The Impact of Three Alternate Nicotine-Delivery Products on Combusted Cigarette Use: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking cessation is a critical public health goal. This study examined the ability of e-cigarettes and very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNCs) to serve as cigarette substitutes and whether a substitution was supported by steady-state nicotine from a nicotine patch. AIMS AND METHODS: This mixed design experiment with study product (between-subjects) and patch (within-subjects) factors recruited adults smoking cigarettes daily and not motivated to quit (N = 160). Participants were randomized to 4 weeks of: (1) VLNCs; (2) e-cigarettes; or (3) no product. During two switch weeks, one with an active nicotine patch and one with a placebo patch (in a double-blind and counterbalanced fashion), participants were told to not smoke their usual cigarettes. RESULTS: During the switch weeks, participants in the VLNC (M = 2.88, SD = .65) and e-cigarette (M = 3.20, SD = .63) groups smoked fewer of their own cigarettes per day than did no product group participants who continued to smoke their own cigarettes (M = 5.48, SD = .63); the VLNC and e-cigarette groups did not differ. There was no main effect of patch on mean usual brand cigarettes smoked per day (P = .09), nor was there a product × patch interaction (P = .51). There was a product × age interaction (P = .03); smokers aged 60-74 smoked more of their own cigarettes if they were randomized to no product group. CONCLUSIONS: VLNCs and e-cigarettes appear to reduce usual brand cigarettes smoked per day to a similar degree, regardless of patch condition. Behavioral factors, in addition to nicotine dependence, play an important role in sustaining smoking behavior and need to be addressed in smoking cessation treatment. IMPLICATIONS: This study found that behavioral substitutes for cigarettes, whether or not they delivered nicotine, reduced the number of usual brand cigarettes smoked. Specifically, both e-cigarettes delivering nicotine and VLNCs equally reduce usual brand cigarettes smoked among adults who smoke daily and do not want to quit.

Anxiety Sensitivity and Distress Tolerance in Smokers: Relations With Tobacco Dependence, Withdrawal, and Quitting Success†.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined relations of two affective vulnerabilities, high anxiety sensitivity (AS) and low distress tolerance (DT), with tobacco dependence, withdrawal, smoking cessation, and pharmacotherapy response. METHODS: Smokers interested in quitting (N = 1067; 52.2% female, 28.1% African American) were randomized to 12 weeks of nicotine patch, nicotine patch plus nicotine lozenge, or varenicline. Baseline questionnaires assessed AS, DT, negative affect, anxiety, and dependence. Withdrawal was assessed the first-week post-quit via ecological momentary assessment. RESULTS: DT, but not AS, predicted biochemically confirmed point-prevalence abstinence at multiple endpoints: weeks 4, 12, 26, and 52 post-quit (ps < .05); relations remained after controlling for pharmacotherapy treatment, AS, baseline negative affect, anxiety, and anxiety disorder history (ps < .05). Additional exploratory analyses examining week 4 abstinence showed DT predicted abstinence (p = .004) even after controlling for baseline dependence, post-quit withdrawal (craving and negative affect), and treatment. DT moderated treatment effects on abstinence in exploratory analyses (interaction p = .025); those with high DT were especially likely to be abstinent at week 4 with patch plus lozenge versus patch alone. CONCLUSIONS: DT, but not AS, predicted abstinence over 1 year post-quit (higher DT was associated with higher quit rates), with little overlap with other affective measures. DT also predicted early abstinence independent of dependence and withdrawal symptoms. Results suggest low DT may play a meaningful role in motivation to use tobacco and constitute an additional affective risk factor for tobacco cessation failure beyond negative affect or clinical affective disorders. IMPLICATIONS: People in a stop-smoking study who reported a greater ability to tolerate distress were more likely to quit smoking and remain smoke-free 1 year later. Smokers with high DT were more likely to be smoke-free 4 weeks after their target quit day if they received nicotine patch plus nicotine lozenge rather than nicotine patch alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01553084.

Predictors of Smoking Cessation Attempts and Success Following Motivation-Phase Interventions Among People Initially Unwilling to Quit Smoking.

