Enabling tobacco treatment for gastroenterology patients via a novel low-burden point-of-care model.

BACKGROUND & AIM: Smoking is a major risk factor for multiple gastrointestinal cancers, and adversely affects peptic ulcer disease, gastroesophageal reflux, pancreatitis and Crohn's disease. Despite key recommendations for diagnosing and treating tobacco use disorder in healthcare settings, the degree to which this is implemented in Gastroenterology (GI) clinics is unknown. We aimed to assess our providers' practices, identify barriers for implementing evidence-based smoking cessation treatments, and address these barriers by implementing a novel low-burden point of care Electronic health record-enabled evidence-based tobacco treatment (ELEVATE), in GI clinics. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to clinic gastroenterologists. ELEVATE module training was implemented in 1/2021. Data were evaluated during pre (7/2020-12/2020) and post (1/2021-12/2021) implementation periods to evaluate the reach and effectiveness of ELEVATE. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to generate rate ratios (RR) to evaluate the intervention. RESULTS: 91% (20/22) of GI physicians responded to our survey, and only 20% often assisted patients who smoke with counseling. Lack of a systematic program to offer help to patients was reported by 80% of providers as an extremely/very important barrier limiting their smoking cessation practices. The proportion of current patients who smoke receiving cessation treatment increased from pre-ELEVATE to post-ELEVATE (14.36-27.47%, RR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.60-2.26, p < .001). Post-ELEVATE, 14.4% (38/264) of patients with treatment quit smoking, compared to 7.9% (55/697) of patients without treatment (RR = 1.89, 95% CI 1.26-2.82, p = .0021). CONCLUSION: Smoking practices are frequently assessed in GI clinics but barriers limiting cessation treatment exist. The use of a low burden point of care EHR enabled smoking cessation treatment module has led to a significant improvement in the treatment of smoking and subsequent cessation in our clinics. This study sheds light on an often under-recognized source of morbidity in GI patients and identifies an efficient, effective, and scalable strategy to combat tobacco use and improve clinical outcomes in our patients.

Assessment of Duration of Smoking Cessation Prior to Surgical Treatment of Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To define the relationship between the duration of smoking cessation and postoperative complications for patients with lung cancer undergoing surgical treatment. BACKGROUND: Smoking increases the risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients with lung cancer undergoing surgical treatment. Although smoking cessation before surgery can mitigate these risks, the ideal duration of preoperative smoking cessation remains unclear. METHODS: Using a uniquely compiled Veterans Health Administration dataset, we performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer undergoing surgical treatment between 2006 and 2016. We characterized the relationship between duration of preoperative smoking cessation and risk of postoperative complications or mortality within 30-days using multivariable restricted cubic spline functions. RESULTS: The study included a total of 9509 patients, of whom 6168 (64.9%) were smoking at the time of lung cancer diagnosis. Among them, only 662 (10.7%) patients stopped smoking prior to surgery. Longer duration between smoking cessation and surgery was associated with lower odds of major complication or mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for every additional week, 0.919; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.850-0.993; P = 0.03). Compared to nonsmokers, patients who quit at least 3 weeks before surgery had similar odds of death or major complication (aOR, 1.005; 95% CI, 0.702-1.437; P = 0.98) whereas those who quit within 3 weeks of surgery had significantly higher odds of death or major complication (aOR, 1.698; 95% CI, 1.203-2.396; P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Smoking cessation at least 3 weeks prior to the surgical treatment of lung cancer is associated with reduced morbidity and mortality. Providers should aggressively encourage smoking cessation in the preoperative period, since it can disproportionately impact outcomes in early-stage lung cancer.

Assessment of formal tobacco treatment and smoking cessation in dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes.

