Explore the vast range of titles available.

Lower rates of smoking cessation are a major reason for the higher prevalence of smoking among socioeconomically disadvantaged adults. Because barriers to quitting are both more numerous and severe, socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers may benefit from more intensive intervention. We sought to determine whether a smoking cessation intervention delivered by public housing residents trained as Tobacco Treatment Advocates (TTAs) could increase utilization of cessation resources and increase abstinence. We conducted a group-randomized trial among Boston public housing residents who were interested in quitting smoking. Participants at control sites received standard cessation materials and a one-time visit from a TTA who provided basic counseling and information about cessation resources. Participants at intervention sites were eligible for multiple visits by a TTA who employed motivational interviewing, cessation counseling, and navigation to encourage smokers to utilize cessation treatment (Smokers' Quitline and clinic-based programs). Utilization and 7-day and 30-day point prevalence abstinence were assessed at 12 months. Self-reported abstinence was biochemically verified. Intervention participants (n = 121) were more likely than control participants (n = 129) to both utilize treatment programs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.15; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93-4.91) and 7-day and 30-day point prevalence abstinence (aOR: 2.60 (1.72-3.94); 2.98 (1.56-5.68), respectively). Mediation analysis indicated that the higher level of utilization did not explain the intervention effect. An intervention delivered by peer health advocates was able to increase utilization of treatment programs and smoking abstinence among public housing residents. Future studies of similar types of interventions should identify the key mechanisms responsible for success. In order to narrow the large and growing socioeconomic disparity in smoking rates, more effective cessation interventions are needed for low-income smokers. Individual culturally-relevant coaching provided in smokers' residences may help overcome the heightened barriers to cessation experienced by this group of smokers. In this study among smokers residing in public housing, an intervention delivered by peer health advocates trained in motivational interviewing, basic smoking cessation skills, and client navigation significantly increased abstinence at 12 months. Future research should address whether these findings are replicable in other settings both within and outside of public housing.

Objective To compare the effects of free nicotine replacement therapy or proactive telephone counselling in addition to standard smoking cessation support offered through a telephone quitline.Design Parallel group, 2×2 factorial, randomised controlled trial.Setting National quitline, England.Participants 2591 non-pregnant smokers aged 16 or more residing in England who called the quitline between February 2009 and February 2010 and agreed to set a quit date: 648 were each randomised to standard support, proactive support, or proactive support with nicotine replacement therapy, and 647 were randomised to standard support with nicotine replacement therapy.Interventions Two interventions were offered in addition to standard support: six weeks’ nicotine replacement therapy, provided free, and proactive counselling sessions (repeat telephone calls from, and interaction with, cessation advisors).Main outcome measures The primary outcome was self reported smoking cessation for six or more months after the quit date. The secondary outcome was cessation validated by exhaled carbon monoxide measured at six or more months.Results At six months, 17.7% (n=229) of those offered nicotine replacement therapy reported smoking cessation compared with 20.1% (n=261) not offered such therapy (odds ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.04), and 18.2% (n=236) offered proactive counselling reported smoking cessation compared with 19.6% (n=254) offered standard support (0.91, 0.75 to 1.11). Data validated by carbon monoxide readings changed the findings for nicotine replacement therapy only, with smoking cessation validated in 6.6% (85/1295) of those offered nicotine replacement therapy compared with 9.4% (122/1296) not offered such therapy (0.67, 0.50 to 0.90).Conclusions Offering free nicotine replacement therapy or additional (proactive) counselling to standard helpline support had no additional effect on smoking cessation.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00775944.

