Irene Pericot-Valverde1, Roberto Secades-Villa2, José Gutiérrez-Maldonado3. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, 1 S. Prospect St. UHC OH3 MS 482, Burlington, VT 05405, USA. Electronic address: ipericot@uvm.edu. 2. Department of Psychology, University of Oviedo, Plaza Feijoo s/n, Oviedo, 33003, Spain. 3. Department of Personality, Assessment and Psychological Treatments, University of Barcelona, Passeig de la Vall d' Hebron 171, Barcelona, 08035, Spain.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:Cue-induced craving is a major motivator of smoking behavior, and, more importantly, a predictor of relapse. Previous studies demonstrated that cue exposure treatment (CET) reduces both cue-induced craving and daily nicotine intake in smokers. However, the efficacy of CET for smoking cessation has rarely been tested in controlled trials. This two-site randomized clinical trial explored the effectiveness of a CET procedure in combination with a Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment (CBT) for smoking cessation among treatment-seeking patients from the general population. METHODS:One hundred and two smokers were randomly assigned to one of two treatment conditions: CBT (n = 52) or CBT + CET (n = 50). The CBT intervention involved group-based sessions over the course of 6 weeks. In addition to CBT, participants in the CBT + CET condition received 5 individual sessions of CET through virtual reality. RESULTS: The CBT + CET group showed a significant reduction in cue-induced craving. However, there were no significant differences in either retention nor abstinence rates between CBT and CBT + CET in any assessment period (end-of-treatment, 1-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up). Moreover, a higher rate of relapse over a 12-month follow-up period was found in the CBT + CET group compared to the CBT group (Wald χ2 = 4.796, p = .029). CONCLUSIONS: Findings support and expand previous evidence by showing that a CET protocol does not increase the effectiveness of a CBT intervention for smoking cessation among treatment-seeking smokers. Moreover, this study also reveals that CET may increase risk of relapse among nicotine-dependent individuals who successfully achieve abstinence. Until the mechanisms underlying the effect of CET are identified, researchers and clinicians should be cautious when utilizing this protocol.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Cue-induced craving is a major motivator of smoking behavior, and, more importantly, a predictor of relapse. Previous studies demonstrated that cue exposure treatment (CET) reduces both cue-induced craving and daily nicotine intake in smokers. However, the efficacy of CET for smoking cessation has rarely been tested in controlled trials. This two-site randomized clinical trial explored the effectiveness of a CET procedure in combination with a Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment (CBT) for smoking cessation among treatment-seeking patients from the general population. METHODS: One hundred and two smokers were randomly assigned to one of two treatment conditions: CBT (n = 52) or CBT + CET (n = 50). The CBT intervention involved group-based sessions over the course of 6 weeks. In addition to CBT, participants in the CBT + CET condition received 5 individual sessions of CET through virtual reality. RESULTS: The CBT + CET group showed a significant reduction in cue-induced craving. However, there were no significant differences in either retention nor abstinence rates between CBT and CBT + CET in any assessment period (end-of-treatment, 1-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up). Moreover, a higher rate of relapse over a 12-month follow-up period was found in the CBT + CET group compared to the CBT group (Wald χ2 = 4.796, p = .029). CONCLUSIONS: Findings support and expand previous evidence by showing that a CET protocol does not increase the effectiveness of a CBT intervention for smoking cessation among treatment-seeking smokers. Moreover, this study also reveals that CET may increase risk of relapse among nicotine-dependent individuals who successfully achieve abstinence. Until the mechanisms underlying the effect of CET are identified, researchers and clinicians should be cautious when utilizing this protocol.
Authors: Theresa Brown; Emily Nauman Vogel; Debra L Safer; Cristin D Runfola; Sarah Adler; Cara Bohon; Kim Bullock; Katherine Nameth; Giuseppe Riva Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Emilio Goldenhersch; Johannes Thrul; Joaquín Ungaretti; Nicolas Rosencovich; Cristian Waitman; Marcelo Rodriguez Ceberio Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Clemence Arissen; Laura van der Helm; Boukje Dijkstra; Wiebren Markus Journal: Int J Ment Health Addict Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 11.555