Relapse prevention in UK Stop Smoking Services: current practice, systematic reviews of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis.

University of Nottingham, Division of Primary Care, Nottingham, UK.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 10/2010; 14(49):1-152, iii-iv. DOI: 10.3310/hta14490
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Reducing smoking is a chief priority for governments and health systems like the UK National Health Service (NHS). The UK has implemented a comprehensive tobacco control strategy involving a combination of population tobacco control interventions combined with treatment for dependent smokers through a national network of NHS Stop Smoking Services (NHS SSS).
To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of relapse prevention in NHS SSS. To (1) update current estimates of effectiveness on interventions for preventing relapse to smoking; (2) examine studies that provide findings that are generalisable to NHS SSS, and which test interventions that might be acceptable to introduce within the NHS; and (3) determine the cost-effectiveness of those relapse preventions interventions (RPIs) that could potentially be delivered by the NHS SSS.
A systematic review of the literature and economic evaluation were carried out. In addition to searching the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group register of trials (2004 to July 2008), MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index were also searched.
The project was divided into four distinct phases with different methodologies: qualitative research with a convenience sample of NHS SSS managers; a systematic review investigation the efficacy of RPIs; a cost-effectiveness analysis; and a further systematic review to derive the relapse curves for smokers receiving evidence-based treatment of the type delivered by the NHS SSS.
Qualitative research with 16 NHS SSS managers indicated that there was no shared understanding of what relapse prevention meant or of the kinds of interventions that should be used for this. The systematic review included 36 studies that randomised and delivered interventions to abstainers. 'Self-help' behavioural interventions delivered to abstainers who had achieved abstinence unaided were effective for preventing relapse to smoking at long-term follow-up [odds ratio (OR) 1.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 2.01]. The following pharmacotherapies were also effective as RPIs after their successful use as cessation treatments: bupropion at long-term follow-up (pooled OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.01); nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) at medium- (pooled OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.11) and long-term follow-ups (pooled OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.63) and one trial of varenicline also indicated effectiveness. The health economic analysis found that RPIs are highly cost-effective. Compared with 'no intervention'; using bupropion resulted in an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) increase of 0.07, with a concurrent NHS cost saving of 68 pounds; for NRT, spending 12 pounds resulted in a 0.04 incremental QALY increase; varenicline resulted in a similar QALY increase as NRT, but at almost seven times the cost. Extensive sensitivity analyses demonstrated that cost-effectiveness ratios were more sensitive to variations in effectiveness than cost and that for bupropion and NRT, cost-effectiveness generally remained. Varenicline also demonstrated cost-effectiveness at a 'willingness-to-pay' threshold of 20,000 pounds per QALY, but exceeded this when inputted values for potential effectiveness were at the lower end of the range explored. For all drugs, there was substantial relapse to smoking after treatment courses had finished. Quit attempts involving NRT appeared to have the highest early relapse rates, when trial participants would be expected to still be on treatment, but for those involving bupropion and varenicline little relapse was apparent during this time.
The qualitative research sample was small.
Based on the totality of evidence, RPIs are expected to be effective and cost-effective if incorporated into routine treatment within the NHS SSS. While staff within the NHS SSS were largely favourably inclined towards providing RPIs, guidance would be needed to encourage the adoption of the most effective RPIs, as would incentives that focused on the importance of sustaining quit attempts beyond the currently monitored 4-week targets.

