Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 123
Filtrar
1.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD010216, 2021 09 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34519354

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update conducted as part of a living systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 May 2021, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. We screened abstracts from the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) 2021 Annual Meeting.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over 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. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants or both. 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 meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 61 completed studies, representing 16,759 participants, of which 34 were RCTs. Five of the 61 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated seven (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 42 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1924 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 6). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90: I2 = 0; 4 studies, 1424 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was 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%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.38; I2 = 0; 5 studies, 792 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.74; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 2886 participants). In absolute terms this represents an additional six quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 15). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants), and again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.24; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 1303 participants).  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 use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. 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. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect  evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but 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, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is now 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.

2.
Addict Behav ; 123: 107050, 2021 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34343923

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: There is limited information about longitudinal patterns of vaping during pregnancy and the postpartum. We describe the prevalence, frequency, and reasons for vaping throughout pregnancy and postpartum. We also describe temporal patterns in pregnant women's vaping. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort study across England and Scotland, with questionnaires in early pregnancy (8-24 weeks gestation), late pregnancy (34-38 weeks) and 3 months postpartum. A total of 750 women, aged 16 years or over, who were either current smokers, vapers or had smoked in the 3 months before pregnancy, were recruited between June and November 2017. RESULTS: Vaping prevalence was 15.9% (n = 119/750) in early pregnancy: 12.4% (n = 93/750) were dual users and 3.5% (n = 26/750) exclusive vapers. Late pregnancy vaping prevalence was 17.8% (n = 68/383): 12.5% (n = 48/383) were dual users and 5.2% (n = 20/383) exclusive vapers. Postpartum vaping prevalence was 23.1% (n = 95/411): 14.6% (n = 60/411) were dual users and 8.5% (n = 35/411) exclusive vapers. The most frequently reported reason to vape among all vapers was to quit smoking. A total of 316 women completed all three surveys: 2.6% (n = 8/316) were exclusive vapers in early pregnancy with most remaining exclusive vapers postpartum (n = 6/8, 75%). Of the 11.5% (n = 35/316) dual users in early pregnancy, 31.4% (n = 11/35) were exclusive smokers by the postpartum. CONCLUSION: Vaping prevalence was between 15.9% and 23.1% during pregnancy and the postpartum period, and the majority were dual users. Vaping habits of exclusive vapers remains stable throughout pregnancy and the postpartum. However, the vaping habits of dual users varies, with a third exclusively smoking in the postpartum.


Assuntos
Sistemas Eletrônicos de Liberação de Nicotina , Vaping , Estudos de Coortes , Feminino , Humanos , Estudos Longitudinais , Período Pós-Parto , Gravidez , Fumar/epidemiologia , Inquéritos e Questionários , Reino Unido/epidemiologia
4.
JAMA ; 326(1): 56-64, 2021 07 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34228066

RESUMO

Importance: Cytisine is more effective than placebo and nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. However, cytisine has not been tested against the most effective smoking cessation medication, varenicline, which is associated with adverse events known to lead to discontinuation of therapy. Objective: To examine whether standard cytisine treatment (25 days) was at least as effective as standard varenicline treatment (84 days) for smoking cessation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This noninferiority, open-label randomized clinical trial with allocation concealment and blinded outcome assessment was undertaken in Australia from November 2017 through May 2019; follow-up was completed in January 2020. A total of 1452 Australian adult daily smokers willing to make a quit attempt were included. Data collection was conducted primarily by computer-assisted telephone interview, but there was an in-person visit to validate the primary outcome. Interventions: Treatments were provided in accordance with the manufacturers' recommended dosage: cytisine (n = 725), 1.5-mg capsules taken 6 times daily initially then gradually reduced over the 25-day course; varenicline (n = 727), 0.5-mg tablets titrated to 1 mg twice daily for 84 days (12 weeks). All participants were offered referral to standard telephone behavioral support. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 6-month continuous abstinence verified using a carbon monoxide breath test at 7-month follow-up. The noninferiority margin was set at 5% and the 1-sided significance threshold was set at .025. Results: Among 1452 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 42.9 [12.7] years; 742 [51.1%] women), 1108 (76.3%) completed the trial. Verified 6-month continuous abstinence rates were 11.7% for the cytisine group and 13.3% for the varenicline group (risk difference, -1.62% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -5.02% to ∞]; P = .03 for noninferiority). Self-reported adverse events occurred less frequently in the cytisine group (997 events among 482 participants) compared with the varenicline group (1206 events among 510 participants) and the incident rate ratio was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.95; P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: Among daily smokers willing to quit, cytisine treatment for 25 days, compared with varenicline treatment for 84 days, failed to demonstrate noninferiority regarding smoking cessation. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12616001654448.


