medication recommendation and information about community resources. Outcomes are assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge. The primary outcome is biochemically-validated tobacco abstinence for the past 7 days at 6-month follow-up. Other outcome measures include self-reported tobacco abstinence measures, use of medication and counseling after discharge, hospital readmissions, and program cost-effectiveness. Discussion We adapted a proven intervention for hospitalized smokers to enhance its potential for dissemination and are testing it in a multi-site trial. Study enrollment data suggests that the trial achieved the goal of recruiting a broader sample of hospitalized smokers. Trial registration Comparative Effectiveness of Post-Discharge Strategies for Hospitalized Smokers (Helping HAND2) NCT01714323. Registered October 22, 2012