BACKGROUND: The utility of electronic cigarettes ('e-cigarettes') as a smoking cessation adjunct remains unclear. Similarly, it is unclear if formal tobacco treatment (pharmacotherapy and/or behavioural support) augments smoking cessation in individuals who use both cigarettes and e-cigarettes. METHODS: We performed a longitudinal cohort study of adult outpatients evaluated in our tertiary care medical centre (6/2018-6/2020). E-cigarette use, smoking status and formal tobacco treatment (deterrent pharmacotherapy and/or behavioural support) were assessed in 6-month blocks (eg, cohort 1 (C1)=6/2018-12/2018, C2=1/2019-6/2019 and so on) using our electronic health record. We assessed the relationship between e-cigarette use (either with or without formal tobacco treatment) and point prevalence of smoking cessation at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: 111 823 unique patients were included in the study. The prevalence of dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes increased significantly over the study period (C1=0.8%; C2=1.1%; C3=1.8%; C4=2.3%; p<0.001). The prevalence of smoking cessation at 12 months was higher among e-cigarette users (20.8%) compared with non-users (16.8%) (risk difference, 4.0% (95% CI 2.5% to 5.5%); adjusted relative risk (aRR) 1.354, 95% CI 1.252 to 1.464, p<0.0001). Further, among dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, the prevalence of smoking cessation at 12 months was higher among individuals who received tobacco treatment (29.1%) compared with individuals who did not receive tobacco treatment (19.6%) (risk difference, 9.5% (95% CI, 4.6% to 14.4%); aRR 1.238, 95% CI 1.071 to 1.432, p=0.004). INTERPRETATION: These results suggest that dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes benefit from formal tobacco treatment. Clinicians should consider offering formal tobacco treatment to such patients, though future trials are needed.

Increased Reach and Effectiveness With a Low-Burden Point-of-Care Tobacco Treatment Program in Cancer Clinics.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco cessation after a cancer diagnosis can extend patient survival by improving outcomes for primary cancer and preventing secondary cancers. However, smoking is often unaddressed in cancer care, highlighting the need for strategies to increase treatment reach and cessation. This study examined a low-burden, point-of-care tobacco treatment program (ELEVATE) featuring an electronic health record-enabled smoking module and decision support tools to increase the reach and effectiveness of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment. METHODS: This study included adult outpatient tobacco smokers (n=13,651) in medical oncology, internal medicine, and surgical oncology clinics from a large midwestern healthcare system. We examined reach and effectiveness of ELEVATE with 2 comparisons: (1) preimplementation versus postimplementation of ELEVATE and (2) ELEVATE versus usual care. Data were evaluated during 2 time periods: preimplementation (January through May 2018) and postimplementation (June through December 2018), with smoking cessation assessed at the last follow-up outpatient encounter during the 6 months after these periods. RESULTS: The proportion of current tobacco smokers receiving cessation treatment increased from pre-ELEVATE to post-ELEVATE (1.6%-27.9%; difference, 26.3%; relative risk, 16.9 [95% CI, 9.8-29.2]; P<.001). Compared with 27.9% treatment reach with ELEVATE in the postimplementation time period, reach within usual care clinics ranged from 11.8% to 12.0% during this same period. The proportion of tobacco smokers who subsequently achieved cessation increased significantly from pre-ELEVATE to post-ELEVATE (12.0% vs 17.2%; difference, 5.2%; relative risk, 1.3 [95% CI, 1.1-1.5]; P=.002). Compared with 17.2% smoking cessation with ELEVATE in the postimplementation time period, achievement of cessation within usual care clinics ranged from 8.2% to 9.9% during this same period. CONCLUSIONS: A low-burden, point-of-care tobacco treatment strategy increased tobacco treatment and cessation, thereby improving access to and the impact of evidence-based cessation treatment. Using implementation strategies to embed tobacco treatment in every healthcare encounter promises to engage more smokers in evidence-based treatment and facilitate smoking cessation, thereby improving care cancer for patients who smoke.