INTRODUCTION: Most people who smoke cigarettes are not willing (ie, not ready) to make a quit attempt (QA) at any given time. Unfortunately, interventions intended to increase QAs and the success of QAs are only modestly effective. Identifying processes leading to QAs and quitting success could guide intervention development. AIMS AND METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized factorial trial of 6 weeks of motivation-phase interventions among primary care patients (N = 517) who were initially unwilling to quit but were willing to reduce their smoking. Using logistic regression, we controlled for treatment condition and tested whether baseline or change in smoking-related constructs after 6 weeks of treatment predicted (1) making an at least 24 h QA between weeks 6 and 26 and (2) quitting success at week 26 (7-day point-prevalence abstinence among those who made a QA). Predictors included cigarettes/day, time to first cigarette, motivation to quit, quitting self-efficacy, anticipated urges to smoke if quit, positive affect, negative affect, and time spent around others who smoke. RESULTS: In multivariable models that included all smoking-related constructs, changes in the following variables predicted initiating a QA above and beyond other variables: greater baseline time to first cigarette (odds ratio [OR] = 1.60), increases in time to first cigarette (OR = 1.27), and increases in quitting self-efficacy (OR = 1.14). Increased motivation to quit predicted conversion of a QA into quitting success at 26 weeks (OR = 1.36). CONCLUSION: Predictors of making a QA differed from predictors of quitting success. Predictors of QAs and success could each serve as important treatment targets of motivation-phase interventions. IMPLICATIONS: Motivation-phase interventions for people initially unwilling to quit smoking cigarettes may be improved by striving to increase their (1) time to first cigarette and quitting self-efficacy to promote QAs and (2) motivation to quit to promote quit success. Future experimental tests of such interventions are needed to identify causal determinants of QAs and quitting success.

Electronically Monitored Nicotine Gum Use Before and After Smoking Lapses: Relationship With Lapse and Relapse.

INTRODUCTION: Greater use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is related to smoking cessation success, but the causal direction is unclear. This study characterized the relationship between NRT use and smoking lapse and relapse. METHODS: Participants (N = 416 smokers; 57% female, 85% White) were recruited from primary care for a smoking cessation factorial experiment and analyzed if abstaining ≥1 day in the first 2 weeks post-target quit day (TQD). Participants were randomized to counseling and 8 versus 26 weeks of nicotine patch plus nicotine gum post-TQD. Participants carried electronic dispensers that timestamped each gum use. Participants who lapsed (smoked after abstaining) within 6 weeks post-TQD were matched with nonlapsers (n = 146 pairs) on multiple variables. We compared lapsers' versus matched nonlapsers' gum use in the 5 days before and after the lapsers' first lapse. RESULTS: By week 6 post-TQD, 63% of participants lapsed. Compared with nonlapsers, lapsers used less gum 1 and 2 days pre-"lapse" and on the 5 days post-lapse. Lapsers used less gum during the 5 days post-lapse than the 5 days pre-lapse. Univariate survival analyses with lapsers showed greater gum use during both pre- and post-lapse periods predicted longer latency to relapse in the first 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In a smoking cessation attempt using nicotine patch plus gum, lapsers versus matched nonlapsers used less gum immediately preceding and following their first lapse. Lower mean gum use before and after lapses predicted a more rapid escalation to relapse. Decreased nicotine gum use both precedes and follows returns to smoking during cessation attempts. IMPLICATIONS: This research examined electronically monitored nicotine gum use collected in real time and found that among smokers engaged in a quit attempt, lapsers (vs. matched nonlapsers) tended to decrease their gum use 1-2 days prior to lapsing and to further decrease their gum use from pre- to post-lapse. Decreased gum use pre-lapse may signal heightened lapse risk in 1-2 days, with lower level of gum use predicting a more precipitous course of relapse. These results encourage further exploration of objective measures of smoking medication use patterns to examine their signaling properties and to inform understanding of cessation failure. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01120704.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Optimized Smoking Treatment Delivered in Primary Care.

