Cessation experiences and quitting perspectives of Jordanian cancer patients who smoke

ObjectivesTo describe quitting experiences of cancer patients in a Cancer Center in Jordan; to study patients’ perceptions regarding the process of smoking cessation; and to provide insights about patients in this difficult setting in order to inform oncology practitioners with regards to how improve perceptions and skills related to quitting.MethodsAn Arabic cross-sectional questionnaire was developed to evaluate smoking and quitting behaviors in the context of cancer. The tool used as its framework the Theoretical Domains Framework to capture quitting perceptions of cancer patients who smoke, as well as social, environmental, and system-level factors that influence quitting. Eligible patients who were treated at the Center (both in-patient and out-patient settings) and who were current smokers or who smoked up to the time of cancer diagnosis were eligible. Patients were interviewed between July, 2018 and January 2020 using two versions of the questionnaire: an ‘ex-smokers’ version, and a ‘current smokers’ version.ResultsOnly a third of subjects (104/350) had been smoke-free for at least 30 days. Both smokers and ex-smokers generally felt that quitting was important, but mean importance and confidence scores (out of 10) were significantly lower in current smokers (8.2 versus 9.1, p-value=0.002; 6.4 versus 8.7, p-value=0.000). Roughly 31% of subjects believed smoking harms were exaggerated and that smoking was not an addiction. About 62% of subjects agreed quitting required skills, and 78.5% felt the steps to quit were clear, but across several listed strategies for quitting, use of these was limited (even in ex-smokers). Among current smokers, roughly a third exhibited forms of cessation fatigue.ConclusionJordanian cancer patients who smoke present with limited knowledge about the quitting process. Even when some success is observed, low rates of utilization of specific quitting strategies were observed, highlighting the need for better counseling about quitting.     

Country profile: Australia,New South Wales. From validation to implementation: Progressing tobacco smoking cessation among people with cancer and beyond via relevant authorities

This paper delineates how a program of tobacco smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis was achieved by engagement of multiple stakeholders, government, and non-government authorities in one jurisdiction in Australia, New South Wales. While it had become increasingly obvious that smoking cessation imparts benefits akin to other known treatment modalities, knowledge of this generalisation is without benefit unless this information is delivered in a trusted context and means to quit are made available. Against a backdrop of little enthusiasm among clinicians, the Cancer Institute NSW, charged with implementing tobacco control strategies, decided to focus its 2017 annual colloquium on the topic. While the evidence was unequivocal, better clarity was needed that this was indeed a clinical responsibility, and on the resources needed. The Clinical Oncology Society of Australia, (COSA) a non-governmental peak national body representing cancer care professionals, addressed this challenge. The society’s governing body resolved to develop a position statement indicating how smoking cessation might be integrated within hospital-based cancer care. The position statement, endorsed by nineteen other cancer and non-cancer organisations, provided reassurance to the Institute to improve record capture of hospital smoking information; upskill all clinical staff and develop an automatic “patient opt out” referral to existing resources such as the Quitline. Early pilot work shows that people newly diagnosed with cancer who smoke and who were advised at that time to quit increased from 55% in 2016 to 72% in 2019.     

The Views and Experiences of Smokers Who Quit Smoking Unassisted. A Systematic Review of the Qualitative Evidence