Background Many smokers find the cost of smoking cessation medications a barrier. Financial coverage for these medications increases utilization of pharmacotherapies. This study assesses whether financial coverage increases the proportion of successful quitters. Methods A pragmatic, open-label, randomized, controlled trial was conducted in 58 Canadian sites between March 2009 and September 2010. Smokers (≥10 cigarettes/day) without insurance coverage who were motivated to quit within 14 days were randomized (1:1) in a blinded manner to receive either full coverage eligibility for 26 weeks or no coverage. Pharmacotherapies covered were varenicline, bupropion, or nicotine patches/gum. Investigators/subjects were unblinded to study group assignment after randomization and prior to choosing a smoking cessation method(s). All subjects received brief smoking cessation counseling. The primary outcome measure was self-reported 7-day point prevalence of abstinence (PPA) at week 26. Results Of the 1380 randomized subjects (coverage, 696; no coverage, 684), 682 (98.0%) and 435 (63.6%), respectively, were dispensed at least one smoking cessation medication dose. The 7-day PPA at week 26 was higher in the full coverage versus no coverage group: 20.8% ( n  = 145) and 13.9% ( n  = 95), respectively; odds ratio (OR) = 1.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23–2.18; p  = 0.001. Urine cotinine-confirmed 7-day PPA at week 26 was 15.7% ( n  = 109) and 10.1% ( n  = 69), respectively; OR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.21–2.33; p  = 0.002. After pharmacotherapy, coverage eligibility was withdrawn from the full coverage group, continuous abstinence between weeks 26 and 52 was 6.6% ( n  = 46) and 5.6% ( n  = 38), in the full coverage and no coverage groups, respectively; OR = 1.19, 95% CI 0.76–1.87; p  = 0.439. Conclusions In this study, the adoption of a smoking cessation medication coverage drug policy was an effective intervention to improve 26-week quit rates in Canada. The advantages were lost once coverage was discontinued. Further study is required on the duration of coverage to prevent relapse to smoking. (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00818207; the study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc.).

Background Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, but evidence-based smoking cessation therapy is underutilized. Financial incentive strategies represent an innovative approach for increasing the use of counseling and pharmacotherapy. If effective, they could supplement or supplant resource-intensive policy options, particularly in populations for whom smoking has substantial societal costs. FIESTA (Financial IncEntives for Smoking TreAtment) will randomize hospitalized smokers to receive usual smoking cessation care alone or usual smoking care augmented with financial incentives. We aim to compare the impact of these two strategies on 1) smoking abstinence, 2) use of counseling and nicotine replacement therapy, and 3) quality of life of participants. We also will evaluate the short-term and long-term return on the investment of incentives. The FIESTA Oral Microbiome Substudy will compare the oral microbiome of smokers and nonsmokers to longitudinally assess whether smoking cessation changes oral microbiome composition. Methods We will enroll 182 inpatient participants from the Manhattan campus of the Veterans Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System. All participants receive enhanced usual care, including screening for tobacco use, counseling while hospitalized, access to nicotine replacement therapy, and referral to a state Quitline. Patients in the financial incentive arm receive enhanced usual care and up to $550 for participating in the New York Smoker’s Quitline, using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and achieving biochemically confirmed smoking cessation at 2 months and 6 months. In the microbiome substudy, we enroll nonsmoking control participants matched to each recruited smoker’s hospital ward, sex, age, diabetes status, and antibiotic use. After discharge, participants are asked to complete periodic phone interviews at 2 weeks, 2 months, 6 months, and 12 months and provide expired carbon monoxide and saliva samples at 2 months, 6 months, and 12 months for cotinine testing and oral microbiome analysis. Discussion The incentive interventions of FIESTA may benefit hospitalized smokers, an objective made all the more critical because smoking rates among hospitalized patients are higher than those in the general population. Moreover, the focus of FIESTA on evidence-based therapy and bioconfirmed smoking cessation can help guide policy efforts to reduce smoking-related healthcare costs in populations with high rates of tobacco use and costly illnesses. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02506829 . Registered on 1 July 2014.

Smoking during pregnancy is the most important, preventable cause of adverse pregnancy outcomes including miscarriage, premature birth, and low birth weight with huge financial costs to the National Health Service. However, there are very few published economic evaluations of smoking cessation interventions in pregnancy and previous studies are predominantly U.S.-based and do not present incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). A number of studies have demonstrated cost-effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in the general population, but this has yet to be tested among pregnant smokers. A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken alongside the smoking, nicotine, and pregnancy trial to compare NRT patches plus behavioral support to behavioral support alone, for pregnant women who smoked. At delivery, biochemically verified quit rates were slightly higher at 9.4% in the NRT group compared to 7.6% in the control group (odds ratio = 1.26, 95% CI = 0.82-1.96), at an increased cost of around £90 per participant. Higher costs in the NRT group were mainly attributable to the cost of NRT patches (mean = £46.07). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with NRT was £4,926 per quitter and a sensitivity analysis including only singleton births yielded an ICER of £4,156 per quitter. However, wide confidence intervals indicated a high level of uncertainty. Without a specific willingness to pay threshold, and due to high levels of statistical uncertainty, it is hard to determine the cost-effectiveness of NRT in this population. Furthermore, future research should address compliance issues, as these may dilute any potential effects of NRT, thus reducing the cost-effectiveness.