Assuntos
Alcaloides/uso terapêutico , Agentes de Cessação do Hábito de Fumar/uso terapêutico , Abandono do Hábito de Fumar/métodos , Vareniclina/uso terapêutico , Adulto , Alcaloides/efeitos adversos , Azocinas/efeitos adversos , Azocinas/uso terapêutico , Sonhos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Náusea/induzido quimicamente , Quinolizinas/efeitos adversos , Quinolizinas/uso terapêutico , Agentes de Cessação do Hábito de Fumar/efeitos adversos , Resultado do Tratamento , Vareniclina/efeitos adversos
5.
Addiction ; 2021 Jun 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34187081

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The majority of smokers accessing the current best treatments continue to smoke. We aimed to test if e-cigarettes (EC) compared with nicotine replacement treatment (NRT) can help such smokers to reduce smoking. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial of EC (n = 68) versus NRT (n = 67) with 6-month follow-up. SETTING: Stop smoking service in London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 135 smokers (median age = 40 years, 51% male) previously unable to stop smoking with conventional treatments. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received either NRT of their choice (8-week supply) or an EC starter pack and instructions to purchase further e-liquids of strength and flavours of their choice themselves. Products were accompanied by minimal behavioural support. MEASUREMENTS: Participants who reported that they stopped smoking or reduced their daily cigarette consumption by at least 50% at 6-month follow-up were invited to provide a carbon monoxide (CO) reading. The primary outcome was biochemically validated reduction in smoke intake of at least 50% at 6 months and the main secondary outcome was sustained validated abstinence at 6 months. Drop-outs were included as 'non-reducers'. FINDINGS: Validated smoking reduction (including cessation) was achieved by 26.5 versus 6.0% of participants in the EC and NRT study arms, respectively [relative risk (RR) = 4.4, P = 0.005, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.6-12.4]. Sustained validated abstinence rates at 6 months were 19.1 versus 3.0% (RR = 6.4, P = 0.01, 95% CI = 1.5-27.3). Product use was high and equal in both study arms initially, but at 6 months allocated product use was 47% in the EC arm versus 10% in the NRT arm (χ2 (1)  = 22.0, P < 0.001), respectively. Adverse events were minor and infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: In smokers unable to quit using conventional methods, e-cigarettes were more effective than nicotine replacement therapy in facilitating validated long-term smoking reduction and smoking cessation when limited other support was provided.

6.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 4: CD010216, 2021 04 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33913154

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update of a review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 February 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over 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. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 56 completed studies, representing 12,804 participants, of which 29 were RCTs. Six of the 56 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated five (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 41 at high risk overall (including the 25 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.81; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1057 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 11). These trials mainly used older EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was 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%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.44; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioral support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.26; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2561 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of seven per 100 (95% CI 2 to 17). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs differed, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants; SAEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.09; I2 = 5%; 6 studies, 1011 participants, very low certainty). 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 use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the size of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, though evidence indicated no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The evidence is limited mainly by 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, this review is now 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.


Assuntos
Sistemas Eletrônicos de Liberação de Nicotina , Nicotina , Agonistas Nicotínicos , Abandono do Hábito de Fumar/métodos , Prevenção do Hábito de Fumar , Viés , Monóxido de Carbono/análise , Estudos de Coortes , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Nicotina/administração & dosagem , Agonistas Nicotínicos/administração & dosagem , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Viés de Publicação , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Fumar/epidemiologia , Abandono do Hábito de Fumar/estatística & dados numéricos , Dispositivos para o Abandono do Uso de Tabaco , Vaping
7.
Nicotine Tob Res ; 23(7): 1094-1102, 2021 06 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33538831