BackgroundUnassisted cessation – quitting without pharmacological or professional support – is an enduring phenomenon. Unassisted cessation persists even in nations advanced in tobacco control where cessation assistance such as nicotine replacement therapy, the stop-smoking medications bupropion and varenicline, and behavioural assistance are readily available. We review the qualitative literature on the views and experiences of smokers who quit unassisted.MethodWe systematically searched for peer-reviewed qualitative studies reporting on smokers who quit unassisted. We identified 11 studies and used a technique based on Thomas and Harden’s method of thematic synthesis to discern key themes relating to unassisted cessation, and to then group related themes into overarching concepts.FindingsThe three concepts identified as important to smokers who quit unassisted were: motivation, willpower and commitment. Motivation, although widely reported, had only one clear meaning, that is ‘the reason for quitting’. Willpower was perceived to be a method of quitting, a strategy to counteract cravings or urges, or a personal quality or trait fundamental to quitting success. Commitment was equated to seriousness or resoluteness, was perceived as key to successful quitting, and was often used to distinguish earlier failed quit attempts from the final successful quit attempt. Commitment had different dimensions. It appeared that commitment could be tentative or provisional, and also cumulative, that is, commitment could be built upon as the quit attempt progressed.ConclusionA better understanding of what motivation, willpower and commitment mean from the smoker’s perspective may provide new insights and direction for smoking cessation research and practice.     

Changes in cigarette smoking behavior among breast cancer and unaffected women – A prospective study in the MARIE cohort

BackgroundSmoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis can reduce adverse cancer treatment outcomes. Whether a breast cancer diagnosis, a cancer commonly seen as unrelated to smoking cigarettes, motivates changes in smoking behavior is not fully understood. We aimed to compare long-term changes at three follow-up times of cigarette smoking behavior in women with breast cancer and baseline age- and region-matched unaffected women.MethodsWe used longitudinal data from the population-based case-control study MARIE (Mamma Carcinoma Risk Factor Investigation). Women with breast cancer (N = 3813) and unaffected women (N = 7341) aged 50–74 years were recruited from 2002 to 2005. Analyses on changes in smoking were based on data from those who also completed follow-up 1 in 2009–2012, follow-up 2 in 2014–2016 and follow-up 3 in 2020. Multinomial logistic regression for changes (quitting, stable, or start smoking) adjusted for age, study region, education, comorbidities, living situation, and follow-up time, was applied to examine the associations between breast cancer status and changes in smoking behavior.ResultsWomen with breast cancer had significantly higher odds than unaffected women of quitting smoking (OR = 1.38, 95 % CI: 1.01–1.89) and lower odds of returning to smoking (OR = 0.29, 95 % CI: 0.09–0.94) at follow-up 1, but were more likely to start or return to smoking at follow-up 2 (OR = 2.11, 95 % CI 1.08–4.15). No significant group differences were found for changes in smoking behavior at follow-up 3.ConclusionOur findings indicate that short-term changes in smoking behavior can be attributed to a breast cancer diagnosis, but that over time the effect diminishes and changes in smoking no longer differ between breast cancer and breast cancer-free women. To support smoking cessation and to prevent relapse, guidelines to address smoking in cancer care, as well as comprehensive tobacco treatment services, are needed.     

Using "warm handoffs" to link hospitalized smokers with tobacco treatment after discharge: Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Post-discharge support is a key component of effective treatment for hospitalized smokers, but few hospitals provide it. Many hospitals and care settings fax refer smokers to quitlines for follow up, however, less than half of fax-referred smokers are successfully contacted and enrolled in quitline services. "Warm handoff" is a novel approach to care transitions in which health care providers directly link patients with substance abuse problems with specialists, using face-to-face or phone transfer. Warm handoff achieves very high rates of treatment enrollment for these vulnerable groups. METHODS: The aim of this study--"EQUIP" (Enhancing Quitline Utilization among In-Patients)--is to determine the effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness, of warm handoff versus fax referral for linking hospitalized smokers with tobacco quitlines. This study employs a two-arm, individually randomized design. It is set in two large Kansas hospitals that have dedicated tobacco treatment interventionists on staff. At each site, smokers who wish to remain abstinent after discharge will be randomly assigned to groups. For patients in the fax group, staff will provide standard in-hospital intervention and will fax-refer patients to the state tobacco quitline for counseling post-discharge. For patients in the warm handoff group, staff will provide brief in-hospital intervention and immediate warm handoff: staff will call the state quitline, notify them that a warm handoff inpatient from Kansas is on the line, then transfer the call to the patients' mobile or bedside hospital phone for quitline enrollment and an initial counseling session. Following the quitline session, hospital staff provide a brief check-back visit. Costs are measured to support cost-effectiveness analyses. We hypothesize that warm handoff, compared to fax referral, will improve care transitions for tobacco treatment, enroll more participants in quitline services and lead to higher quit rates. We also hypothesize that warm handoff will be more cost-effective from a societal perspective. Outcome measures will be assessed at 1, 6, and 12-months post enrollment. DISCUSSION: If successful, this project offers a low-cost solution for more efficiently linking millions of hospitalized smokers with effective outpatient treatment--smokers that might otherwise be lost in the transition to outpatient care. Trial registration: Clinical Trials Registration NCT01305928 Key words: Tobacco use disorder, smoking cessation, hospital, randomized clinical trial.     

