Hospital-Initiated Smoking Cessation Among Patients Admitted with Behavioral Health Conditions.

BACKGROUND: Smoking rates among people living with behavioral health conditions (BHC) range from 30 to 65% and are 2-4 times higher than rates found in the general population. Starting tobacco treatment during a hospital stay is effective for smoking cessation, but little is known regarding treatment response among inpatients with BHC. OBJECTIVE: This study pooled data across multiple clinical trials to determine the relative success in quitting among participants with BHC compared to other study participants. PARTICIPANTS: Adults who smoke (≥ 18 years old) from five hospital-based smoking cessation randomized clinical trials. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis using data from the electronic health record to identify participants with primary diagnoses related to BHC. Recruitment and data analysis were conducted from 2011 to 2016. We used propensity score matching to pair patients with BHC to those with similar characteristics and logistic regression to determine differences between groups. MEASURES: The main outcome was self-reported 30-day abstinence 6 months post-discharge. RESULTS: Of 6612 participants, 798 patients had a BHC-related primary diagnosis. The matched sample included 642 pairs. Nearly 1 in 3 reported using tobacco medications after hospitalization, with no significant difference between patients with and without BHC (29.3% vs. 31.5%; OR (95% CI) = 0.90 (0.71, 1.14), p = 0.40). Nearly 1 in 5 patients with BHC reported abstinence at 6 months; however, their odds of abstinence were 30% lower than among people without BHC (OR (95% CI) = 0.70 (0.53,0.92), p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: When offered tobacco treatment, hospitalized patients with BHC were as likely as people without BHC to accept and engage in treatment. However, patients with BHC were less likely to report abstinence compared to those without BHC. Hospitals are a feasible and promising venue for tobacco treatment among inpatients with BHC. More studies are needed to identify treatment approaches that help people with BHC achieve long-term abstinence.

Transitions between smoking and vaping: Evidence (or lack thereof) on potential differences by gender and sex.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize existing evidence on possible differential effects by sex and gender from two Cochrane reviews evaluating vaping and smoking transitions. METHODS: We screened included studies from two Cochrane reviews for studies reporting smoking outcomes based on gender or sex. The first review examines the effects of using e-cigarettes to help people quit smoking and includes randomized controlled trials and uncontrolled intervention studies published to July 2023. The second review aims to assess the evidence on the relationship between the use and availability of e-cigarettes and subsequent smoking in young people (aged 29 and younger) and includes quasi-experimental and cohort studies published to April 2023. Due to the paucity and heterogeneity of data, we report results narratively. RESULTS: 10 of 161 studies included in the two relevant reviews met our criteria. Only five reported analyzing whether observed effects or associations varied based on sex and/or gender. A further three provided relevant descriptive information, and two did not report overall outcomes regarding vaping and smoking transitions but did investigate whether these differed by sex/gender. Synthesized data were largely inconclusive, but there was some suggestion that vaping was more strongly associated with subsequent smoking in young males than females. No studies reported data on nonbinary participants. CONCLUSIONS: Despite plausible reasons why sex and gender may be moderators of vaping and smoking transitions, there is little evidence investigating this. Future studies of vaping and smoking transitions should conduct and report analyses investigating potential differences based on sex and gender.