Background: The effectiveness of smoking cessation treatment is limited in real-world use, perhaps because we have not selected the components of such treatments optimally nor have treatments typically been developed for and evaluated in real-world clinical settings. Purpose: To validate an optimized smoking cessation treatment package that comprises intervention components identified as effective in factorial screening experiments conducted as per the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST). Methods: Adult smokers motivated to quit were recruited from primary care clinics (N = 623). Participants were randomized to receive either recommended usual care (R-UC; 10 min of in-person counseling, 8 weeks of nicotine patch, and referral to quitline services) or abstinence-optimized treatment (A-OT; 3 weeks of prequit mini-lozenges, 26 weeks of nicotine patch + mini-lozenges, three in-person and eight phone counseling sessions, and 7-11 automated calls to prompt medication use). The key outcomes were self-reported and biochemically confirmed (carbon monoxide, CO <6 ppm) 7-day point-prevalence abstinence. Results: A-OT participants had significantly higher self-reported abstinence rates than R-UC participants at 4, 8, 16, and 26 weeks (ORs: 1.91-3.05; p <. 001). The biochemically confirmed 26-week abstinence rates were lower than the self-reported 26-week rates, but revealed a similar treatment effect size (OR = 2.94, p < .001). There was no moderation of treatment effects on 26-week abstinence by demographic, psychiatric, or nicotine dependence variables. A-OT had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for 26-week CO-confirmed abstinence of $7,800. Conclusions: A smoking cessation treatment that is optimized via MOST development meaningfully enhances cessation rates beyond R-UC smoking treatment in smokers seen in primary care. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02301403.

Offering smoking treatment to primary care patients in two Wisconsin healthcare systems: Who chooses smoking reduction versus cessation?

Smokers unwilling to make a quit attempt can still benefit from smoking intervention. However, it is unclear what proportion of smokers will enter such a Motivation phase intervention, and whether such an intervention attracts different types of smokers than does abstinence oriented treatment. We conducted a study from June 2010 to October 2013 based on a chronic care model of tobacco treatment among study eligible primary care patients (N=1579; 58% women, 89% White) presenting for regular health care visits in southern Wisconsin, U.S. Medical assistants, prompted via the electronic health record (EHR), invited smokers (n=10,242) to learn more about treatment options to help them either reduce their smoking or quit. Of those invited to learn more who were then reached by study staff, 10.2% (n=1046) reported interest in reduction treatment and 24% (n=2465) reported interest in cessation treatment. Patients who selected and ultimately entered reduction (n=492) versus cessation (n=1087) were more likely to report: older age; a history of anxiety; lower motivation to quit; lower primary dependence motives; more close friends or family who smoke; and a greater interval since their last quit attempt. Results suggest that Motivation phase treatment aimed at smoking reduction may increase the proportion and range of smokers inducted into tobacco treatment.

Smokers' physical activity and weight gain one year after a successful versus unsuccessful quit attempt.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether smokers' physical activity is related to weight change following a quit attempt. METHOD: Data were analyzed for participants (n=683) of a randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of different smoking cessation pharmacotherapies (Wisconsin, 2005-2008). Activity (assessed via pedometry) and body weight were measured in the days surrounding the quit day and again one year later, at which time 7-day point-prevalence abstinence from smoking was assessed. We examined the effects of quitting, physical activity, and their interaction, on a one-year weight change with relevant covariate adjustment. RESULTS: Participants were predominantly female (57%), 46 ± 11 years of age (mean ± SD), and took 7544 ± 3606 steps/day at baseline. Of those who quit, 87% gained weight. A main effect was found for quitting (p<0.001), but not physical activity (p=0.06). When pattern of activity was examined across the 1-year study period, quitters who decreased their physical activity had significantly greater weight gain than quitters who increased their physical activity (p<0.01) or maintained a high level of activity (p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Physical activity is associated with an attenuation of the weight gain that often occurs after quitting smoking.

What to do after smoking relapse? A sequential multiple assignment randomized trial of chronic care smoking treatments.