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Varenicline and combination nicotine replacement treatment (cNRT) have been recommended as the most effective pharmacotherapies, with equal abstinence rate for smoking cessation in a network meta-analysis of randomized trials, but data from real-world long-term follow-up studies are rare. This study aimed to compare the 12-month sustained abstinence rates of smokers using varenicline versus cNRT in their quit attempt. METHODS: A total of 3569 smokers were recruited via the Department of Family Medicine outpatient department at Kaohsiung Veteran General Hospital between June 2013 and March 2019. Participants received counseling from a physician and chose either varenicline (N = 2870) or cNRT (N = 699) for smoking cessation. Both varenicline and cNRT users could receive a free 8-week supply and eight clinic visits over 90 days. Participants were followed-up by telephone at 12, 24, and 52 weeks from first visit. The primary outcome measure of the study was self-reported sustained abstinence up to 52 weeks. RESULTS: Varenicline users had a significantly higher sustained abstinence rate at weeks 12-52, adjusted for baseline variables (15.2% vs 10.3%, p = .001; adjusted odds ratio = 1.47, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-2.05). Other significant predictors of 52 weeks sustained abstinence were being male, having a higher income, attending more clinical visits, and have lower nicotine dependence. CONCLUSION: Varenicline appears to have higher sustained abstinence rates to 52 weeks compared with cNRT, in a smoking cessation clinic where smokers can choose their medication option. IMPLICATIONS: Network meta-analysis of randomized trials suggests that varenicline and cNRT are similarly effective for smoking cessation. This study shows that 1-year sustained abstinence rates were significantly higher among smokers using varenicline, compared with smokers using cNRT, when used as part of a structured smoking cessation program. These findings are highly relevant to policy makers and service providers to help determine provision of smoking cessation treatment.

9.
Nicotine Tob Res ; 23(7): 1153-1159, 2021 06 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33483754

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: In a secondary analysis of our published data demonstrating compensatory vaping behavior (increased puff number, puff duration, and device power) with e-cigarettes refilled with low versus high nicotine concentration e-liquid, here we examine 5-day time course over which compensatory behavior occurs under fixed and adjustable power settings. AIMS AND METHODS: Nineteen experienced vapers (37.90 ± 10.66 years, eight females) vaped ad libitum for 5 consecutive days under four counterbalanced conditions (ie, 20 days in total): (1) low nicotine (6 mg/mL)/fixed power (4.0 V/10 W); (2) low nicotine/adjustable power; (3) high nicotine (18 mg/mL)/fixed power; (4) high nicotine/adjustable power (at 1.6 Ohm). Puff number, puff duration, and power settings were recorded by the device. For each day, total daily puffing time was calculated by multiplying daily puff number by mean daily puff duration. RESULTS: A significant day × setting interaction revealed that whilst puffing compensation (daily puffing time) continued to increase over 5 days under fixed power, it remained stable when power settings were adjustable. Separate analysis for puff number and puff duration suggested that the puffing compensatory behavior was largely maintained via longer puff duration. CONCLUSIONS: Under fixed power conditions (4.0 V/10 W), vapers appear to compensate for poor nicotine delivery by taking longer puffs and this compensatory puffing appears to be maintained over time. IMPLICATIONS: Studies in smokers suggest that when switching to lower nicotine levels, compensation for poorer nicotine delivery is transient. Our novel findings suggest that vapers show a different pattern of compensation which is influenced by both nicotine strength and device power settings. When power is fixed (4.0 V; 10 W), compensation (via more intensive puffing) appears prolonged, persisting up to 5 days. Under adjustable settings when power is increased, puffing patterns remain stable over time. Implications of such compensatory behaviors for product safety and user satisfaction need further exploration.

