Lindsay F Stead1, Tim Lancaster. 1. Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. lindsay.stead@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective pharmacotherapies are available to help people who are trying to stop smoking, but quitting can still be difficult and providing higher levels of behavioural support may increase success rates further. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2012 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount of behavioural support. Controls could receive less intensive personal contact, or just written information. We did not include studies that used a contact matched control to evaluate differences between types or components of support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by both authors. Data were extracted by one author and checked by the other.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria with over 15,000 participants in the relevant arms. There was very little evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 3%) so all studies were pooled in the main analysis. There was evidence of a small but statistically significant benefit from more intensive support (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.24) for abstinence at longest follow-up. All but two of the included studies provided four or more sessions of support. Most trials used nicotine replacement therapy. Significant effects were not detected for studies where the pharmacotherapy was nortriptyline (two trials) or varenicline (one trial), but this reflects the absence of evidence. In subgroup analyses, studies that provided at least four sessions of personal contact for the intervention and no personal contact for the control had slightly larger effects (six trials, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45), as did studies where all intervention counselling was via telephone (six trials, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41). Weaker evidence for a benefit of providing additional behavioural support was seen in the trials where all participants, including those in the control condition, had at least 30 minutes of personal contact (18 trials, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.25). None of the differences between subgroups were significant, and the last two subgroup analyses were not prespecified. No trials were judged at high risk of bias on any domain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking has a small but important effect. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10 to 25%, based on a pooled estimate from 38 trials. A subgroup analysis of a small number of trials suggests the benefit could be a little greater when the contrast is between a no contact control and a behavioural intervention that provides at least four sessions of contact. Subgroup analysis also suggests that there may be a smaller incremental benefit from providing even more intensive support via more or longer sessions over and above some personal contact.
BACKGROUND: Effective pharmacotherapies are available to help people who are trying to stop smoking, but quitting can still be difficult and providing higher levels of behavioural support may increase success rates further. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2012 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount of behavioural support. Controls could receive less intensive personal contact, or just written information. We did not include studies that used a contact matched control to evaluate differences between types or components of support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by both authors. Data were extracted by one author and checked by the other.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria with over 15,000 participants in the relevant arms. There was very little evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 3%) so all studies were pooled in the main analysis. There was evidence of a small but statistically significant benefit from more intensive support (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.24) for abstinence at longest follow-up. All but two of the included studies provided four or more sessions of support. Most trials used nicotine replacement therapy. Significant effects were not detected for studies where the pharmacotherapy was nortriptyline (two trials) or varenicline (one trial), but this reflects the absence of evidence. In subgroup analyses, studies that provided at least four sessions of personal contact for the intervention and no personal contact for the control had slightly larger effects (six trials, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45), as did studies where all intervention counselling was via telephone (six trials, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41). Weaker evidence for a benefit of providing additional behavioural support was seen in the trials where all participants, including those in the control condition, had at least 30 minutes of personal contact (18 trials, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.25). None of the differences between subgroups were significant, and the last two subgroup analyses were not prespecified. No trials were judged at high risk of bias on any domain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking has a small but important effect. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10 to 25%, based on a pooled estimate from 38 trials. A subgroup analysis of a small number of trials suggests the benefit could be a little greater when the contrast is between a no contact control and a behavioural intervention that provides at least four sessions of contact. Subgroup analysis also suggests that there may be a smaller incremental benefit from providing even more intensive support via more or longer sessions over and above some personal contact.