AIM: To compare effects of three post-relapse interventions on smoking abstinence. DESIGN: Sequential three-phase multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART). SETTING: Eighteen Wisconsin, USA, primary care clinics. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1154 primary care patients (53.6% women, 81.2% White) interested in quitting smoking enrolled from 2015 to 2019; 582 relapsed and were randomized to relapse recovery treatment. INTERVENTIONS: In phase 1, patients received cessation counseling and 8 weeks nicotine patch. Those who relapsed and agreed were randomized to a phase 2 relapse recovery group: (1) reduction counseling + nicotine mini-lozenges + encouragement to quit starting 1 month post-randomization (preparation); (2) repeated encouragement to quit starting immediately post-randomization (recycling); or (3) advice to call the tobacco quitline (control). The first two groups could opt into phase 3 new quit treatment [8 weeks nicotine patch + mini-lozenges plus randomization to two treatment factors (skill training and supportive counseling) in a 2 × 2 design]. Phase 2 and 3 interventions lasted ≤ 15 months. MEASUREMENTS: The study was powered to compare each active phase 2 treatment with the control on the primary outcome: biochemically confirmed 7-day point-prevalence abstinence 14 months post initiating phase 2 relapse recovery treatment. Exploratory analyses tested for phase 3 counseling factor effects. FINDINGS: Neither skill training nor supportive counseling (each on versus off) increased 14-month abstinence rates; skills on versus off 9.3% (14/151) versus 5.2% (8/153), P = 0.19; support on versus off 6.6% (10/152) versus 7.9% (12/152), P = 0.73. Phase 2 preparation did not produce higher 14-month abstinence rates than quitline referral; 3.6% (8/220) versus 2.1% [3/145; risk difference = 1.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.8-5.0%, odds ratio (OR) = 1.8, 95% CI = 0.5-6.9]. Recycling, however, produced higher abstinence rates than quitline referral; 6.9% (15/217) versus 2.1% (three of 145; risk difference, 4.8%, 95% CI = 0.7-8.9%, OR = 3.5, 95% CI = 1.0-12.4). Recycling produced greater entry into new quit treatment than preparation: 83.4% (181/217) versus 55.9% (123/220), P < 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: Among people interested in quitting smoking, immediate encouragement post-relapse to enter a new round of smoking cessation treatment ('recycling') produced higher probability of abstinence than tobacco quitline referral. Recycling produced higher rates of cessation treatment re-engagement than did preparation/cutting down using more intensive counseling and pharmacotherapy.

Preschoolers' delay of gratification predicts their body mass 30 years later.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether preschoolers' performance on a delay of gratification task would predict their body mass index (BMI) 30 years later. STUDY DESIGN: In the late 1960s/early 1970s, 4-year-olds from a university-affiliated preschool completed the classic delay of gratification task. As part of a longitudinal study, a subset (n = 164; 57% women) were followed up approximately 30 years later and self-reported their height and weight. Data were analyzed using hierarchical regression. RESULTS: Performance on the delay of gratification task accounted for a significant portion of variance in BMI (4%; P < .01), over and above the variance accounted for by sex alone (13%). Each additional minute that a preschooler delayed gratification predicted a 0.2-point reduction in BMI in adulthood. CONCLUSION: Longer delay of gratification at age 4 years was associated with a lower BMI 3 decades later. Because this study is correlational, it is not possible to make causal inferences regarding the relationship between delay duration and BMI. Identifying children with greater difficulty in delaying gratification could help detect children at risk of becoming overweight or obese. Interventions that improve self-control in young children have been developed and might reduce children's risk of becoming overweight and also have positive effects on other outcomes important to society.

Interventions for tobacco smoking.

Around 19% of US adults smoke cigarettes, and smoking remains the leading avoidable cause of death in this country. Without treatment only ~5% of smokers who try to quit achieve long-term abstinence, but evidence-based cessation treatment increases this figure to 10% to 30%. The process of smoking cessation comprises different pragmatically defined phases, and these can help guide smoking treatment development and evaluation. This review evaluates the effectiveness of smoking interventions for smokers who are unwilling to make a quit attempt (motivation phase), who are willing to make a quit attempt (cessation phase), who have recently quit (maintenance phase), and who have recently relapsed (relapse recovery phase). Multiple effective treatments exist for some phases (cessation), but not others (relapse recovery). A chronic care approach to treating smoking requires effective interventions for every phase, especially interventions that exert complementary effects both within and across phases and that can be disseminated broadly and cost-effectively.

Life 1 year after a quit attempt: real-time reports of quitters and continuing smokers.

BACKGROUND: Smokers are often reluctant to quit because they fear long-lasting withdrawal. Yet little research prospectively examines smokers' withdrawal longer than 1 month post-quit. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare successful versus unsuccessful quitters' withdrawal, positive affect/pleasure, and lifestyle at 1 year post-quit. METHODS: Smokers (N = 572) in a cessation trial completed ecological momentary assessments four times a day for 1 week pre-quit, 1 week post-quit, and 1 week at 1 year post-quit. RESULTS: From pre-quit to 1 year later, only quitters reported sizeable declines in craving and restlessness, and fewer stressful events. At 1 year, quitters, on average, reported no significant craving. Continuing smokers reduced their cigarette consumption considerably from pre-quit to 1 year later. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to smokers' worries, long-term quitters reported less craving and restlessness than when they smoked (perhaps because cessation eliminates the acute nicotine withdrawal smokers experience between cigarettes). This information may encourage smokers to quit and endure withdrawal.