10.
Health Technol Assess ; 24(68): 1-82, 2020 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33270009

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Relapse remains an unresolved issue in smoking cessation. Extended stop smoking medication use can help, but uptake is low and several behavioural relapse prevention interventions have been found to be ineffective. However, opportunistic 'emergency' use of fast-acting nicotine replacement treatment or electronic cigarettes may be more attractive and effective, and an online behavioural Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol has shown promise. The present trial aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these two interventions. DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial. SETTING: English stop smoking services and Australian quitlines, Australian social media and St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Fitzroy, VIC. PARTICIPANTS: Ex-smokers abstinent for at least 4 weeks, with some participants in Australia also recruited from 1 week post quit date. The planned sample size was 1400, but the trial was curtailed when 235 participants were recruited. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised in permuted blocks of random sizes to (1) oral nicotine replacement treatment/electronic cigarettes to use if at risk of relapse, plus static text messages (n = 60), (2) the Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol and interactive text messages (n = 57), (3) oral nicotine replacement treatment/electronic cigarettes plus the Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol with interactive text messages (n = 58) or (4) usual care plus static text messages (n = 59). OUTCOME MEASURES: Owing to delays in study set-up and recruitment issues, the study was curtailed and the primary outcome was revised. The original objective was to determine whether or not the two interventions, together or separately, reduced relapse rates at 12 months compared with usual care. The revised primary objective was to determine whether or not number of interventions received (i.e. none, one or two) affects relapse rate at 6 months (not biochemically validated because of study curtailment). Relapse was defined as smoking on at least 7 consecutive days, or any smoking in the last month at final follow-up for both the original and curtailed outcomes. Participants with missing outcome data were included as smokers. Secondary outcomes included sustained abstinence (i.e. no more than five cigarettes smoked over the 6 months), nicotine product preferences (e.g. electronic cigarettes or nicotine replacement treatment) and Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol coping strategies used. Two substudies assessed reactions to interventions quantitatively and qualitatively. The trial statistician remained blinded until analysis was complete. RESULTS: The 6-month relapse rates were 60.0%, 43.5% and 49.2% in the usual-care arm, one-intervention arm and the two-intervention arm, respectively (p = 0.11). Sustained abstinence rates were 41.7%, 54.8% and 50.9%, respectively (p = 0.17). Electronic cigarettes were chosen more frequently than nicotine replacement treatment in Australia (71.1% vs. 29.0%; p = 0.001), but not in England (54.0% vs. 46.0%; p = 0.57). Of participants allocated to nicotine products, 23.1% were using them daily at 6 months. The online intervention received positive ratings from 63% of participants at 6 months, but the majority of participants (72%) completed one assessment only. Coping strategies taught in the Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol were used with similar frequency in all study arms, suggesting that these are strategies people had already acquired. Only one participant used the interactive texting, and interactive and static messages received virtually identical ratings. LIMITATIONS: The inability to recruit sufficient participants resulted in a lack of power to detect clinically relevant differences. Self-reported abstinence was not biochemically validated in the curtailed trial, and the ecological momentary assessment substudy was perceived by some as an intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Recruiting recent ex-smokers into an interventional study proved problematic. Both interventions were well received and safe. Combining the interventions did not surpass the effects of each intervention alone. There was a trend in favour of single interventions reducing relapse, but it did not reach significance and there are reasons to interpret the trend with caution. FUTURE WORK: Further studies of both interventions are warranted, using simpler study designs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11111428. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 68. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding was also provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra, ACT, Australia (NHMRC APP1095880). Public Health England provided the funds to purchase the nicotine products in England.

11.
Addiction ; 2020 Nov 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33140508

RESUMO

This narrative review provides a summary of the impact of tobacco smoking on the respiratory system and the benefits of smoking cessation. Tobacco smoking is one of the leading preventable causes of death world-wide and a major risk factor for lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Smoking is also associated with an increased risk of respiratory infections and appears to be related to poorer outcomes among those with COVID-19. Non-smokers with second-hand smoke exposure also experience significant adverse respiratory effects. Smoking imposes enormous health- and non-health-related costs to societies. The benefits of smoking cessation, in both prevention and management of respiratory disease, have been known for decades and, to this day, cessation support remains one of the most important cost-effective interventions that health professionals can provide to people who smoke. Cessation at any age confers substantial health benefits, even in smokers with established morbidities. As other treatments for chronic respiratory disease advance and survival rates increase, smoking cessation treatment will become even more relevant. While smoking cessation interventions are available, the offer of these by clinicians and uptake by patients remain limited.