The Promise of Polygenic Risk Prediction in Smoking Cessation: Evidence From Two Treatment Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco use disorder is a complex behavior with a strong genetic component. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) on smoking behaviors allow for the creation of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to approximate genetic vulnerability. However, the utility of smoking-related PRSs in predicting smoking cessation in clinical trials remains unknown. AIMS AND METHODS: We evaluated the association between polygenic risk scores and bioverified smoking abstinence in a meta-analysis of two randomized, placebo-controlled smoking cessation trials. PRSs of smoking behaviors were created using the GWAS and Sequencing Consortium of Alcohol and Nicotine use (GSCAN) consortium summary statistics. We evaluated the utility of using individual PRS of specific smoking behavior versus a combined genetic risk that combines PRS of all four smoking behaviors. Study participants came from the Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centers (TTURCs) Study (1091 smokers of European descent), and the Genetically Informed Smoking Cessation Trial (GISC) Study (501 smokers of European descent). RESULTS: PRS of later age of smoking initiation (OR [95% CI]: 1.20, [1.04-1.37], p = .0097) was significantly associated with bioverified smoking abstinence at end of treatment. In addition, the combined PRS of smoking behaviors also significantly predicted bioverified smoking abstinence (OR [95% CI] 0.71 [0.51-0.99], p = .045). CONCLUSIONS: PRS of later age at smoking initiation may be useful in predicting smoking cessation at the end of treatment. A combined PRS may be a useful predictor for smoking abstinence by capturing the genetic propensity for multiple smoking behaviors. IMPLICATIONS: There is a potential for polygenic risk scores to inform future clinical medicine, and a great need for evidence on whether these scores predict clinically meaningful outcomes. Our meta-analysis provides early evidence for potential utility of using polygenic risk scores to predict smoking cessation amongst smokers undergoing quit attempts, informing further work to optimize the use of polygenic risk scores in clinical care.

Smoking Cessation and Electronic Cigarettes in Community Mental Health Centers: Patient and Provider Perspectives.

Little is known about patients' electronic cigarette use, interest in and use of smoking cessation treatments, and providers' attitude towards such treatment. We assessed patients (N = 231) and providers (45 psychiatrists, 97 case workers) in four Community Mental Health Centers. Interestingly, 50% of smokers reported interest in using electronic cigarettes to quit smoking, and 22% reported current use. While 82% of smokers reported wanting to quit or reduce smoking, 91% of psychiatrists and 84% of case workers reported that patients were not interested in quitting as the lead barrier, limiting the provision of cessation interventions. Providers' assumption of low patient interest in treatment may account for the low rate of smoking cessation treatment. In contrast, patients report interest and active use of electronic cigarettes to quit smoking. This study highlights the need for interventions targeting different phases of smoking cessation in these patients suffering disproportionately from tobacco dependence.

Cannabis, Tobacco Use, and COVID-19 Outcomes.

Importance: It is unclear whether cannabis use is associated with adverse health outcomes in patients with COVID-19 when accounting for known risk factors, including tobacco use. Objective: To examine whether cannabis and tobacco use are associated with adverse health outcomes from COVID-19 in the context of other known risk factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used electronic health record data from February 1, 2020, to January 31, 2022. This study included patients who were identified as having COVID-19 during at least 1 medical visit at a large academic medical center in the Midwest US. Exposures: Current cannabis use and tobacco smoking, as documented in the medical encounter. Main Outcomes and Measures: Health outcomes of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and all-cause mortality following COVID-19 infection. The association between substance use (cannabis and tobacco) and these COVID-19 outcomes was assessed using multivariable modeling. Results: A total of 72 501 patients with COVID-19 were included (mean [SD] age, 48.9 [19.3] years; 43 315 [59.7%] female; 9710 [13.4%] had current smoking; 17 654 [24.4%] had former smoking; and 7060 [9.7%] had current use of cannabis). Current tobacco smoking was significantly associated with increased risk of hospitalization (odds ratio [OR], 1.72; 95% CI, 1.62-1.82; P < .001), ICU admission (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.10-1.34; P < .001), and all-cause mortality (OR, 1.37, 95% CI, 1.20-1.57; P < .001) after adjusting for other factors. Cannabis use was significantly associated with increased risk of hospitalization (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.68-1.93; P < .001) and ICU admission (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.14-1.41; P < .001) but not with all-cause mortality (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.82-1.14, P = .69) after adjusting for tobacco smoking, vaccination, comorbidity, diagnosis date, and demographic factors. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that cannabis use may be an independent risk factor for COVID-19-related complications, even after considering cigarette smoking, vaccination status, comorbidities, and other risk factors.