Should all smokers use combination smoking cessation pharmacotherapy? Using novel analytic methods to detect differential treatment effects over 8 weeks of pharmacotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Combination pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation has been shown to be more effective than monotherapy in meta-analyses. We address the question of whether combination pharmacotherapy should be used routinely with smokers or if some types of smokers show little or no benefit from combination pharmacotherapy versus monotherapy. METHODS: Two smoking cessation trials were conducted using the same assessments and medications (bupropion, nicotine lozenge, nicotine patch, bupropion + lozenge, and patch + lozenge). Participants were smokers presenting either to primary care clinics in southeastern Wisconsin for medical treatment (Effectiveness trial, N = 1,346) or volunteering for smoking cessation treatment at smoking cessation clinics in Madison and Milwaukee, WI (Efficacy trial, N = 1,504). For each trial, decision tree analyses identified variables predicting outcome from combination pharmacotherapy versus monotherapy at the end of treatment (smoking 8 weeks after the target quit day). RESULTS: All smokers tended to benefit from combination pharmacotherapy except those low in nicotine dependence (longer latency to smoke in the morning as per item 1 of the Fagerström Test of Nicotine Dependence) who also lived with a spouse or partner who smoked. CONCLUSIONS: Combination pharmacotherapy was generally more effective than monotherapy among smokers, but one group of smokers, those who were low in nicotine dependence and who lived with a smoking spouse, did not show greater benefit from using combination pharmacotherapy. Use of monotherapy with these smokers might be justified considering the expense and side effects of combination pharmacotherapy.

Understanding what changes adults in a smoking cessation study believe they need to make to quit smoking: A qualitative analysis of pre- and post-quit perceptions.

OBJECTIVE: Most individuals who try to quit smoking will not succeed even if they use evidence-based treatment. Qualitative methods can help identify cessation treatments' limitations and suggest adaptations to increase treatment success. METHOD: Rapid qualitative analysis was conducted on data from 125 adults who smoked daily (48% female; 44% White) and participated in a smoking cessation trial and completed qualitative interviews 2 weeks prequit, reporting on changes they needed to make to quit, and 100 adults (50% female; 49% White) who completed a second interview 2 weeks postquit, reporting changes they had made. RESULTS: The anticipated changes reported prequit (in order of frequency) were as follows: identify smoking triggers (without a coping plan), focus on benefits of quitting, reduce exposure to others smoking, make other health changes, reduce exposure to nonsocial smoking cues, and reduce alcohol consumption. Many participants were unable to identify specific changes that would aid their cessation success. Changes reported postquit included the following: use the 4 D strategies (delay, drink water, deep breathing, distract), reduce exposure to nonsocial smoking cues, focus on benefits of quitting, change daily routine, make other health changes, reduce exposure to others smoking, and get support from loved ones. Most changes reported postquit were consistent with clinical practice guidelines; however, use of cessation medication was the least reported theme. CONCLUSION: Prior to quitting, over a third of participants were unable to identify changes to increase cessation success. Those who could focus on triggers and cues for smoking. Postquit, participants reported using cessation strategies encouraged during study cessation counseling. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The multiphase optimization strategy for engineering effective tobacco use interventions.

The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) is a new methodological approach for building, optimizing, and evaluating multicomponent interventions. Conceptually rooted in engineering, MOST emphasizes efficiency and careful management of resources to move intervention science forward steadily and incrementally. MOST can be used to guide the evaluation of research evidence, develop an optimal intervention (the best set of intervention components), and enhance the translation of research findings, particularly type II translation. This article uses an ongoing study to illustrate the application of MOST in the evaluation of diverse intervention components derived from the phase-based framework reviewed in the companion article by Baker et al. (Ann Behav Med, in press, 2011). The article also discusses considerations, challenges, and potential benefits associated with using MOST and similar principled approaches to improving intervention efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness. The applicability of this methodology may extend beyond smoking cessation to the development of behavioral interventions for other chronic health challenges.

New methods for tobacco dependence treatment research.