12.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 10: CD010216, 2020 10 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33052602

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke report using ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organisations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This review is an update of a review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for relevant records to January 2020, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over 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. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, AEs, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We include 50 completed studies, representing 12,430 participants, of which 26 are RCTs. Thirty-five of the 50 included studies are new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated four (all which contribute to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 37 at high risk overall (including the 24 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) of no difference in the rate of adverse events (AEs) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 802 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 12). These trials used EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was low-certainty evidence, limited by very serious imprecision, that there was no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 346 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.19; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.04; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 2312 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of six per 100 (95% CI 1 to 14). However, this finding was very low-certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs varied, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; I2 = 28%; 3 studies, 516 participants; SAEs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.25 to 6.96; I2 = 17%; 5 studies, 842 participants). 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 over time with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the degree of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall 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 for decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We will run searches monthly from December 2020, with the review updated as relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.


Assuntos
Sistemas Eletrônicos de Liberação de Nicotina , Nicotina , Agonistas Nicotínicos , Abandono do Hábito de Fumar/métodos , Prevenção do Hábito de Fumar , Viés , Estudos de Coortes , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Nicotina/administração & dosagem , Agonistas Nicotínicos/administração & dosagem , Viés de Publicação , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Fumar/epidemiologia , Abandono do Hábito de Fumar/estatística & dados numéricos , Dispositivos para o Abandono do Uso de Tabaco , Vaping
14.
Paediatr Anaesth ; 30(6): 653-659, 2020 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32304606

RESUMO

The use of electronic cigarettes (EC) is increasing and the number of EC publications is rapidly growing. While some health organizations focus on the harmful effects of using EC (vaping), others promote the benefits of ECs as a less harmful alternative to smoking tobacco. There is concern that vaping might have adverse respiratory consequences for pediatric patients facing anesthesia and intensive care. This narrative review summarizes current knowledge and recommendations regarding the risks of EC relevant to the anesthesiologist and the use of ECs as a step-down option from tobacco. We provide guidance on the management of vaping patients in the perioperative period.

15.
Sci Rep ; 10(1): 6546, 2020 04 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32300142

RESUMO

Recent evidence suggests that e-cigarette users tend to change their puffing behaviors when using e-liquids with reduced nicotine concentrations by taking longer and more frequent puffs. Using puffing regimens modelled on puffing topography data from 19 experienced e-cigarette users who switched between 18 and 6 mg/mL e-liquids with and without power adjustments, differences in daily exposure to carbonyl compounds and estimated changes in cancer risk were assessed by production of aerosols generated using a smoking machine and analyzed using gas and liquid chromatography. Significant differences across conditions were found for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde (p < 0.01). Switching from a higher to a lower nicotine concentration was associated with greater exposure regardless of whether power settings were fixed or adjustable which is likely due to increased liquid consumption under lower nicotine concentration settings. Daily exposure for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde was higher for 17/19 participants when using low (6 mg/mL) compared with high (18 mg/mL) nicotine e-liquid concentration when power was fixed. When power adjustments were permitted, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde levels were higher respectively for 16/19 and 14/19 participants with the use of 6 compared with 18 mg/mL nicotine e-liquid.


Assuntos
Acetaldeído/análise , Sistemas Eletrônicos de Liberação de Nicotina , Formaldeído/análise , Nicotina/análise , Aerossóis/análise , Carcinógenos/análise , Humanos , Neoplasias/epidemiologia , Fatores de Risco
16.
Addiction ; 115(3): 507-517, 2020 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31597207

RESUMO

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid used in routine stop smoking services in England. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective for 12-month periods and life-time. Costs, including that of both treatments, other smoking cessation help and health-care services, and health benefits, estimated from EQ-5D-5L and measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), for the 12-month analysis, came from a randomized controlled trial. Life-time analysis was model-based with input from both trial data and published secondary data sources. Cost-effectiveness was measured by an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). SETTING: Three stop-smoking service sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adult smokers (n = 886) who sought help to quit in the participating sites. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: An e-cigarette (EC) starter kit versus provision of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for up to 3 months, both with standard behavioural support. A total of 886 participants were randomized (439 in the EC arm, 447 in the NRT arm). Excluding one death in each arm, the 1-year quit rate was 18.0 and 9.9%, respectively. MEASUREMENTS: Cost of treatments was estimated from the treatment log. Costs of other smoking cessation help and health-care services and EQ-5D-5 L were collected at baseline, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Incremental costs and incremental QALYs were estimated using regression adjusting for baseline covariates and their respective baseline values. FINDINGS: The ICER was £1100 per QALY gained at the 12 months after quit date (87% probability below £20 000/QALY). Markov model estimated the life-time ICER of EC to be £65 per QALY (85% probability below £20 000/QALY). CONCLUSION: Using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid with standard behavioural support in stop-smoking services in England is likely to be more cost-effective than using nicotine replacement therapy in the same setting.