Web-based smoking cessation intervention that transitions from inpatient to outpatient: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: E-health tools are a new mechanism to expand patient care, allowing supplemental resources to usual care, including enhanced patient-provider communication. These applications to smoking cessation have not yet been tested in a hospitalized patient sample. This project aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a tailored web-based and e-message smoking cessation program for current smokers that, upon hospital discharge, transitions the patient to continue a quit attempt when home (Decide2Quit). DESIGN: A randomized two-arm follow-up design will test the effectiveness of an evidence- and theoretically-based smoking cessation program designed for post-hospitalization. METHODS: 1488 patients aged 19 or older, who smoked cigarettes in the previous 30 days, are being recruited from 27 patient care areas of a large urban university hospital. Study eligible hospitalized patients receiving tobacco cessation usual care are offered study referral. Trained hospital staff assist the 744 patients who are being randomized to the intervention arm with registration and orientation to the intervention website. This e-mail and web-based program offers tailored messages as well as education, self-assessment and planning aids, and social support to promote tobacco use cessation. Condition-blind study staff assess participants for tobacco use history and behaviors, tobacco use costs-related information, co-morbidities and psychosocial factors at 0, 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome is self-reported 30-day tobacco abstinence at 6 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes include 7-day point prevalence quit rates at 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up, 30-day point prevalence quit rates at 3 and 12 months, biologically confirmed tobacco abstinence at 6-months follow-up, and multiple point-prevalence quit rates based on self-reported tobacco abstinence rates at each follow-up time period. Health care utilization and quality of life are assessed at baseline, and 6 and 12 months follow-up to measure program cost-effectiveness from the hospital, health care payer, patient, and societal perspectives. DISCUSSION: Given the impact of tobacco use on medical resources, establishing feasible, cost-effective methods for reducing tobacco use is imperative. Given the minimal hospital staff burden and the automated transition to a post-hospitalization tailored intervention, this program could be an easily disseminated approach. Trial Registration: Current Intervention Trial NCT01277250.     

Patterns and associations of smoking and electronic cigarette use among survivors of tobacco related and non-tobacco related cancers: A nationally representative cross-sectional analysis

BackgroundTobacco-use among cancer survivors leads to preventable morbidity, mortality, and increased healthcare costs. We sought to explore the prevalence of smoking and e-cigarette use among survivors of tobacco and non-tobacco related cancers.MethodsA cross-sectional analysis was conducted using the 2015–2018 National Health Interview Survey. Our primary outcome was the prevalence of current cigarette smoking or e-cigarette use among adults with self-reported history of tobacco related or non-tobacco related cancer. Logistic regression analysis was to assess the association of reported cancer type with cigarette smoking or e-cigarette use. Secondary outcomes included yearly trends and dual use.ResultsA total of 12,984 respondents reported a history of cancer, representing a weighted estimate of 5,060,059 individuals with a history of tobacco-related malignancy and 17,583,788 with a history of a tobacco and non-tobacco related cancer, respectively. Survivors of tobacco-related cancers had a significantly higher prevalence of current cigarette use (18.2 % vs 9.7 %, P < 0.0001), e-cigarette use (2.7 % vs 1.6 %, P < 0.0001) and similar rates of dual use. The prevalence of cigarette smoking among all survivors increased as time increased from the year of diagnosis up to 2 years post-diagnosis (P = 0.047). Odds of reporting current cigarette smoking use was higher for survivors of tobacco-related cancers, adjusted for sociodemographic factors (OR1.69, 95 % CI 1.44−1.99).ConclusionsSurvivors of tobacco-related cancers have a higher prevalence of current cigarette smoking and e-cigarette use compared to survivors of non-tobacco related cancers. There was a sequential increase in the prevalence of cigarette use during each subsequent year from the time of a new cancer diagnosis, underscoring the need for long term tobacco cessation support among newly diagnosed adults with cancer.     