Quantifying rural disparity in healthcare utilization in the United States: Analysis of a large midwestern healthcare system.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to identify how predisposing characteristics, enabling factors, and health needs are jointly and individually associated with epidemiological patterns of outpatient healthcare utilization for patients who already interact and engage with a large healthcare system. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed electronic medical record data from 1,423,166 outpatient clinic visits from 474,674 patients in a large healthcare system from June 2018-March 2019. We evaluated patients who exclusively visited rural clinics versus patients who exclusively visited urban clinics using Chi-square tests and the generalized estimating equation Poisson regression methodology. The outcome was healthcare use defined by the number of outpatient visits to clinics within the healthcare system and independent variables included age, gender, race, ethnicity, smoking status, health status, and rural or urban clinic location. Supplementary analyses were conducted observing healthcare use patterns within rural and urban clinics separately and within primary care and specialty clinics separately. FINDINGS: Patients in rural clinics vs. urban clinics had worse health status [χ2 = 935.1, df = 3, p<0.0001]. Additionally, patients in rural clinics had lower healthcare utilization than patients in urban clinics, adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, gender, smoking, and health status [2.49 vs. 3.18 visits, RR = 0.61, 95%CI = (0.55,0.68), p<0.0001]. Further, patients in rural clinics had lower utilization for both primary care and specialty care visits. CONCLUSIONS: Within the large healthcare system, patients in rural clinics had lower outpatient healthcare utilization compared to their urban counterparts despite having potentially elevated health needs reflected by a higher number of unique health diagnoses documented in their electronic health records after adjusting for multiple factors. This work can inform future studies exploring the roots and ramifications of rural-urban healthcare utilization differences and rural healthcare disparities.

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

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

The Impact of Persistent Smoking After Surgery on Long-term Outcomes After Stage I Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Resection.

BACKGROUND: Smoking at the time of surgical treatment for lung cancer increases the risk for perioperative morbidity and mortality. The prevalence of persistent smoking in the postoperative period and its association with long-term oncologic outcomes are poorly described. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the relationship between persistent smoking and long-term outcomes in early-stage lung cancer after surgical treatment? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using a uniquely compiled Veterans Health Administration dataset of patients with clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing surgical treatment between 2006 and 2016. We defined persistent smoking as individuals who continued smoking 1 year after surgery and characterized the relationship between persistent smoking and disease-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: This study included 7,489 patients undergoing surgical treatment for clinical stage I NSCLC. Of 4,562 patients (60.9%) who were smoking at the time of surgery, 2,648 patients (58.0%) continued to smoke at 1 year after surgery. Among 2,927 patients (39.1%) who were not smoking at the time of surgical treatment, 573 (19.6%) relapsed and were smoking at 1 year after surgery. Persistent smoking at 1 year after surgery was associated with significantly shorter overall survival (adjusted hazard ration [aHR], 1.291; 95% CI, 1.197-1.392; P < .001). However, persistent smoking was not associated with inferior disease-free survival (aHR, 0.989; 95% CI, 0.884-1.106; P = .84). INTERPRETATION: Persistent smoking after surgery for stage I NSCLC is common and is associated with inferior overall survival. Providers should continue to assess smoking habits in the postoperative period given its disproportionate impact on long-term outcomes after potentially curative treatment for early-stage lung cancer.

Underutilization of guideline-concordant smoking cessation treatments in surgical patients: Lessons from a learning health system.

While smoking is a well-established risk factor for surgical complications, it is unclear how frequently guideline-concordant tobacco treatments are prescribed to surgical patients. In this cross-sectional study including 164673 unique patients evaluated in outpatient surgery clinics at a single institution in 2020, despite a relatively high smoking prevalence (14.7%), guideline-concordant treatment rates were very low, with only 12.7% of patients receiving pharmacotherapy and 31.7% receiving any treatment. Addressing disparities in smoking cessation treatments are critical given the disproportionate impact of smoking on surgical outcomes.