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, 32.6% of the world's population used tobacco. Smoking contributes to many illnesses that require hospitalisation. A hospital admission may prompt a quit attempt. Initiating smoking cessation treatment, such as pharmacotherapy and/or counselling, in hospitals may be an effective preventive health strategy. Pharmacotherapies work to reduce withdrawal/craving and counselling provides behavioural skills for quitting smoking. This review updates the evidence on interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, to understand the most effective smoking cessation treatment methods for hospitalised smokers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of any type of smoking cessation programme for patients admitted to an acute care hospital. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 7 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised studies of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients admitted to hospital quit. Interventions had to start in the hospital (including at discharge), and people had to have smoked within the last month. We excluded studies in psychiatric, substance and rehabilitation centres, as well as studies that did not measure abstinence at six months or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from smoking assessed at least six months after discharge or the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically-validated rates where reported. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 82 studies (74 RCTs) that included 42,273 participants in the review (71 studies, 37,237 participants included in the meta-analyses); 36 studies are new to this update. We rated 10 studies as being at low risk of bias overall (low risk in all domains assessed), 48 at high risk of bias overall (high risk in at least one domain), and the remaining 24 at unclear risk. Cessation counselling versus no counselling, grouped by intensity of intervention Hospitalised patients who received smoking cessation counselling that began in the hospital and continued for more than a month after discharge had higher quit rates than patients who received no counselling in the hospital or following hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.49; 28 studies, 8234 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might account for an additional 76 quitters in every 1000 participants (95% CI 51 to 103). The evidence was uncertain (very low-certainty) about the effects of counselling interventions of less intensity or shorter duration (in-hospital only counselling ≤ 15 minutes: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1417 participants; and in-hospital contact plus follow-up counselling support for ≤ 1 month: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 7 studies, 4627 participants) versus no counselling. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that smoking cessation counselling for at least 15 minutes in the hospital without post-discharge support led to higher quit rates than no counselling in the hospital (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.58; 12 studies, 4432 participants). Pharmacotherapy versus placebo or no pharmacotherapy Nicotine replacement therapy helped more patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.67; 8 studies, 3838 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 62 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 9 to 126). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision (as CI encompassed the possibility of no difference), that varenicline helped more hospitalised patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 4 studies, 829 participants). Evidence for bupropion was low-certainty; the point estimate indicated a modest benefit at best, but CIs were wide and incorporated clinically significant harm and clinically significant benefit (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43, 4 studies, 872 participants). Hospital-only intervention versus intervention that continues after hospital discharge Patients offered both smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge had higher quit rates than patients offered counselling in hospital but not offered post-discharge support (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.38; 7 studies, 5610 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 34 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 to 55). Post-discharge interventions offering real-time counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.60, 8 studies, 2299 participants; low certainty-evidence) and those offering unscheduled counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 2 studies, 1598 participants; very low-certainty evidence) may have little to no effect on quit rates compared to control. Telephone quitlines versus control To provide post-discharge support, hospitals may refer patients to community-based telephone quitlines. Both comparisons relating to these interventions had wide CIs encompassing both possible harm and possible benefit, and were judged to be of very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias (post-discharge telephone counselling versus quitline referral: RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.51; 3 studies, 3260 participants; quitline referral versus control: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.96; 2 studies, 1870 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Offering hospitalised patients smoking cessation counselling beginning in hospital and continuing for over one month after discharge increases quit rates, compared to no hospital intervention. Counselling provided only in hospital, without post-discharge support, may have a modest impact on quit rates, but evidence is less certain. When all patients receive counselling in the hospital, high-certainty evidence indicates that providing both counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge increases quit rates compared to no post-discharge intervention. Starting nicotine replacement or varenicline in hospitalised patients helps more patients to quit smoking than a placebo or no medication, though evidence for varenicline is only moderate-certainty due to imprecision. There is less evidence of benefit for bupropion in this setting. Some of our evidence was limited by imprecision (bupropion versus placebo and varenicline versus placebo), risk of bias, and inconsistency related to heterogeneity. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies to implement, disseminate, and sustain interventions, and to ensure cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy initiated in the hospital is sustained after discharge.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To examine the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence, in comparison to non-nicotine EC, other smoking cessation treatments and no treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register to 1 February 2023, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2023, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention as these studies have the potential to provide further information on harms and longer-term use. Studies had to report an eligible outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Critical outcomes were abstinence from smoking after at least six months, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA). MAIN RESULTS: We included 88 completed studies (10 new to this update), representing 27,235 participants, of which 47 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 58 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There is high certainty that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 2544 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs is similar between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2052 participants). SAEs were rare, and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differ between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.60; I2 = 32%; 6 studies, 2761 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96; I2 = 4%; 6 studies, 1613 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 7 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differ between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 1412 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to issues with risk of bias, there is low-certainty evidence that, compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates may be higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.25; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 5024 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 5 more). There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs may be more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low-certainty evidence; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.34; I2 = 23%; 10 studies, 3263 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Results from the NMA were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analyses for all critical outcomes, and there was no indication of inconsistency within the networks. Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence, evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing both clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain due to risk of bias inherent in the study design. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but the longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Public Health Impact of FDA's Request for Additional Safety Data on Cytisine for Tobacco Cessation.