Comparative effectiveness of post-discharge interventions for hospitalized smokers: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: A hospital admission offers smokers an opportunity to quit. Smoking cessation counseling provided in the hospital is effective, but only if it continues for more than one month after discharge. Providing smoking cessation medication at discharge may add benefit to counseling. A major barrier to translating this research into clinical practice is sustaining treatment during the transition to outpatient care. An evidence-based, practical, cost-effective model that facilitates the continuation of tobacco treatment after discharge is needed. This paper describes the design of a comparative effectiveness trial testing a hospital-initiated intervention against standard care. Methods/design: A 2-arm randomized controlled trial compares the effectiveness of standard post-discharge care with a multi-component smoking cessation intervention provided for 3 months after discharge. Current smokers admitted to Massachusetts General Hospital who receive bedside smoking cessation counseling, intend to quit after discharge and are willing to consider smoking cessation medication are eligible. Study participants are recruited following the hospital counseling visit and randomly assigned to receive Standard Care or Extended Care after hospital discharge. Standard Care includes a recommendation for a smoking cessation medication and information about community resources. Extended Care includes up to 3 months of free FDA-approved smoking cessation medication and 5 proactive computerized telephone calls that use interactive voice response technology to provide tailored motivational messages, offer additional live telephone counseling calls from a smoking cessation counselor, and facilitate medication refills. Outcomes are assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months after hospital discharge. The primary outcomes are self-reported and validated 7-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence at 6 months. Other outcomes include short-term and sustained smoking cessation, post-discharge utilization of smoking cessation treatment, hospital readmissions and emergency room visits, and program cost per quit. DISCUSSION: This study tests a potentially disseminable smoking intervention model for hospitalized smokers. If effective and widely adopted, it could help to reduce population smoking rates and thereby reduce tobacco-related mortality, morbidity, and health care costs.     

Trial protocol and preliminary results for a cluster randomised trial of behavioural support versus brief advice for smoking cessation in adolescents

Background

Many young people report they want to stop smoking and have tried to do so, but most of their quit attempts fail. For adult smokers, there is strong evidence that group behavioural support enhances quit rates. However, it is uncertain whether group behavioural support enhances abstinence in young smokers trying to quit.

Findings

A cluster randomised trial for young people trying to stop smoking to compare the efficacy of a school-based 9 week intensive group behavioural support course versus a school-based 7 week brief advice only course. Participants were assessed for evidence of tobacco addiction and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) was used if it was deemed appropriate by the therapist. Both types of course aimed to recruit approximately one hundred participants from approximately ten schools.The primary outcome was successful quitting at 4 weeks after quit day judged according to the Russell standard. Had the trial been completed, abstinence at 6 months after quit day and the relationships between successful quit attempts and 1) psychological assessments of dependence prior to quitting 2) salivary cotinine concentration prior to quitting and 3) sociodemographic characteristics would also have been assessed. The proportion of participants who stopped smoking in each arm of the trial were compared using Chi square tests.The trial was stopped shortly after it had started because funding to support the therapists running the stop smoking group behavioural support programme was withdrawn. Only three stop smoking courses were completed (two group support courses and one brief advice pharmacotherapy course). Seventeen participants in total entered the trial. At the end of the courses, one participant (10%) attending the group support programme had stopped smoking and no participant attending the brief advice programme had stopped smoking.