We examined the cost-effectiveness of providing systematic smoking cessation interventions to oncology patients at point-of-care. A decision analytic model was completed from the healthcare payer's perspective and included all incident cancer cases involving patients who smoke in New Brunswick, Canada (n = 1040), cancer site stratifications, and risks of mortality, continued smoking, and cancer treatment failure over one year. Usual care (no cessation support) was compared to the standard Ottawa Model for Smoking Cessation (OMSC) intervention, and to OMSC plus unlimited cost-free stop smoking medication (OMSC + SSM), including nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline, or bupropion. Primary outcomes were incremental cost per quit (ICQ) and incremental cost per cancer treatment failure avoided (ICTFA). The ICQ was $C143 and ICTFA $C1193 for standard OMSC. The ICQ was $C503 and ICTFA was $C5952 for OMSC + SSM. The number needed to treat (NNT) to produce one quit was 9 for standard OMSC and 4 for OMSC + SSM, and the NNT to avoid one first-line treatment failure was 78 for OMSC and 45 for OMSC + SSM. Both were cost-effective in 100% of 1000 simulations. Given the high clinical benefits and low incremental costs, systematic smoking cessation interventions should be a standard component of first-line cancer treatment.

Background. Tobacco companies have actively promoted the substitution of cigarettes with purportedly safer tobacco products (e.g., smokeless tobacco, e-cigarettes) as tobacco harm reduction (THR). Given the tobacco, e-cigarette, and pharmaceutical industries’ substantial financial interests, we quantified industry influence on support for THR. Objectives. To analyze a comprehensive set of articles published in peer-reviewed journals assessing funding sources and support for or opposition to substitution of tobacco or nicotine products as harm reduction. Search Methods. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO with a comprehensive search string including all articles, comments, and editorials published between January 1, 1992, and July 26, 2016. Selection Criteria. We included English-language publications published in peer-reviewed journals addressing THR in humans and excluded studies on modified cigarettes, on South Asian smokeless tobacco variants, on pregnant women, on animals, not mentioning a tobacco or nicotine product, on US Food and Drug Administration–approved nicotine replacement therapies, and on nicotine vaccines. Data Collection and Analysis. We double-coded all articles for article type; primary product type (e.g., snus, e-cigarettes); themes for and against THR; stance on THR; THR concepts; funding or affiliation with tobacco, e-cigarette, pharmaceutical industry, or multiple industries; and each author’s country. We fit exact logistic regression models with stance on THR as the outcome (pro- vs anti-THR) and source of funding or industry affiliation as the predictor taking into account sparse data. Additional models included article type as the outcome (nonempirical or empirical) and industry funding or affiliation as predictor, and stratified analyses for empirical and nonempirical studies with stance on THR as outcome and funding source as predictor. Main Results. Searches retrieved 826 articles, including nonempirical articles (21%), letters or commentaries (34%), editorials (5%), cross-sectional studies (15%), systematic reviews and meta-analyses (3%), and randomized controlled trials (2%). Overall, 23.9% disclosed support by industry; 49% of articles endorsed THR, 42% opposed it, and 9% took neutral or mixed positions. Support from the e-cigarette industry (odds ratio [OR] = 20.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.3, 180.7), tobacco industry (OR = 59.4; 95% CI = 10.1, +infinity), or pharmaceutical industry (OR = 2.18; 95% CI = 1.3, 3.7) was significantly associated with supportive stance on THR in analyses accounting for sparse data. Authors’ Conclusions. Non–industry-funded articles were evenly divided in stance, while industry-funded articles favored THR. Because of their quantity, letters and comments may influence perceptions of THR when empirical studies lack consensus. Public Health Implications. Public health practitioners and researchers need to account for industry funding when interpreting the evidence in THR debates.

