Article

Reduction versus abrupt cessation in smokers who want quit

Primary Care Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, West Midlands, UK, B15 2TT.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 01/2010; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008033.pub2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The standard way to stop smoking is to quit abruptly on a designated quit day. A number of smokers have tried unsuccessfully to quit this way. Reducing smoking before quitting could be an alternative approach to cessation. Before this method is adopted it is important to determine whether it is at least as successful as abrupt quitting.
1. To compare the success of reducing smoking to quit and abrupt quitting interventions. 2. To compare adverse events between arms in studies that used pharmacotherapy to aid reduction.
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group specialised register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycInfo for topic specific terms combined with terms used to identify trials of tobacco addiction interventions. We also searched reference lists of relevant papers and contacted authors of ongoing trials. Date of most recent search: November 2009.
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited adults who wanted to quit smoking. Studies included at least one condition which instructed participants to reduce their smoking and then quit and one condition which instructed participants to quit abruptly.
The outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up. We pooled the included trials using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. Trials were split for two sub-group analyses: pharmacotherapy vs no pharmacotherapy, self help therapy vs behavioural support. Adverse events were summarised as a narrative. It was not possible to compare them quantitatively as there was variation in the nature and depth of reporting across studies.
Ten studies were relevant for inclusion, with a total of 3760 participants included in the meta-analysis. Three of these studies used pharmacotherapy as part of the interventions. Five studies included behavioural support in the intervention, four included self-help therapy, and the remaining study had arms which included behavioural support and arms which included self-help therapy. Neither reduction or abrupt quitting had superior abstinence rates when all the studies were combined in the main analysis (RR= 0.94, 95% CI= 0.79 to 1.13), whether pharmacotherapy was used (RR= 0.87, 95% CI= 0.65 to 1.22), or not (RR= 0.97, 95% CI= 0.78 to 1.21), whether studies included behavioural support (RR= 0.87, 95% CI= 0.64 to 1.17) or self-help therapy (RR= 0.98, 95% CI= 0.78 to1.23). We were unable to draw conclusions about the difference in adverse events between interventions, however recent studies suggest that pre-quit NRT does not increase adverse events.
Reducing cigarettes smoked before quit day and quitting abruptly, with no prior reduction, produced comparable quit rates, therefore patients can be given the choice to quit in either of these ways. Reduction interventions can be carried out using self-help materials or aided by behavioural support, and can be carried out with the aid of pre-quit NRT. Further research needs to investigate which method of reduction before quitting is the most effective, and which categories of smokers benefit the most from each method, to inform future policy and intervention development.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Paul Aveyard, Jun 29, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
126 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Little is known about the extent to which smokers attending stop-smoking clinics experience conflicting motivations about their quit attempt, whether such conflict can be understood in terms of a single dimension and if this ‘conflict about quitting’ differs from motivation to stop smoking and is associated with a smoker's choice of method to stop smoking (stopping gradually or abruptly). Method: Sociodemographic, smoking and quit attempt characteristics as well as measures relating to conflict about stopping smoking were recorded in a cross-sectional survey of 198 smokers attending five quit smoking clinics in Malaysia. Results: Five measures (having seriously thought about quitting before, being happy about becoming a non-smoker, being strongly motivated to stop, intending to stop smoking completely and believing in stopping for good this time) were loaded onto a single factor that could be labelled ‘conflict about quitting’. The resultant scale had moderate internal reliability (Cronbach's α= .625). Most smokers exhibited conflicting motivations about stopping smoking, with over half (52.0%, 95% CI 45.1–59.1) scoring 2 or higher on the 5-point conflict scale. ‘Conflict about quitting’ was significantly associated with the decision to stop smoking gradually rather than abruptly controlling for other variables (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05–1.76) and was more strongly associated with the choice of smoking cessation method than motivation to stop smoking. Conclusions: ‘Conflict about quitting’ can be conceptualised as a single dimension and is prevalent among smokers voluntarily attending stop-smoking clinics. The finding that smokers who display greater conflict about quitting are more likely to choose gradual cessation may explain contradictory findings in the literature regarding the effectiveness of different methods of smoking cessation.
    The Journal of Smoking Cessation 06/2011; 6(01). DOI:10.1375/jsc.6.1.37
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Potentially reduced exposure products (PREPs), already sold in USA and in some European Countries, are low-nitrosamine cigarettes, low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco (e.g., the Swedish Snus), cigarette-like products, and medicinal nicotine products. Even e-cigarette delivers nicotine. With the exception of snus and medicinal nicotine, studies on the health effects of PREPs have not been carried out, although some PREPs are already sold and promoted as products that effectively reduce health risks. Thus, a second disaster similar to that occurred for light cigarettes could happen in the next years. Only medicinal nicotine and snus could be valid candidates to become PREPs, even if they pose some significant health risks. The World Health Organization, following a precautionary approach, has recently published a list of 9 carcinogens or toxicants recommended for mandated lowering (the tobacco-specific nitrosamines NNN and NNK, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, benzo[a]pyrene, 1-3 butadiene, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde), and 9 carcinogens or toxicants for monitoring in usual cigarettes (not PREPs), underlining that tobacco companies cannot use this reduction strategy as a promotional message, as it occurred for light cigarettes in the 70s and 80s. The present status quo, in which cigarettes are freely available, medicinal nicotine, being a drug, is available under a regulated market, and Snus is prohibited, actually denies smokers the right to choose safer nicotine products. The solution suggested by the UK Royal College of Physicians is to balance the nicotine market, framing tobacco products and medicinal nicotine in the same regulation system; establishing a nicotine and tobacco regulatory authority;making medicinal nicotine more available; evaluating the feasibility of the introduction in the English market of Swedish Snus. California Government remarks that the nicotine maintenance is not a valid strategy, because it could induce smokers not to try to quit.Thus, California Department of Health Services prohibits promotion of snus and medicinal nicotine as a harm reduction strategy. However, the US Federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, signed by President Obama in 2009, places tobacco products under FDA jurisdiction: FDA must define criteria for lowering carcinogens and toxicants in tobacco products, making more available medicinal nicotine, evaluating PREPs, creating a federal Tobacco Control Agency.Which approaches is Italy going to follow?
    Epidemiologia e prevenzione 35(3-4 Suppl 1):19-32. · 1.46 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pre-cessation reduction is associated with quitting smoking. However, many smokers reduce the amount consumed but may not quit altogether. Using a representative sample of adult current daily smokers, this project explored future intentions of smokers regarding cigarette consumption. This information is important because it can provide a framework within which to plan tobacco cessation initiatives. A random digit dialing telephone survey was conducted of 889 Canadian current daily smokers, 18 years and older. The response rate was 65% (of households with a smoker in residence, 65% agreed to participate). Analyses focused on the 825 respondents who smoked at least 10 cigarettes per day at some point in their lives. As part of this survey, respondents were asked their future plans about their smoking (maintain, increase, reduce, quit). Of these 825 respondents, the majority of respondents had plans to change their cigarette use, with 55% planning to quit, 18.8% to reduce and 22.5% to maintain the amount they smoked (3.4% did not know and 2 respondents planned to increase). Most smokers who planned to reduce their smoking saw it as a step towards quitting smoking completely. These results present a picture of smokers, the majority of whom appear to be in some form of transition. Many smokers planned to reduce, of which the overwhelming majority saw their reduction as a step towards quitting. Opportunities exist to capitalize on these intentions to change in efforts to promote tobacco cessation.
    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 07/2010; 7(7):2896-902. DOI:10.3390/ijerph7072896 · 1.99 Impact Factor