Discussion

The trial was stopped so we were unable to determine whether group support helped more young people to stop smoking than brief advice. Engagement and recruitment of participants proved much more difficult than had been anticipated. Fifteen of the seventeen participants reported that quitting smoking was either pretty important or very important to them. Thus, the stop smoking success rate could, nevertheless, be considered disappointing.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN25181936

     

A smoking cessation intervention program for family physicians.

Family physicians are able to approach many patients who smoke but are often hesitant to help them quit. Lack of knowledge about effective interventions is a major reason for this hesitancy. The important components that have been tested in physician-initiated smoking cessation interventions are advice to quit, information about the risks of smoking and techniques for quitting, nicotine gum, setting a date for quitting and offers of supportive follow-up visits. We describe a cessation program developed for family physicians that incorporates these factors into three types of visits over a 2-month period: the challenge visit, which occurs during a regular office visit and focuses on advice and setting a date to quit; the quit-date visit, which involves instructing patients on the proper use of nicotine gum, if applicable, and confirming their desire to quit; and four supportive follow-up visits, which provide continuing encouragement for 2 months and allow physicians to monitor withdrawal symptoms, relapses and other problems. Such a program can be effectively incorporated into a general practice.     

Point of care tobacco treatment sustains during COVID-19, a global pandemic

BackgroundTobacco cessation treatment for cancer patients is essential to providing comprehensive oncologic care. We have implemented a point of care tobacco treatment care model enabled by electronic health record (EHR) modifications in a comprehensive cancer center. Data are needed on the sustainability of both reach of treatment and effectiveness over time, including the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsUsing EHR data from the pre-implementation (P: 5 months) and post-implementation periods (6 month-blocks, T1-T5 for a total of 30 months), we compared two primary outcomes: 1) reach of treatment among those smoking and 2) effectiveness assessed by smoking cessation among those smoking in the subsequent 6 month period. We analyzed the data using generalized estimation equation regression models.ResultsWith the point of care tobacco treatment care model, reach of treatment increased from pre to post T5 (3.2 % vs. 48.4 %, RR 15.50, 95 % CI 10.56–22.74, p < 0.0001). Reach of treatment in all post periods (T1-T5 including the COVID-19 pandemic time) remained significantly higher than the pre period. Effectiveness, defined by smoking cessation among those smoking, increased from pre to post T2 before the pandemic (12.4 % vs. 21.4 %, RR 1.57, 95 % CI 1.31–1.87, p < 0.0001). However, effectiveness, while higher in later post periods (T3, T4), was no longer significantly increased compared with the pre period.ConclusionA point of care EHR-enabled tobacco treatment care model demonstrates sustained reach up to 30 months following implementation, even during the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in healthcare prioritization. Effectiveness was sustained for 12 months, but did not sustain through the subsequent 12 months.     

Planning elective operations on patients who smoke: survey of North American plastic surgeons.