Racial disparities in intensity of smoke exposure and nicotine intake among low-dependence smokers.

BACKGROUND: Compared to white smokers, Black smokers are at disproportionately higher risk for smoking-related disease, despite consuming fewer cigarettes per day (CPD). To examine racial disparities in biobehavioral influences on smoking and disease risk, we analyzed the relationship between self-reported tobacco dependence and intensity of tobacco smoke exposure per cigarette, on the one hand, and intensity of nicotine intake per cigarette, on the other. METHODS: In 270 Black and 516 white smokers, smoke exposure was measured by expired carbon monoxide (CO), and nicotine intake was measured by plasma cotinine (COT) and cotinine+3'-hydroxycotinine ([COT + 3HC]). Using linear regression analyses, we analyzed how the Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence (FTCD) predicted intensity of smoke exposure per cigarette (CO/CPD) and intensity of nicotine intake per cigarette (COT/CPD; [COT + 3HC]/CPD), and how race moderated these relations. RESULTS: Overall, Black smokers consumed fewer CPD than white smokers and had higher levels of CO/CPD, COT/CPD, and [COT + 3HC]/CPD. These elevations were most pronounced at lower levels of dependence: amongst Black smokers, FTCD negatively predicted intensity of smoke exposure as measured by CO/CPD (B = -0.12, 95% CI = -0.18, -0.05, p = 0.0003) and intensity of nicotine intake as measured by [COT + 3HC]/CPD (B = -1.31, 95% CI = -2.15, -0.46, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dependence Black smokers had higher intensities of both smoke exposure and nicotine intake per cigarette compared to similarly dependent white smokers, suggesting that measures of dependence, exposure, and intake underestimate incremental risk of each cigarette to Black smokers.

Low Burden Strategies Are Needed to Reduce Smoking in Rural Healthcare Settings: A Lesson from Cancer Clinics.

Rural populations face significant smoking-related health disparities, such as a higher prevalence of lung cancer and cancer mortality, higher prevalence of smoking, and lower likelihood of receiving cessation treatment than urban counterparts. A significant proportion of health disparities in rural populations could be eliminated with low-barrier, easy-access treatment delivery methods for smoking cessation. In this study, we assessed treatment engagement among patients in rural and urban settings. Then, we examined the effect of an electronic health record-based smoking cessation module on patient receipt of evidence-based cessation care. As part of a quality improvement project, we retrospectively observed 479,798 unique patients accounting for 1,426,089 outpatient clinical encounters from June 2018-March 2019 across 766 clinics in the greater St. Louis, southern Illinois, and mid-Missouri regions. Smoking prevalence was higher in rural versus urban clinics (20.7% vs. 13.9%, 6.7% [6.3, 7.1], odds ratio = 1.6 [1.6, 1.6], p < 0.0001), and yet rural smokers were nearly three times less likely than their urban counterparts to receive any smoking cessation treatment after adjusting for patients clustering within clinics (9.6% vs. 25.8%, -16.2% [-16.9, -15.5], odds ratio = 0.304 [0.28, 0.33], p < 0.0001). Although not yet scaled up in the rural setting, we examined the effects of a low-burden, point-of-care smoking module currently implemented in cancer clinics. After adjusting for patient clustering within clinics, patients were more likely to receive smoking treatment in clinics that implemented the module versus clinics that did not implement the module (31.2% vs. 17.5%, 13.7% [10.8, 16.6], odds ratio = 2.1 [1.8, 2.6], p < 0.0001). The point-of-care treatment approach offers a promising solution for rural settings, both in and outside the context of cancer care.

Care-paradigm shift promoting smoking cessation treatment among cancer center patients via a low-burden strategy, Electronic Health Record-Enabled Evidence-Based Smoking Cessation Treatment.