Importance: No new tobacco cessation medication has been licensed in the US since 2006. Cytisine, a plant-based partial agonist of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, has demonstrated safety and efficacy in several randomized clinical trials and is currently available in many countries. However, the drug is not commercially available in the US. A New Drug Application to license cytisine as a smoking cessation medication in the US is being prepared for review by the US Food and Drug Administration, whose request for additional safety data will delay submission of the application by approximately 1 year. Objective: To project the potential public health impact of cytisine, and delays in its availability, as a smoking cessation aid in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mathematical model estimated life expectancy gains from smoking cessation for people aged 18 to 99 years in the US, reflecting the civilian, noninstitutionalized population. The model also accounted for cytisine uptake and effectiveness, as well as potential relapse among people who stop smoking. Exposure: Cytisine availability as a tobacco cessation treatment immediately or after 1 year. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were the number of adults able to stop smoking and sustain long-term abstinence and aggregate life-years gained. Results: The base case includes an estimated 29.4 million US civilian noninstitutionalized adults who smoke cigarettes (age distribution, 18-24 years: 5.5%; 25-44 years: 37.3%; 45-64 years: 41.8%; ≥65 years: 15.5%). With a conservative assumption that 3.8% of these individuals would use cytisine in the first year of availability, immediate cytisine availability could lead 71 000 more people to quit smoking over 1 year and maintain long-term abstinence. This would produce more than 500 000 additional life-years compared to the status quo in which cytisine is unavailable and fewer people stop smoking. Each additional year of delay in the availability of cytisine might reduce population-level life expectancy by 10 000 years. The model results were most sensitive to changes in cytisine uptake and effectiveness. Conclusions and Relevance: Smoking cessation generates large gains in life expectancy. This mathematical model demonstrated that immediate cytisine availability, even if used successfully by only a small fraction of people who smoke, could produce major public health benefits. Given the need for new tobacco cessation pharmacotherapy options, the magnitude of cytisine's potential public health benefits, and the morbidity and mortality associated with delay in its availability, a timely review of cytisine for approval in the US is warranted.

Association between Smoking Abstinence and Depression and Anxiety Symptoms After Hospital Discharge: The Helping HAND 4 Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Some people who stop smoking experience improved mood, but few studies have examined this relationship after hospitalization or accounted for concomitant substance use and psychological factors. We examined associations between smoking abstinence after a hospital discharge and change in depression and anxiety symptoms. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the Helping HAND 4 smoking cessation trial, which enrolled people who used tobacco when admitted to three academic medical center general hospitals. Participants (n = 986) were categorized as continuously abstinent (CA) or not. We used linear and logistic regression to model continuous and binary measures of depression (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-8] ≥/<10), and anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment [GAD-7], ≥/<8) over 6 months, adjusting for baseline mood, psychological factors, and substance use. Binary outcomes were defined using established clinical thresholds to aid in the clinical interpretation of the results. RESULTS: Mean age was 52.3 years, 56.5% were female, and the baseline mean cigarettes/day was 16.2 (SD: 3.2). In the adjusted analyses, depression and anxiety scores improved more in CA than non-CA participants over 6 months (difference-in-improvement, 2.43 [95% CI: 1.50-3.36] for PHQ-8; 3.04 [95% CI: 2.16-3.93] for GAD-7). At 6 months, CA participants were more likely to have a PHQ-8 score <10 (aOR = 2.07 [95% CI: 1.36-3.16]) and a GAD-7 score <8 (aOR = 2.90 [95% CI: 1.91-4.39]). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals who were CA, compared to those who were not, had fewer depression and anxiety symptoms at 6 months, and were twice as likely to score below the population screening thresholds for major depression and anxiety disorders. Clinicians should emphasize the association between continuous abstinence and improved mood symptoms after hospital discharge.