Patient smoking status affects many aspects of plastic surgery, including patient selection, counseling, management, and outcomes. No specific recommendations for performing elective procedures on patients who smoke are available. The goal of this study was to determine the current practice standards and attitudes toward this often controversial topic. In September of 2000, 1600 members of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery were sent questionnaires, 955 of which were returned. Questions elicited categorical answers, either dichotomous or multiple choice. Data were evaluated using logistic regression and the chi-square and binomial tests. Our results show that 60 percent (p < 0.01) of plastic surgeons routinely perform a less than optimal procedure on their patients who smoke. The survey measured willingness to perform various operative procedures on patients who smoke and types of smoking cessation aids offered. Of those physicians who require patients to quit smoking before surgery, only 16.7 percent (p < 0.01) would perform a nicotine test if they suspected noncompliance. Interestingly, 28.6 percent (p < 0.01) of the physicians responding admit to a smoking history, whereas only 1.5 percent (p < 0.01) continue to smoke, compared with the national smoking rate of almost 25 percent. Physicians who are previous smokers are less likely to offer smoking cessation aids than those who have never smoked, and the proportion not offering aids increases as the amount of previous smoking increases (p = 0.02). This study shows that a wide range of opinions exists on which elective surgical procedures should be performed on patients who smoke. Furthermore, the physician's prior smoking history influences this decision. No clear consensus exists on how best to treat patients who smoke who request elective surgeries. Although surgeons would prefer to operate on nonsmokers, they are faced with a significant population of patients who use tobacco. No clear consensus exists on how best to treat these individuals. Advancements in wound healing research and smoking cessation aids will provide more insight into this treatment dilemma.     

Risk factors associated with head and neck cancer in former smokers: A Brazilian multicentric study

BackgroundReduced tobacco consumption in the population has not been associated with reduced incidence rates of head and neck cancer in several countries.ObjectiveTo explore the associations between HNC and sociodemographic characteristics and lifestyle of former smokers from three Brazilian cancer centers.MethodsA multicenter case-control study was conducted with 229 former smokers diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx, and 318 controls (former smokers without head and neck cancer). Bivariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted to estimate odds ratios (ORs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).Results11–20 years after smoking cessation showed significant impact on HNC reduction (OR 0.22, 95% CI, 0.12–0.39), which reached 82% (95% CI, 0.09–0.35) among 20 + former smokers when compared to individuals who had stopped smoking for up to 5 years. A history of high-intensity smoking (>40 pack-years) increased HNC risk by 2.09 times (95% CI 1.13–3.89) when compared to subjects who smoked up to 20 pack-years. Past alcohol consumption (OR 1.99, 95% CI, 1.06–3.82) was also associated with head and neck cancer risk in former smokers when compared to no alcohol consumption. There was a decreased head and neck cancer risk in former smokers who had high school level of education (OR 0.38, 95% CI, 0.16–0.91) compared to illiterate former smokers; and former smokers with moderate intake of vegetables (OR 0.49, 95% CI, 0.28–0.85) and fruits (OR 0.43, 95% CI, 0.25–0.73) compared to those with low intake.ConclusionHead and neck cancer risk in former smokers decreases after 11 years after smoking cessation, former smokers with past alcohol consumption showed an increased risk of HNC. High school level of education and moderate intake of vegetables and fruits reduced HNC risk among former smokers.     

A longitudinal study of medicaid coverage for tobacco dependence treatments in Massachusetts and associated decreases in hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease

Background

Insurance coverage of tobacco cessation medications increases their use and reduces smoking prevalence in a population. However, uncertainty about the impact of this coverage on health care utilization and costs is a barrier to the broader adoption of this policy, especially by publicly funded state Medicaid insurance programs. Whether a publicly funded tobacco cessation benefit leads to decreased medical claims for tobacco-related diseases has not been studied. We examined the experience of Massachusetts, whose Medicaid program adopted comprehensive coverage of tobacco cessation medications in July 2006. Over 75,000 Medicaid subscribers used the benefit in the first 2.5 years. On the basis of earlier secondary survey work, it was estimated that smoking prevalence declined among subscribers by 10% during this period.

Methods and Findings

Using claims data, we compared the probability of hospitalization prior to use of the tobacco cessation pharmacotherapy benefit with the probability of hospitalization after benefit use among Massachusetts Medicaid beneficiaries, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, seasonality, influenza cases, and the implementation of the statewide smoke-free air law using generalized estimating equations. Statistically significant annualized declines of 46% (95% confidence interval 2%–70%) and 49% (95% confidence interval 6%–72%) were observed in hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction and other acute coronary heart disease diagnoses, respectively. There were no significant decreases in hospitalizations rates for respiratory diagnoses or seven other diagnostic groups evaluated.