1 Bookmark
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: A number of treatments can help smokers make a successful quit attempt, but many initially successful quitters relapse over time. Several interventions have been proposed to help prevent relapse. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether specific interventions for relapse prevention reduce the proportion of recent quitters who return to smoking. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register in May 2013 for studies mentioning relapse prevention or maintenance in title, abstracts or keywords. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of relapse prevention interventions with a minimum follow-up of six months. We included smokers who quit on their own, were undergoing enforced abstinence, or were participating in treatment programmes. We included trials that compared relapse prevention interventions with a no intervention control, or that compared a cessation programme with additional relapse prevention components with a cessation programme alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were screened and data extracted by one review author, and checked by a second. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or by referral to a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-three studies met inclusion criteria but were heterogeneous in terms of populations and interventions. We considered 41 studies that randomly assigned abstainers separately from studies that randomly assigned participants before their quit date.Upon looking at studies of behavioural interventions that randomly assigned abstainers, we detected no benefit of brief and 'skills-based' relapse prevention methods for women who had quit smoking because of pregnancy, or for smokers undergoing a period of enforced abstinence during hospitalisation or military training. We also failed to detect significant effects of behavioural interventions in trials in unselected groups of smokers who had quit on their own or through a formal programme. Amongst trials randomly assigning smokers before their quit date and evaluating the effects of additional relapse prevention components, we found no evidence of benefit of behavioural interventions or combined behavioural and pharmacotherapeutic interventions in any subgroup. Overall, providing training in skills thought to be needed for relapse avoidance did not reduce relapse, but most studies did not use experimental designs best suited to the task and had limited power to detect expected small differences between interventions. For pharmacological interventions, extended treatment with varenicline significantly reduced relapse in one trial (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.36). Pooling of six studies of extended treatment with bupropion failed to detect a significant effect (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.35). Two small trials of oral nicotine replacement treatment (NRT) failed to detect an effect, but treatment compliance was low, and in two other trials of oral NRT in which short-term abstainers were randomly assigned, a significant effect of intervention was noted. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At the moment, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of any specific behavioural intervention to help smokers who have successfully quit for a short time to avoid relapse. The verdict is strongest for interventions focused on identifying and resolving tempting situations, as most studies were concerned with these. Little research is available regarding other behavioural approaches.Extended treatment with varenicline may prevent relapse. Extended treatment with bupropion is unlikely to have a clinically important effect. Studies of extended treatment with nicotine replacement are needed.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2014; DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD003999.pub4 · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Research is needed on what influences recruitment to smoking reduction trials, and how to increase their reach. The present study aimed to i) assess the feasibility of recruiting a disadvantaged population, ii) examine the effects of recruitment methods on participant characteristics, iii) identify resource requirements for different recruitment methods, and iv) to qualitatively assess the acceptability of recruitment. This was done as part of a pilot two-arm trial of the effectiveness of a novel behavioral support intervention focused on increasing physical activity and reducing smoking, among disadvantaged smokers not wishing to quit.METHODS:Smokers were recruited through mailed invitations from three primary care practices (62 participants) and one National Health Stop Smoking Service (SSS) database (31 participants). Six other participants were recruited via a variety of other community-based approaches. Data were collected through questionnaires, field notes, work sampling, and databases. Chi-squared and t-tests were used to compare baseline characteristics of participants.RESULTS:We randomized between 5.1 and 11.1% of those invited through primary care and SSS, with associated researcher time to recruit one participant varying from 18 to 157 minutes depending on time and intensity invested.Only six participants were recruited through a wide variety of other community-based approaches, with an associated researcher time of 469 minutes to recruit one participant. Targets for recruiting a disadvantaged population were met, with 91% of the sample in social classes C2 to E (NRS social grades, UK), and 41% indicating mental health problems. Those recruited from SSS were more likely to respond to an initial letter, had used cessation aids before, and had attempted to quit in the past year. Overall, initial responders were more likely to be physically active than those who were recruited via follow-up telephone calls. No other demographics or behaviour characteristics were associated with recruitment approach or intensity of effort. Qualitative feedback indicated that participants had been attracted by the prospect of support that focused on smoking reduction rather than abrupt quitting.CONCLUSIONS:Mailed invitations, and follow-up, from health professionals was an effective method of recruiting disadvantaged smokers into a trial of an exercise intervention to aid smoking reduction. Recruitment via community outreach approaches was largely ineffective.TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN identifier: 13837944, registered on 6 July 2010