Assuntos
Serviços de Saúde Comunitária , Análise Custo-Benefício , Sistemas Eletrônicos de Liberação de Nicotina/economia , Abandono do Hábito de Fumar/economia , Dispositivos para o Abandono do Uso de Tabaco/economia , Adulto , Idoso , Terapia Comportamental , Inglaterra/epidemiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Cadeias de Markov , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Medicina Estatal
17.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 10: CD006611, 2019 Oct 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31638271

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Mobile phone-based smoking cessation support (mCessation) offers the opportunity to provide behavioural support to those who cannot or do not want face-to-face support. In addition, mCessation can be automated and therefore provided affordably even in resource-poor settings. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006, and previously updated in 2009 and 2012. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether mobile phone-based smoking cessation interventions increase smoking cessation rates in people who smoke. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, along with clinicaltrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the most recent searches was 29 October 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Participants were smokers of any age. Eligible interventions were those testing any type of predominantly mobile phone-based programme (such as text messages (or smartphone app) for smoking cessation. We included randomised controlled trials with smoking cessation outcomes reported at at least six-month follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We performed both study eligibility checks and data extraction in duplicate. We performed meta-analyses of the most stringent measures of abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer, using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method, pooling studies with similar interventions and similar comparators to calculate risk ratios (RR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted analyses including all randomised (with dropouts counted as still smoking) and complete cases only. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 26 studies (33,849 participants). Overall, we judged 13 studies to be at low risk of bias, three at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. Settings and recruitment procedures varied across studies, but most studies were conducted in high-income countries. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that automated text messaging interventions were more effective than minimal smoking cessation support (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.00; I2 = 71%; 13 studies, 14,133 participants). There was also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that text messaging added to other smoking cessation interventions was more effective than the other smoking cessation interventions alone (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33; I2 = 0%, 4 studies, 997 participants). Two studies comparing text messaging with other smoking cessation interventions, and three studies comparing high- and low-intensity messaging, did not show significant differences between groups (RR 0.92 95% CI 0.61 to 1.40; I2 = 27%; 2 studies, 2238 participants; and RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06; I2 = 0%, 3 studies, 12,985 participants, respectively) but confidence intervals were wide in the former comparison. Five studies compared a smoking cessation smartphone app with lower-intensity smoking cessation support (either a lower-intensity app or non-app minimal support). We pooled the evidence and deemed it to be of very low certainty due to inconsistency and serious imprecision. It provided no evidence that smartphone apps improved the likelihood of smoking cessation (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52; I2 = 59%; 5 studies, 3079 participants). Other smartphone apps tested differed from the apps included in the analysis, as two used contingency management and one combined text messaging with an app, and so we did not pool them. Using complete case data as opposed to using data from all participants randomised did not substantially alter the findings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that automated text message-based smoking cessation interventions result in greater quit rates than minimal smoking cessation support. There is moderate-certainty evidence of the benefit of text messaging interventions in addition to other smoking cessation support in comparison with that smoking cessation support alone. The evidence comparing smartphone apps with less intensive support was of very low certainty, and more randomised controlled trials are needed to test these interventions.