Cytisinicline for Vaping Cessation in Adults Using Nicotine E-Cigarettes: The ORCA-V1 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The prevalence of e-cigarette use among US adults, especially young adults, is rising. Many would like to quit vaping nicotine but are unable to do so. Cytisinicline, a plant-based alkaloid, targets nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, reduces nicotine dependence, and helps adults to stop smoking cigarettes. Cytisinicline may also help e-cigarette users to quit vaping. Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of cytisinicline vs placebo to produce abstinence from e-cigarette use in adults seeking to quit vaping nicotine. Design, Setting, and Participants: This double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial compared 12 weeks of treatment with cytisinicline vs placebo, with follow-up to 16 weeks. It was conducted from July 2022 to February 2023 across 5 US clinical trial sites. A total of 160 adults who vaped nicotine daily, sought to quit, and did not currently smoke cigarettes were enrolled, and 131 (81.9%) completed the trial. Intervention: Participants were randomized (2:1) to cytisinicline, 3 mg, taken 3 times daily (n = 107) or placebo (n = 53) for 12 weeks. All participants received weekly behavioral support. Main Outcomes and Measures: Biochemically verified continuous e-cigarette abstinence during the last 4 weeks of treatment (weeks 9-12; primary outcome) and through 4 weeks posttreatment (weeks 9-16; secondary outcome). Missing outcomes were counted as nonabstinence. Results: Of 160 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 33.6 [11.1] years; 83 [51.9%] female), 115 (71.9%) formerly smoked (≥100 lifetime cigarettes). Continuous e-cigarette abstinence in cytisinicline and placebo groups occurred in 34 of 107 participants (31.8%) vs 8 of 53 participants (15.1%) (odds ratio, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.06-7.10; P = .04) at end of treatment (weeks 9-12) and in 25 of 107 participants (23.4%) vs 7 of 53 participants (13.2%) during weeks 9 to 16 (odds ratio, 2.00; 95% CI, 0.82-5.32; P = .15). There was no evidence, based on nonsignificant interactions, that cytisinicline efficacy differed in subgroups defined by demographic characteristics, vaping pattern, e-cigarette dependence, or smoking history. Cytisinicline was well tolerated, with 4 participants (3.8%) discontinuing cytisinicline due to an adverse event. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, cytisinicline for 12 weeks, with behavioral support, demonstrated efficacy for cessation of e-cigarette use at end of treatment and was well tolerated by adults, offering a potential pharmacotherapy option for treating nicotine e-cigarette use in adults who seek to quit vaping. These results need confirmation in a larger trial with longer follow-up. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05431387.

Tobacco smoking, smoking cessation and life expectancy among people with HIV on antiretroviral therapy in South Africa: a simulation modelling study.