Conclusions

Among Massachusetts Medicaid subscribers, use of a comprehensive tobacco cessation pharmacotherapy benefit was associated with a significant decrease in claims for hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction and acute coronary heart disease, but no significant change in hospital claims for other diagnoses. For low-income smokers, removing the barriers to the use of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy has the potential to decrease short-term utilization of hospital services. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary     

Association between lung cancer screening and smoking cessation

IntroductionAdults with high-risk smoking histories benefit from annual lung cancer screening. It is unclear if there is an association between lung cancer screening and smoking cessation among U.S. adults who receive screening.MethodsWe performed this population-based cross-sectional study using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (2017–2020). We defined individuals eligible for lung cancer screening as adults 55–80 years old with ≥ 30 pack-year smoking history who were currently smoking or quit within the last 15 years. We assessed the association between lung cancer screening and current smoking status.ResultsBetween 2017 and 2020, 12,382 participants met screening criteria. Current smoking was reported by 5685 (45.9 %) participants, of whom 40.4 % (2298) reported a cessation attempt in the prior year. Lung cancer screening was reported by only 2022 (16.3 %) eligible participants. Lung cancer screening was associated with lower likelihood of currently smoking (odds ratio [OR] 0.705, 95 % CI 0.626–0.793) compared to individuals who did not receive screening. Screening was also associated with higher likelihood of reporting a cessation attempt in the prior year (OR 1.562, 95 % CI 1.345–1.815) compared to individuals who did not receive screening.ConclusionsReceipt of lung cancer screening was associated with lower smoking rates and more frequent cessation attempts among U.S. adults. Better implementation of lung cancer screening programs is critical and may profoundly increase smoking cessation in this population at risk of developing lung cancer.     

Smoking cessation after an acute coronary syndrome: immediate quitters are successful quitters

Background

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines stress the importance of smoking cessation and recommend intensive follow-up. To guide the development of such cessation support strategies, we analysed the characteristics that are associated with successful smoking cessation after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Methods

We used data from the Randomised Evaluation of Secondary Prevention for ACS patients coordinated by Outpatient Nurse SpEcialists (RESPONSE) trial (n = 754). This was designed to quantify the impact of a nurse-coordinated prevention program, focusing on healthy lifestyles, traditional CVD risk factors and medication adherence. For the current analysis we included all smokers (324/754, 43 %). Successful quitters were defined as those who reported abstinence at 1 year of follow-up.

Results

The majority of successful quitters quit immediately after the ACS event and remained abstinent through 1 year of follow-up, without extra support (128/156, 82 %). Higher education level (33 vs. 15 %, p < 0.01), no history of CVD (87 vs. 74 %, p < 0.01) and being on target for LDL-cholesterol level at 1 year (78 vs. 63 %, p < 0.01) were associated with successful quitting.

Conclusion

The majority of successful quitters at 1 year stopped immediately after their ACS. Patients in this group showed that it was within their own ability to quit, and they did not relapse through 1 year of follow-up. Our study indicates that in a large group of patients who quit immediately after a life-threatening event, no relapse prevention program is needed.     

Effectiveness of smoking-cessation interventions for urban hospital patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Hospitalization may be a particularly important time to promote smoking cessation, especially in the immediate post-discharge period. However, there are few studies to date that shed light on the most effective or cost-effective methods to provide post-discharge cessation treatment, especially among low-income populations and those with a heavy burden of mental illness and substance use disorders. METHODS: This randomized trial will compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two approaches to smoking cessation treatment among patients discharged from two urban public hospitals in New York City. During hospitalization, staff will be prompted to ask about smoking and to offer nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) on admission and at discharge. Subjects will be randomized on discharge to one of two arms: One arm will be proactive multi-session telephone counseling with motivational enhancement delivered by study staff, and the other will be a faxed or online referral to the New York State Quitline. The primary outcome is 30-day point-prevalence abstinence from smoking at 6-month follow-up post-discharge. We will also examine cost-effectiveness from a societal and a payer perspective, as well as explore subgroup analyses related to patients' location of hospitalization, race/ethnicity, immigrant status, and inpatient diagnosis. DISCUSSION: This study will explore issues of implementation feasibility in a post-hospitalization patient population, as well as add information about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different strategies for designing smoking cessation programs for hospitalized patients.     