18.
Health Technol Assess ; 23(43): 1-82, 2019 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31434605

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Over the past few years, a large number of smokers in the UK have stopped smoking with the help of e-cigarettes. So far, UK Stop Smoking Services (SSSs) have been reluctant to include e-cigarettes among their treatment options because data on their efficacy compared with the licensed medications are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare the efficacy of refillable e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products, when accompanied by weekly behavioural support. DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial comparing e-cigarettes and NRT. SETTING: Three sites that provide local SSSs. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were 886 smokers seeking help to quit smoking, aged ≥ 18 years, not pregnant or breastfeeding, with no strong preference to use or not to use NRT or e-cigarettes in their quit attempt, and currently not using NRT or e-cigarettes. A total of 886 participants were randomised but two died during the study (one in each study arm) and were not included in the analysis. INTERVENTIONS: The NRT arm (n = 446) received NRT of their choice (single or combination), provided for up to 12 weeks. The e-cigarette arm (n = 438) received an e-cigarette starter pack and were encouraged to buy addtional e-liquids and e-cigarette products of their choice. Both arms received the same standard behavioural support. Participants attended weekly sessions at their SSS and provided outcome data at 4 weeks. They were then followed up by telephone at 6 and 12 months. Participants reporting abstinence or at least 50% reduction in cigarette consumption at 12 months were invited to attend for carbon monoxide (CO) validation. Participants/researchers could not be blinded to the intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was CO-validated sustained abstinence rates at 52 weeks. Participants lost to follow-up or not providing biochemical validation were included as non-abstainers. Secondary outcomes included abstinence at other time points, reduction in smoke intake, treatment adherence and ratings, elicited adverse reactions, and changes in self-reported respiratory health. A cost-efficacy analysis of the intervention was also conducted. RESULTS: The 1-year quit rate was 9.9% in the NRT arm and 18.0% in the e-cigarette arm (risk ratio 1.83, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.58; p < 0.001). The e-cigarette arm had significantly higher validated quit rates at all time points. Participants in the e-cigarette arm showed significantly better adherence and experienced fewer urges to smoke throughout the initial 4 weeks of their quit attempt than those in the NRT arm, and gave their allocated product more favourable ratings. They were also more likely to be still using their allocated product at 1 year (39.5% vs. 4.3%, χ2 = 161.4; p < 0.001). Participants assigned to e-cigarettes reported significantly less coughing and phlegm at 1 year than those assigned to NRT (controlling for smoking status). A detailed economic analysis confirmed that, because e-cigarettes incur lower NHS costs than NRT and generate a higher quit rate, e-cigarette use is more cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: The results may not be generalisable to other types of smokers or settings, or to cartridge-based e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of multisession treatment for smokers seeking help, e-cigarettes were significantly more effective than NRT. If SSSs provide e-cigarette starter packs, it is likely to boost their success rates and improve their cost-efficacy. FUTURE WORK: The efficacy of e-cigarettes provided with different levels of support will show whether smokers should be encouraged to switch to vaping within support services or whether e-cigarettes can be recommended with less intensive or no support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60477608. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The trial was supported by the Cancer Research UK Prevention Trials Unit (grant A16893).


Assuntos
Terapia Comportamental , Análise Custo-Benefício/economia , Sistemas Eletrônicos de Liberação de Nicotina/estatística & dados numéricos , Abandono do Hábito de Fumar/economia , Dispositivos para o Abandono do Uso de Tabaco/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Reino Unido
19.
BMC Fam Pract ; 20(1): 107, 2019 07 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31351460

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The German clinical guideline on tobacco addiction recommends that general practitioners (GPs) provide brief stop-smoking advice to their patients according to the "5A" or the much briefer "ABC" method, but its implementation is insufficient. A lack of training is one barrier for GPs to provide such advice. Moreover, the respective effectiveness of a 5A or ABC training regarding subsequent delivery of stop-smoking advice has not been investigated. We developed a training for GPs according to both methods, and conducted a pilot study with process evaluation to optimize the trainings according to the needs of GPs. This study aims at evaluating the effectiveness of both trainings. METHODS: A pragmatic 2-arm cluster randomised controlled trial with a pre-post data collection will be conducted in 48 GP practices in North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany). GPs will be randomised to receive a 3.5-h-training in delivering either 5A or ABC, including peer coaching and intensive role plays with professional actors. The patient-reported primary outcome (receipt of GP advice to quit: yes/no) and secondary outcomes (recommendation rates of smoking cessation treatments, group comparison (5A versus ABC): receipt of GP advice to quit) will be collected in smoking patients routinely consulting their GP within 4 weeks prior, and 4 weeks following the training. Additional secondary outcomes will be collected at 4, 12 and 26 weeks following the consultation: use of cessation treatments during the last quit attempt (if so) since the GP consultation, and point-prevalence abstinence rates. The primary data analysis will be conducted using a mixed-effects logistic regression model with random effects for the cluster variable. DISCUSSION: If the training increases the rates of delivery of stop-smoking advice, it would offer a low-threshold strategy for the guideline implementation in German primary care. Should one method prove superior, a more specific guideline recommendation can be proposed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00012786); registered on 22th August 2017, prior to the first patient in.