INTRODUCTION: Despite advances in tobacco dependence treatment in the past two decades, progress has been inconsistent and slow. This paper reviews pervasive methodological issues that may contribute to the lack of timely progress in tobacco treatment science including the lack of a dynamic model or framework of the cessation process, inefficient study designs, and the use of distal outcome measures that poorly index treatment effects. The authors then present a phase-based cessation framework that partitions the cessation process into four discrete phases based on current theories of cessation and empirical data. These phases include: (1) Motivation, (2) Precessation, (3) Cessation, and (4) Maintenance. DISCUSSION: Within this framework, it is possible to identify phase-specific challenges that a smoker would encounter while quitting smoking, intervention components that would address these phase-specific challenges, mechanisms via which such interventions would exert their effects, and optimal outcome measures linked to these phase-specific interventions. Investigation of phase-based interventions can be accelerated by using efficient study designs that would permit more timely development of an optimal smoking cessation treatment package.

Time-varying effects of 'optimized smoking treatment' on craving, negative affect and anhedonia.

AIMS: To identify when smoking cessation treatments affect craving, negative affect and anhedonia, and how these symptoms relate to abstinence, to help evaluate the effects of particular intervention components in multi-component treatments and accelerate treatment refinement. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a two-arm randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Seven primary care clinics in Wisconsin, United States. PARTICIPANTS: Adult primary care patients who smoked daily (n = 574). INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention was abstinence-optimized treatment (A-OT, n = 276) comprising 3 weeks of nicotine mini-lozenges pre-target quit day (TQD), 26 weeks of combination nicotine patch and mini-lozenges post-TQD and extensive psychosocial support. The comparator was recommended usual care (RUC, n = 298), comprising brief counseling and 8 weeks of nicotine patch post-TQD. MEASUREMENTS: Time-varying effect models examined dynamic effects of A-OT (versus RUC) on the primary outcomes of nightly cigarette craving, negative affect and anhedonia from 1 week pre- to 2 weeks post-TQD. Exploratory models examined within-person relations between nicotine medication use and same-day symptom ratings. Secondary logistic regression analyses examined associations between post-TQD craving, negative affect and anhedonia and 1-month post-TQD abstinence. FINDINGS: A-OT significantly suppressed pre- and post-TQD craving (ß = -0.27 to -0.46 across days) and post-TQD anhedonia (ß = -0.24 to -0.38 across days), relative to RUC. Within individuals, using patches was associated with lower negative affect in RUC (ß = -0.42 to -0.52), but not in A-OT. Using more mini-lozenges was associated with greater craving (ß = 0.04-0.07) and negative affect (ß = 0.03-0.05) early, and with lower anhedonia (ß = -0.06 to -0.12) later. Greater post-TQD craving (OR = 0.68) and anhedonia (OR = 0.85) predicted lower odds of abstinence 1 month post-TQD. CONCLUSION: Time-varying effect models showed that a multi-component treatment intervention for smoking cessation suppressed significant withdrawal symptoms more effectively than recommended usual care among daily adult smokers motivated to quit. The intervention reduced craving pre- and post-target quit day (TQD) and anhedonia post-TQD.

Evaluating four motivation-phase intervention components for use with primary care patients unwilling to quit smoking: a randomized factorial experiment.

AIMS: To assess the effectiveness of intervention components designed to increase quit attempts and promote abstinence in patients initially unwilling to quit smoking. DESIGN: A four-factor, randomized factorial experiment. SETTING: Sixteen primary care clinics in southern Wisconsin. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 577 adults who smoke (60% women, 80% White) recruited during primary care visits who were currently willing to reduce their smoking but unwilling to try to quit. Interventions Four factors contrasted intervention components administered over a 1-year period: (i) nicotine mini-lozenge versus none; (ii) reduction counseling versus none; (iii) behavioral activation (BA) counseling versus none; and (iv) motivational 5Rs counseling versus none. Participants could request cessation treatment at any time. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 52 weeks post enrollment; secondary outcomes were point-prevalence abstinence at 26 weeks and making a quit attempt by weeks 26 and 52. FINDINGS: No abstinence main effects were found but a mini-lozenge × reduction counseling × BA interaction was found at 52 weeks; P = 0.03. Unpacking this interaction showed that the mini-lozenge alone produced the highest abstinence rate (16.7%); combining it with reduction counseling produced an especially low abstinence rate (4.1%). Reduction counseling decreased the likelihood of making a quit attempt by 52 weeks relative to no reduction counseling (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Nicotine mini-lozenges may increase smoking abstinence in people initially unwilling to quit smoking, but their effectiveness declines when used with smoking reduction counseling or other behavioral interventions. Reduction counseling decreases the likelihood of making a quit attempt in people initially unwilling to quit smoking.