Authors: Soon-Hyun Ahn; Hyun Jun Hong; Soon Young Kwon; Kee Hwan Kwon; Jong-Lyel Roh; Junsun Ryu; Jun Hee Park; Seung-Kuk Baek; Guk Haeng Lee; Sei Young Lee; Jin Choon Lee; Man Ki Chung; Young Hoon Joo; Yong Bae Ji; Jeong Hun Hah; Minsu Kwon; Young Min Park; Chang Myeon Song; Sung-Chan Shin; Chang Hwan Ryu; Doh Young Lee; Young Chan Lee; Jae Won Chang; Ha Min Jeong; Jae-Keun Cho; Wonjae Cha; Byung Joon Chun; Ik Joon Choi; Hyo Geun Choi; Kang Dae Lee Journal: Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 3.372
Authors: Kari Jo Harris; Andrea Bradley-Ewing; Kathy Goggin; Kimber P Richter; Christi Patten; Karen Williams; Hyoung S Lee; Vincent S Staggs; Delwyn Catley Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2016-04-13
Authors: Dalton Bertolim Précoma; Gláucia Maria Moraes de Oliveira; Antonio Felipe Simão; Oscar Pereira Dutra; Otávio Rizzi Coelho; Maria Cristina de Oliveira Izar; Rui Manuel Dos Santos Póvoa; Isabela de Carlos Back Giuliano; Aristóteles Comte de Alencar Filho; Carlos Alberto Machado; Carlos Scherr; Francisco Antonio Helfenstein Fonseca; Raul Dias Dos Santos Filho; Tales de Carvalho; Álvaro Avezum; Roberto Esporcatte; Bruno Ramos Nascimento; David de Pádua Brasil; Gabriel Porto Soares; Paolo Blanco Villela; Roberto Muniz Ferreira; Wolney de Andrade Martins; Andrei C Sposito; Bruno Halpern; José Francisco Kerr Saraiva; Luiz Sergio Fernandes Carvalho; Marcos Antônio Tambascia; Otávio Rizzi Coelho-Filho; Adriana Bertolami; Harry Correa Filho; Hermes Toros Xavier; José Rocha Faria-Neto; Marcelo Chiara Bertolami; Viviane Zorzanelli Rocha Giraldez; Andrea Araújo Brandão; Audes Diógenes de Magalhães Feitosa; Celso Amodeo; Dilma do Socorro Moraes de Souza; Eduardo Costa Duarte Barbosa; Marcus Vinícius Bolívar Malachias; Weimar Kunz Sebba Barroso de Souza; Fernando Augusto Alves da Costa; Ivan Romero Rivera; Lucia Campos Pellanda; Maria Alayde Mendonça da Silva; Aloyzio Cechella Achutti; André Ribeiro Langowiski; Carla Janice Baister Lantieri; Jaqueline Ribeiro Scholz; Silvia Maria Cury Ismael; José Carlos Aidar Ayoub; Luiz César Nazário Scala; Mario Fritsch Neves; Paulo Cesar Brandão Veiga Jardim; Sandra Cristina Pereira Costa Fuchs; Thiago de Souza Veiga Jardim; Emilio Hideyuki Moriguchi; Jamil Cherem Schneider; Marcelo Heitor Vieira Assad; Sergio Emanuel Kaiser; Ana Maria Lottenberg; Carlos Daniel Magnoni; Marcio Hiroshi Miname; Roberta Soares Lara; Artur Haddad Herdy; Cláudio Gil Soares de Araújo; Mauricio Milani; Miguel Morita Fernandes da Silva; Ricardo Stein; Fernando Antonio Lucchese; Fernando Nobre; Hermilo Borba Griz; Lucélia Batista Neves Cunha Magalhães; Mario Henrique Elesbão de Borba; Mauro Ricardo Nunes Pontes; Ricardo Mourilhe-Rocha Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Kathryn L Taylor; Charlotte J Hagerman; George Luta; Paula G Bellini; Cassandra Stanton; David B Abrams; Jenna A Kramer; Eric Anderson; Shawn Regis; Andrea McKee; Brady McKee; Ray Niaura; Harry Harper; Michael Ramsaier Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Bradley N Collins; Stephen J Lepore; Jonathan P Winickoff; Uma S Nair; Beth Moughan; Tyra Bryant-Stephens; Adam Davey; Daniel Taylor; David Fleece; Melissa Godfrey Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 7.124