INTRODUCTION: As access to effective antiretroviral therapy (ART) has improved globally, tobacco-related illnesses, including cardiovascular disease, cancer and chronic respiratory conditions, account for a growing proportion of deaths among people with HIV (PWH). We estimated the impact of tobacco smoking and smoking cessation on life expectancy among PWH in South Africa. METHODS: In a microsimulation model, we simulated 18 cohorts of PWH with virologic suppression, each homogenous by sex, initial age (35y/45y/55y) and smoking status (current/former/never). Input parameters were from data sources published between 2008 and 2022. We used South African data to estimate age-stratified mortality hazard ratios: 1.2-2.3 (females)/1.1-1.9 (males) for people with current versus never smoking status; and 1.0-1.3 (females)/1.0-1.5 (males) for people with former versus never smoking status, depending on age at cessation. We assumed smoking status remains unchanged during the simulation; people who formerly smoked quit at model start. Simulated PWH face a monthly probability of disengagement from care and virologic non-suppression. In sensitivity analysis, we varied smoking-associated and HIV-associated mortality risks. Additionally, we estimated the total life-years gained if a proportion of all virologically suppressed PWH stopped smoking. RESULTS: Forty-five-year-old females/males with HIV with virologic suppression who smoke lose 5.3/3.7 life-years compared to PWH who never smoke. Smoking cessation at age 45y adds 3.4/2.4 life-years. Simulated PWH who continue smoking lose more life-years from smoking than from HIV (females, 5.3 vs. 3.0 life-years; males, 3.7 vs. 2.6 life-years). The impact of smoking and smoking cessation increase as smoking-associated mortality risks increase and HIV-associated mortality risks, including disengagement from care, decrease. Model results are most sensitive to the smoking-associated mortality hazard ratio; varying this parameter results in 1.0-5.1 life-years gained from cessation at age 45y. If 10-25% of virologically suppressed PWH aged 30-59y in South Africa stopped smoking now, 190,000-460,000 life-years would be gained. CONCLUSIONS: Among virologically suppressed PWH in South Africa, tobacco smoking decreases life expectancy more than HIV. Integrating tobacco cessation interventions into HIV care, as endorsed by the World Health Organization, could substantially improve life expectancy.

Patient Navigation for Lung Cancer Screening at a Health Care for the Homeless Program: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: People experiencing homelessness die of lung cancer at rates more than double those in the general population. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality, but the circumstances of homelessness create barriers to LCS participation. Objective: To determine whether patient navigation, added to usual care, improved LCS LDCT receipt at a large Health Care for the Homeless (HCH) program. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel group, pragmatic, mixed-methods randomized clinical trial was conducted at Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program (BHCHP), a federally qualified HCH program that provides tailored, multidisciplinary care to nearly 10 000 homeless-experienced patients annually. Eligible individuals had a lifetime history of homelessness, had a BHCHP primary care practitioner (PCP), were proficient in English, and met the pre-2022 Medicare coverage criteria for LCS (aged 55-77 years, ≥30 pack-year history of smoking, and smoking within the past 15 years). The study was conducted between November 20, 2020, and March 29, 2023. Intervention: Participants were randomized 2:1 to usual BHCHP care either with or without patient navigation. Following a theory-based, patient-centered protocol, the navigator provided lung cancer education, facilitated LCS shared decision-making visits with PCPs, assisted participants in making and attending LCS LDCT appointments, arranged follow-up when needed, and offered tobacco cessation support for current smokers. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was receipt of a 1-time LCS LDCT within 6 months after randomization, with between-group differences assessed by χ2 analysis. Qualitative interviews assessed the perceptions of participants and PCPs about the navigation intervention. Results: In all, 260 participants (mean [SD] age, 60.5 [4.7] years; 184 males [70.8%]; 96 non-Hispanic Black participants [36.9%] and 96 non-Hispanic White participants [36.9%]) were randomly assigned to usual care with (n = 173) or without (n = 87) patient navigation. At 6 months after randomization, 75 participants in the patient navigation arm (43.4%) and 8 of those in the usual care-only arm (9.2%) had completed LCS LDCT (P < .001), representing a 4.7-fold difference. Interviews with participants in the patient navigation arm and PCPs identified key elements of the intervention: multidimensional social support provision, care coordination activities, and interpersonal skills of the navigator. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, patient navigation support produced a 4.7-fold increase in 1-time LCS LDCT completion among HCH patients in Boston. Future work should focus on longer-term screening participation and outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04308226.