Smoking during radiotherapy for head and neck cancer and acute mucosal reaction

AimWe compared the incidence of RTOG/EORTC grade III and higher acute mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer who continued to smoke during radiotherapy with those who quit smoking.BackgroundThere are conflicting data on the relationship between smoking during radiotherapy and the severity of acute mucosal reaction. More studies dealing with this issue are needed.Materials and methodsAmong 136 patients receiving curative radio(chemo)therapy, 37 (27%) declared that they had not quit smoking during radiotherapy. The intensity of mucositis was scored daily by a nurse and weekly by a physician using the RTOG/EORTC scale. The main end-point of the study was the highest observed RTOG/EORTC grade of mucositis.ResultsPatients who smoked during radiotherapy (smokers) were younger than their counterparts who quit smoking (non-smokers), p = 0.06. There were no other differences in the baseline characteristics between smokers and non-smokers. Grade III/IV acute mucositis was observed in 43.5% of all patients. The percentage of patients with grade III/IV acute mucositis was similar in smokers and non-smokers (46% vs. 42%, p = 0.71). Nine patients (smokers [13.5%]; non-smokers [4%], p = 0.05) required prolonged hospitalization to heal mucositis.ConclusionsIn the whole group, smoking during radiotherapy was not related to acute mucosal toxicity evaluated as the rate of the highest observed grade of mucositis.     

Electronic Cigarettes Efficacy and Safety at 12 Months: Cohort Study

Objective

To evaluate the safety and efficacy as a tool of smoking cessation of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), directly comparing users of e-cigarettes only, smokers of tobacco cigarettes only, and smokers of both.

Design

Prospective cohort study. Final results are expected in 2019, but given the urgency of data to support policies on electronic smoking, we report the results of the 12-month follow-up.

Data Sources

Direct contact and structured questionnaires by phone or via internet.

Methods

Adults (30–75 years) were included if they were smokers of ≥1 tobacco cigarette/day (tobacco smokers), users of any type of e-cigarettes, inhaling ≥50 puffs weekly (e-smokers), or smokers of both tobacco and e-cigarettes (dual smokers). Carbon monoxide levels were tested in a sample of those declaring tobacco smoking abstinence.

Main Outcome Measures

Sustained smoking abstinence from tobacco smoking at 12 months, reduction in the number of tobacco cigarettes smoked daily.

Data Synthesis

We used linear and logistic regression, with region as cluster unit.

Results

Follow-up data were available for 236 e-smokers, 491 tobacco smokers, and 232 dual smokers (overall response rate 70.8%). All e-smokers were tobacco ex-smokers. At 12 months, 61.9% of the e-smokers were still abstinent from tobacco smoking; 20.6% of the tobacco smokers and 22.0% of the dual smokers achieved tobacco abstinence. Adjusting for potential confounders, tobacco smoking abstinence or cessation remained significantly more likely among e-smokers (adjusted OR 5.19; 95% CI: 3.35–8.02), whereas adding e-cigarettes to tobacco smoking did not enhance the likelihood of quitting tobacco and did not reduce tobacco cigarette consumption. E-smokers showed a minimal but significantly higher increase in self-rated health than other smokers. Non significant differences were found in self-reported serious adverse events (eleven overall).

Conclusions

Adding e-cigarettes to tobacco smoking did not facilitate smoking cessation or reduction. If e-cigarette safety will be confirmed, however, the use of e-cigarettes alone may facilitate quitters remaining so.

Registration Number

NCT01785537.