BackgroundOne in four French adults smoked daily in 2021, compared with one in six in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. To strengthen its tobacco control policy, in 2016, France has started implementing a policy package that includes a 3-year gradual price increase, plain packaging, an annual social marketing campaign promoting cessation and the reimbursement of nicotine replacement products. This study aims to evaluate the health and economic impact of this policy package.MethodsThe long-term policy impact on disease cases, healthcare expenditure and gains in labour participation and productivity was evaluated by using the OECD microsimulation model for Strategic Public Health Planning for Non-Communicable Diseases. The model was fed with historical and projected trends on tobacco smoking prevalence as produced by the policy package.ResultsOver the period 2023–2050, the policy package is estimated to avoid about 4.03 million (2.09–11.84 million) cases of chronic diseases, save €578 million (365–1848 million) per year in health expenditure and increase employment and workforce productivity by the equivalent to 19 800 (9100–59 900) additional full-time workers per year, compared with a scenario in which the intervention package is not implemented. The intervention cost is estimated at about €148 million per year. For each euro invested in the policy package, €4 will be returned in long-term savings in healthcare expenditure.ConclusionsThe tobacco control policy package implemented by France, targeting smoking initiation and promoting tobacco cessation is an effective intervention with an excellent return on investment.

ObjectiveTo determine if smokers unmotivated to quit reduce usual cigarette consumption when cigarettes priced according to nicotine content are made available.MethodsRandomised, parallel-group, trial (ACTRN12612000914864) undertaken in Wakatipu/Central Otago, New Zealand. Dependent adult daily smokers unmotivated to quit were randomly allocated to an intervention group provided with 12 weeks supply of free very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes, or to a control group, who were free to purchase their usual cigarette brand over the same period. The primary outcome was change from baseline in the daily mean number of usual cigarettes smoked over the previous week, measured at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes at 6 and 12 weeks included cigarettes smoked per week (also measured at weeks 1–6 and 9), salivary cotinine, tobacco dependence, smoking satisfaction/craving, behavioural addiction to smoking, autonomy over smoking, motivation to stop, price at which participants would purchase VLNC cigarettes, quitting and adverse events.ResultsThirty-three smokers were randomised (17 intervention, 16 control). A NZ$15 price differential (per pack of 20) based on nicotine content led to a halving in the mean number of cigarettes smoked per day over the previous week, a reduction in tobacco dependence and an increase in quitting. Intervention participants smoked a similar total number of cigarettes (usual plus VLNC) as those in the control group, exposing them to a similar level of toxicants.ConclusionsSmokers unmotivated to quit reduce their usual cigarette consumption (and thus nicotine exposure) when VLNC cigarettes are made available at a significantly reduced price.

Smoking is a major public health concern in Tamil Nadu, as it is in many parts of the world. It is a leading cause of preventable diseases and deaths, with a significant economic burden on healthcare systems and society as a whole. Recognizing the need to address this issue, the implementation of smoking cessation strategies at primary health care (PHC) settings has gained attention. Conducting a cost-effectiveness analysis in this context can help policymakers and healthcare providers make informed decisions about the allocation of resources for such interventions. To compare the cost-effectiveness of the smoking cessation of proposed strategies (PSs), PS1: enhanced counselling (EC) + nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) + bupropion tablet; PS2: behavioural intervention (BI) + NRT + promotion of bupropion sustained release (SR); PS3: EC + NRT + promotion of bupropion SR with the current strategy (BI +NRT+ Bupropion) in a population of smokers aged ≥15 years attending the PHC in Tamil Nadu. In this hypothetical cohort of 100,000 individuals using the decision tree analysis, a cost-effectiveness assessment was conducted for both proposed and existing strategies. The results were evaluated in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per person quitting smoking. To assess the robustness of the findings, one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed which aims to explore and address the uncertainties associated with the outcomes. The cost of the current strategy (CS) was higher (₹359 or $4.28 million) when compared with PS1 (₹327 or $3.90 million) and PS3 (₹327 or $3.90 million) strategies. The PS2 with BI + bupropion SR + NRT was found to be more cost (₹2,720,571 or $ 32,414.76) as compared to current strategy. ICER values indicates that compared to the current strategy, the PS1 and PS3 were found to be cost-saving, whereas the PS2 was found to be cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve demonstrated that the PS1 and PS3 indicates 100% probability of the intervention being cost-saving. After excluding dominated interventions (PS2 and CS), the remaining strategies (PS1 and PS3) were compared. The PS3, with an incremental cost of ₹462,497 ($5,510) for 131 additional quitters, resulted in an ICER of ₹3,531 ($42) per quitter, making it a cost-effective option compared to PS1. Our study findings indicate that the need for healthcare providers and policymakers to implement PS3 with EC, NRT, Bupropion SR, as which was found to be cost-saving compared to current practices.