Assuntos
Clínicos Gerais/educação , Relações Médico-Paciente , Abandono do Hábito de Fumar/métodos , Alemanha , Humanos , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto , Projetos Piloto , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Projetos de Pesquisa
20.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 6: CD001008, 2019 06 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31198991

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Hypnotherapy is widely promoted as a method for aiding smoking cessation. It is intended to act on underlying impulses to weaken the desire to smoke, or strengthen the will to stop. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect and safety of hypnotherapy for smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), using the terms "smoking cessation" and "hypnotherapy" or "hypnosis", with no restrictions on language or publication date. The most recent search was performed on 18 July 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomized controlled trials that recruited people who smoked and implemented a hypnotherapy intervention for smoking cessation compared with no treatment, or with any other therapeutic interventions. Trials were required to report smoking cessation rates at least six months after the beginning of treatment. Study eligibility was determined by at least two review authors, independently. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently extracted data on participant characteristics, the type and duration of hypnotherapy, the nature of the control group, smoking status, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up. These authors also independently assessed the quality of the included studies. In undertaking this work, we used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months' follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated abstinence rates where available. Those lost to follow-up were considered to still be smoking. We summarized effects as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where possible, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. We also noted any adverse events reported. MAIN RESULTS: We included three new trials in this update, which brings the total to 14 included studies that compared hypnotherapy with 22 different control interventions. The studies included a total of 1926 participants. Studies were diverse and a single meta-analysis was not possible. We judged only one study to be at low risk of bias overall; we judged 10 studies to be at high risk of bias and three at unclear risk. Studies did not provide reliable evidence of a greater benefit from hypnotherapy compared with other interventions or no treatment for smoking cessation. Most individual studies did not find statistically significant differences in quit rates after six months or longer, and studies that did detect differences typically had methodological limitations.Pooling small groups of relatively comparable studies did not provide reliable evidence for a specific effect of hypnotherapy relative to controls. There was low certainty evidence, limited by imprecision and risk of bias, that showed no statistically significant difference between hypnotherapy and attention-matched behavioural treatments (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.61; I2 = 36%; 6 studies, 957 participants). Results were similarly imprecise, and also limited by risk of bias, when comparing hypnotherapy to intensive behavioural interventions (not matched for contact time) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 211 participants; very low certainty evidence). Results from one small study (40 participants) detected a statistically significant benefit of hypnotherapy compared to no intervention (RR 19.00, 95% CI 1.18 to 305.88), but this evidence was judged to be of very low certainty due to high risk of bias and imprecision. No significant differences were detected in comparisons of hypnotherapy with brief behavioural interventions (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.69; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 269 participants), rapid/focused smoking (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.33; I2 = 65%; 2 studies, 54 participants), and pharmacotherapies (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.88 to 3.20; I2 = 5%; 2 studies, 197 participants). When hypnotherapy was evaluated as an adjunct to other treatments, the pooled result from five studies showed a statistically significant benefit in favour of hypnotherapy (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.31 to 3.35; I² = 62%; 224 participants); however, this result should be interpreted with caution due to the high risk of bias across studies (four had a high risk or bias, one had an unclear risk), and substantial statistical heterogeneity.Most studies did not provide information on whether data specifically relating to adverse events were collected, and whether or not any adverse events occurred. One study that did collect such data did not find a statistically significant difference in the adverse event 'index' between hypnotherapy and relaxation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to determine whether hypnotherapy is more effective for smoking cessation than other forms of behavioural support or unassisted quitting. If a benefit is present, current evidence suggests the benefit is small at most. There is very little evidence on whether hypnotherapy causes adverse effects, but the existing data show no evidence that it does. Further large, high-quality randomized controlled trials, and more comprehensive assessments of safety, are needed on this topic.


Assuntos
Hipnose , Abandono do Hábito de Fumar , Terapia Comportamental , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Fumar/terapia , Abandono do Hábito de Fumar/métodos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...