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many systematic reviews exist on interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers, but research is distributed across diseases, populations and settings. The scope and focus of such reviews also vary widely, creating challenges for decision-makers seeking to inform decisions by using the evidence on consumers' medicines use.This is an update of a 2011 overview of systematic reviews, which synthesises the evidence, irrespective of disease, medicine type, population or setting, on the effectiveness of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use. To assess the effects of interventions which target healthcare consumers to promote safe and effective medicines use, by synthesising review-level evidence. Search methods: We included systematic reviews published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. We identified relevant reviews by handsearching databases from their start dates to March 2012. Selection criteria: We screened and ranked reviews based on relevance to consumers' medicines use, using criteria developed for this overview. Data collection and analysis: We used standardised forms to extract data, and assessed reviews for methodological quality using the AMSTAR tool. We used standardised language to summarise results within and across reviews; and gave bottom-line statements about intervention effectiveness. Two review authors screened and selected reviews, and extracted and analysed data. We used a taxonomy of interventions to categorise reviews and guide syntheses. We included 75 systematic reviews of varied methodological quality. Reviews assessed interventions with diverse aims including support for behaviour change, risk minimisation and skills acquisition. No reviews aimed to promote systems-level consumer participation in medicines-related activities. Medicines adherence was the most frequently-reported outcome, but others such as knowledge, clinical and service-use outcomes were also reported. Adverse events were less commonly identified, while those associated with the interventions themselves, or costs, were rarely reported.Looking across reviews, for most outcomes, medicines self-monitoring and self-management programmes appear generally effective to improve medicines use, adherence, adverse events and clinical outcomes; and to reduce mortality in people self-managing antithrombotic therapy. However, some participants were unable to complete these interventions, suggesting they may not be suitable for everyone.Other promising interventions to improve adherence and other key medicines-use outcomes, which require further investigation to be more certain of their effects, include:· simplified dosing regimens: with positive effects on adherence;· interventions involving pharmacists in medicines management, such as medicines reviews (with positive effects on adherence and use, medicines problems and clinical outcomes) and pharmaceutical care services (consultation between pharmacist and patient to resolve medicines problems, develop a care plan and provide follow-up; with positive effects on adherence and knowledge).Several other strategies showed some positive effects, particularly relating to adherence, and other outcomes, but their effects were less consistent overall and so need further study. These included:· delayed antibiotic prescriptions: effective to decrease antibiotic use but with mixed effects on clinical outcomes, adverse effects and satisfaction;· practical strategies like reminders, cues and/or organisers, reminder packaging and material incentives: with positive, although somewhat mixed effects on adherence;· education delivered with self-management skills training, counselling, support, training or enhanced follow-up; information and counselling delivered together; or education/information as part of pharmacist-delivered packages of care: with positive effects on adherence, medicines use, clinical outcomes and knowledge, but with mixed effects in some studies;· financial incentives: with positive, but mixed, effects on adherence.Several strategies also showed promise in promoting immunisation uptake, but require further study to be more certain of their effects. These included organisational interventions; reminders and recall; financial incentives; home visits; free vaccination; lay health worker interventions; and facilitators working with physicians to promote immunisation uptake. Education and/or information strategies also showed some positive but even less consistent effects on immunisation uptake, and need further assessment of effectiveness and investigation of heterogeneity.There are many different potential pathways through which consumers' use of medicines could be targeted to improve outcomes, and simple interventions may be as effective as complex strategies. However, no single intervention assessed was effective to improve all medicines-use outcomes across all diseases, medicines, populations or settings.Even where interventions showed promise, the assembled evidence often only provided part of the picture: for example, simplified dosing regimens seem effective for improving adherence, but there is not yet sufficient information to identify an optimal regimen.In some instances interventions appear ineffective: for example, the evidence suggests that directly observed therapy may be generally ineffective for improving treatment completion, adherence or clinical outcomes.In other cases, interventions may have variable effects across outcomes. As an example, strategies providing information or education as single interventions appear ineffective to improve medicines adherence or clinical outcomes, but may be effective to improve knowledge; an important outcome for promoting consumers' informed medicines choices.Despite a doubling in the number of reviews included in this updated overview, uncertainty still exists about the effectiveness of many interventions, and the evidence on what works remains sparse for several populations, including children and young people, carers, and people with multimorbidity. This overview presents evidence from 75 reviews that have synthesised trials and other studies evaluating the effects of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use.Systematically assembling the evidence across reviews allows identification of effective or promising interventions to improve consumers' medicines use, as well as those for which the evidence indicates ineffectiveness or uncertainty.Decision makers faced with implementing interventions to improve consumers' medicines use can use this overview to inform decisions about which interventions may be most promising to improve particular outcomes. The intervention taxonomy may also assist people to consider the strategies available in relation to specific purposes, for example, gaining skills or being involved in decision making. Researchers and funders can use this overview to identify where more research is needed and assess its priority. The limitations of the available literature due to the lack of evidence for important outcomes and important populations, such as people with multimorbidity, should also be considered in practice and policy decisions.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 04/2014; 4(4):CD007768. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD007768.pub3 · 5.94 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 19, 2014