Tobacco smoking is an important risk factor for cancer incidence, an effect modifier for cancer treatment, and a negative prognostic factor for disease outcomes. Inadequate implementation of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment in cancer centers, a consequence of numerous patient-, provider-, and system-level barriers, contributes to tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. This study provides data for a paradigm shift from a frequently used specialist referral model to a point-of-care treatment model for tobacco use assessment and cessation treatment for outpatients at a large cancer center. The point-of-care model is enabled by a low-burden strategy, the Electronic Health Record-Enabled Evidence-Based Smoking Cessation Treatment program, which was implemented in the cancer center clinics on June 2, 2018. Five-month pre- and post-implementation data from the electronic health record (EHR) were analyzed. The percentage of cancer patients assessed for tobacco use significantly increased from 48% to 90% (z = 126.57, p < .001), the percentage of smokers referred for cessation counseling increased from 0.72% to 1.91% (z = 3.81, p < .001), and the percentage of smokers with cessation medication significantly increased from 3% to 17% (z = 17.20, p < .001). EHR functionalities may significantly address barriers to point-of-care treatment delivery, improving its consistent implementation and thereby increasing access to and quality of smoking cessation care for cancer center patients.

Genetic Variant in CHRNA5 and Response to Varenicline and Combination Nicotine Replacement in a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

It is unclear if genetic variants affect smoking cessation treatment response. This study tested whether variants in the cholinergic receptor nicotinic alpha 5 subunit (CHRNA5) predict response to smoking cessation medication by directly comparing the two most effective smoking cessation pharmacotherapies. In this genotype-stratified randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (May 2015-August 2019 in St Louis, Missouri), smokers were randomized by genotype in blocks of six (1:1:1 ratio) to three conditions: 12 weeks of placebo (n = 273), combination nicotine patch and lozenge (combination nicotine replacement therapy, cNRT, n = 275), or varenicline (n = 274). All participants received counseling and were followed for 12 months. The primary end point was biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence at the end of treatment (EOT, week 12). Trial registration and eligibility criteria are on clinicaltrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/) (NCT02351167). We conducted the genetic analyses separately for 516 European ancestry (EA) smokers and 306 non-EA smokers (including 270 African American smokers). In African American smokers, there was a genotype-by-treatment interaction for EOT abstinence (χ2  = 10.7, degrees of freedom = 2. P = 0.0049): specifically, cNRT was more effective in smokers with rs16969968 GG genotype than was placebo, while varenicline was more effective in smokers of GA/AA genotypes. In EA ancestry smokers, there was no significant genotype-by-treatment interaction. In the whole sample, although both were effective at EOT, only varenicline, and not cNRT, was significantly effective relative to placebo at 6-month follow-up. Importantly, this study suggests that genetic information can further enhance smoking cessation treatment effectiveness.

Most Current Smokers Desire Genetic Susceptibility Testing and Genetically-Efficacious Medication.

The clinical translation of genetic research on nicotine dependence and treatment response requires acceptance of genetic testing by smokers. This study determines (1) which current smokers are receptive to genetic susceptibility testing for nicotine dependence and (2) to what potential extent smokers motivated to quit desire to take smoking cessation medication when hypothetical genetic results predict their pharmacogenetic medication response. Current smokers from a genetic nicotine dependence study (n = 1306) and an ongoing smoking cessation trial (n = 209) were surveyed on their hypothetical interest in seeing genetic testing results related to risk of nicotine dependence. Most current smokers (84.8%) reported high interest in receiving genetic testing results. Factors associated with high interest included age ≥ 40 years, having a college degree, and a positive medical history (≥1 medical condition). In the ongoing smoking cessation trial, current smokers motivated to quit (n = 474) were surveyed on their desire to take smoking cessation medication given hypothetical below or above average pharmacogenetic responses to the medication. When the hypothetical medication response changed from below to above average, significantly more smokers reported a desire to take medication (from 61.0% to 97.5%, p < .0001). These preliminary findings suggest that genetic testing for personalized smoking cessation treatment is well-received by smokers and that a positive hypothetical pharmacogenetic response increases desire to take smoking cessation medication among current smokers motivated to quit. Graphical abstract ᅟ.