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

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 (~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

Creating change in government to address the social determinants of health: how can efforts be improved?

Background - The evidence base for the impact of social determinants of health has been strengthened considerably in the last decade. Increasingly, the public health field is using this as a foundation for arguments and actions to change government policies. The Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach, alongside recommendations from the 2010 Marmot Review into health inequalities in the UK (which we refer to as the ‘Fairness Agenda’), go beyond advocating for the redesign of individual policies, to shaping the government structures and processes that facilitate the implementation of these policies. In doing so, public health is drawing on recent trends in public policy towards ‘joined up government’, where greater integration is sought between government departments, agencies and actors outside of government. Methods - In this paper we provide a meta-synthesis of the empirical public policy research into joined up government, drawing out characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives. - We use this thematic synthesis as a basis for comparing and contrasting emerging public health interventions concerned with joined-up action across government. Results - We find that HiAP and the Fairness Agenda exhibit some of the characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives, however they also utilise ‘change instruments’ that have been found to be ineffective. Moreover, we find that – like many joined up initiatives – there is room for improvement in the alignment between the goals of the interventions and their design. Conclusion - Drawing on public policy studies, we recommend a number of strategies to increase the efficacy of current interventions. More broadly, we argue that up-stream interventions need to be ‘fit-for-purpose’, and cannot be easily replicated from one context to the next

Mobilising a disadvantaged community for a cardiovascular intervention : designing PRORIVA in Yogyakarta, Indonesia

INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a burden for developing countries, yet few CVD intervention studies have been conducted in developing countries such as Indonesia. This paper outlines the process of designing a community intervention programme to reduce CVD risk factors, and discusses experiences with regard to design issues for a small-scale intervention. DESIGN PROCESS: THE DESIGN PROCESS FOR THE PRESENT COMMUNITY INTERVENTION CONSISTED OF SIX STAGES: (1) a baseline risk factor survey, (2) design of a small-scale intervention by using both baseline survey and qualitative data, (3) implementation of the small-scale intervention, (4) evaluation of the small-scale intervention and design of a broader CVD intervention in the Yogyakarta municipality, (5) implementation of the broader intervention and (6) evaluation of the broader CVD intervention. According to the baseline survey, 60% of the men were smokers, more than 30% of the population had insufficient fruit and vegetable intake and more than 30% of the population were physically inactive, this is why a small-scale population intervention approach was chosen, guided both by the findings in the quantitative and the qualitative study. EXPERIENCES: A quasi-experimental study was designed with a control group and pre- and post-testing. In the small-scale intervention, two sub-districts were selected and randomly assigned as intervention and control areas. Within them, six intervention settings (two sub-villages, two schools and two workplaces) and three control settings (a sub-village, a school and a workplace) were selected. Health promotion activities targeting the whole community were implemented in the intervention area. During the evaluation, more activities were performed in the low socioeconomic status sub-village and at the civil workplace.This study was supported by a grant from the Provincial Health Office of Yogyakarta Special Regency, Indonesia, by a scholarship based on a donation from the Swedish Centre Party to Umea International School of Public Health, Umea, Sweden and Umea Centre for Global Health Research.</p