Gender, race, and education differences in abstinence rates among participants in two randomized smoking cessation trials.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking is the leading preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States, but this burden is not distributed equally among smokers. Women, Blacks, and people with low socioeconomic status are especially vulnerable to the health risks of smoking and are less likely to quit. METHODS: This research examined cessation rates and treatment response among 2,850 participants (57.2% women, 11.7% Blacks, and 9.0% with less than a high school education) from two large cessation trials evaluating: nicotine patch, nicotine lozenge, bupropion, bupropion + lozenge, and nicotine patch + lozenge. RESULTS: Results revealed that women, Blacks, and smokers with less education were less likely to quit smoking successfully than men, Whites, and smokers with more education, respectively. Women did not appear to benefit more from bupropion than from nicotine replacement therapy, but women and smokers with less education benefited more from combination pharmacotherapy than from monotherapy. DISCUSSION: Women, Blacks, and smokers with less education are at elevated risk for cessation failure, and research is needed to understand this risk and develop pharmacological and psychosocial interventions to improve their long-term cessation rates.

Playing Around with Quitting Smoking: A Randomized Pilot Trial of Mobile Games as a Craving Response Strategy.

Objective: Strong cravings to smoke are an obstacle to cessation success. Unfortunately, cessation medication and counseling only modestly quell craving. This pilot study was designed to examine the feasibility of mobile games as a response strategy to craving and whether a fully powered trial is warranted. Materials and Methods: Smokers interested in quitting (N = 30) were offered 4 weeks of nicotine patch plus counseling and randomized to quit with (games-on) versus without (games-off) access to 11 commercial mobile games. Outcomes included post-target quit day (TQD) game play, craving, smoking, and quitting. Almost all P's were >0.05; outcomes should be interpreted with caution due to the small N. Results: Of games-on participants (n = 16), one played games ≥80% of days post-TQD (22/28 days); 38% played >1/3 of days; 25% did not play. Games-on participants reported games moderately helped them cope with cravings; M = 3.22 on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Also, games-on participants showed a slight decrease in craving from baseline to 1-week post-TQD (2.35-2.25 on a 0-5 point-scale), whereas games-off participants showed an increase (2.01-2.53). Games-on participants showed greater decreases in craving after playing a game than after the passage of time (when an app imposed a 2-minute wait period following their game request), but there was little evidence games-on versus games-off participants differed in mean post-TQD cigarettes/day. Games-on participants reported modestly but not significantly higher continuous abstinence through day 28 (31.3% vs. 21.4%). Conclusion: Feasibility results encourage a fully powered trial of this easily disseminable intervention. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02164383.

Predictors of adherence to nicotine replacement therapy: Machine learning evidence that perceived need predicts medication use.

BACKGROUND: Nonadherence to smoking cessation medication is a frequent problem. Identifying pre-quit predictors of nonadherence may help explain nonadherence and suggest tailored interventions to address it. AIMS: Identify and characterize subgroups of smokers based on adherence to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). METHOD: Secondary classification tree analyses of data from a 2-arm randomized controlled trial of Recommended Usual Care (R-UC, n = 315) versus Abstinence-Optimized Treatment (A-OT, n = 308) were conducted. R-UC comprised 8 weeks of nicotine patch plus brief counseling whereas A-OT comprised 3 weeks of pre-quit mini-lozenges, 26 weeks of nicotine patch plus mini-lozenges, 11 counseling contacts, and 7-11 automated reminders to use medication. Analyses identified subgroups of smokers highly adherent to nicotine patch use in both treatment conditions, and identified subgroups of A-OT participants highly adherent to mini-lozenges. RESULTS: Varied facets of nicotine dependence predicted adherence across treatment conditions 4 weeks post-quit and between 4- and 16-weeks post-quit in A-OT, with greater baseline dependence and greater smoking trigger exposure and reactivity predicting greater medication use. Greater quitting motivation and confidence, and believing that stop smoking medication was safe and easy to use were associated with greater adherence. CONCLUSION: Adherence was especially high in those who were more dependent and more exposed to smoking triggers. Quitting motivation and confidence predicted greater adherence, while negative beliefs about medication safety and acceptability predicted worse adherence. Results suggest that adherent use of medication may reflect a rational appraisal of the likelihood that one will need medication and will benefit from it.