Stead Lindsay F, Koilpillai Priya, Lancaster Tim
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, UK, OX2 6GG.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Oct 12(10):CD009670. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009670.pub3.
Effective pharmacotherapies are available to help people who are trying to stop smoking, but quitting can still be difficult and providing higher levels of behavioural support may increase success rates further.
To evaluate the effect of increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition.
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in May 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.
Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact. The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, or just written information. We did not include studies that used a contact-matched control to evaluate differences between types or components of support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.
One author prescreened search results and two authors agreed inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials. One author extracted data and another checked them.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.
Forty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria with over 18,000 participants in the relevant arms. There was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 18%) so we pooled all studies in the main analysis. There was evidence of a small but statistically significant benefit from more intensive support (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.24) for abstinence at longest follow-up. All but four of the included studies provided four or more sessions of support to the intervention group. Most trials used NRT. We did not detect significant effects for studies where the pharmacotherapy was nortriptyline (two trials) or varenicline (one trial), but this reflects the absence of evidence.In subgroup analyses, studies that provided at least four sessions of personal contact for the intervention and no personal contact for the control had slightly larger estimated effects (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45; 6 trials, 3762 participants), although a formal test for subgroup differences was not significant. Studies where all intervention counselling was via telephone (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41; 6 trials, 5311 participants) also had slightly larger effects, and the test for subgroup differences was significant, but this subgroup analysis was not prespecified. In this update, the benefit of providing additional behavioural support was similar for the subgroup of trials in which all participants, including controls, had at least 30 minutes of personal contact (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.32; 21 trials, 5166 participants); previously the evidence of benefit in this subgroup had been weaker. This subgroup was not prespecified and a test for subgroup differences was not significant. We judged the quality of the evidence to be high, using the GRADE approach. We judged a small number of trials to be at high risk of bias on one or more domains, but findings were not sensitive to their exclusion.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking has a small but important effect. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 25%, based on a pooled estimate from 47 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support.
有有效的药物疗法可帮助试图戒烟的人,但戒烟仍然可能很困难,提供更高水平的行为支持可能会进一步提高成功率。
评估增加对使用戒烟药物者的行为支持强度的效果,并评估根据药物疗法的类型或每种情况下的支持量是否存在不同的效果。
我们于2015年5月检索了Cochrane烟草成瘾小组专业注册库,以查找任何提及药物疗法的记录,包括任何类型的尼古丁替代疗法(NRT)、安非他酮、去甲替林或伐尼克兰,这些记录评估了个人支持的增加或比较了两种或更多强度的行为支持。
随机或半随机对照试验,其中所有参与者均接受戒烟药物治疗,且各条件因行为支持量而异。干预条件必须涉及人际接触。对照条件可接受强度较低的个人接触,或仅接受书面信息。我们未纳入使用接触匹配对照来评估支持类型或组成部分之间差异的研究。我们排除了仅招募孕妇的试验、仅招募青少年的试验以及随访时间少于六个月的试验。
一位作者预先筛选检索结果,两位作者商定纳入或排除潜在相关试验。一位作者提取数据,另一位作者进行核对。主要结局指标是至少随访六个月后的戒烟情况。我们对每个试验使用最严格的戒烟定义,如有可用的生化验证率则使用该率。我们计算了每项研究的风险比(RR)和95%置信区间(CI)。在适当情况下,我们使用Mantel-Haenszel固定效应模型进行荟萃分析。
47项研究符合纳入标准,相关组中有超过18000名参与者。几乎没有证据表明存在统计学异质性(I² = 18%),因此我们在主要分析中汇总了所有研究。有证据表明,在最长随访时,更强化的支持对戒烟有小但具有统计学意义的益处(RR 1.17,95% CI 1.11至1.24)。纳入的研究中除四项外,均为干预组提供了四次或更多次的支持。大多数试验使用NRT。我们未检测到药物疗法为去甲替林(两项试验)或伐尼克兰(一项试验)的研究有显著效果,但这反映了缺乏证据。在亚组分析中,为干预组提供至少四次人际接触且对照组无人际接触的研究估计效果略大(RR 1.25,95% CI 1.08至1.45;6项试验,3762名参与者),尽管亚组差异的正式检验不显著。所有干预咨询均通过电话进行的研究(RR 1.28,95% CI 1.17至1.41;6项试验,5311名参与者)效果也略大,亚组差异检验显著,但该亚组分析未预先设定。在本次更新中,对于所有参与者(包括对照组)至少有30分钟人际接触的试验亚组,提供额外行为支持的益处相似(RR 1.18,95% CI 从1.06至1.32;21项试验,5166名参与者);此前该亚组中有益处的证据较弱。该亚组未预先设定,亚组差异检验不显著。我们使用GRADE方法判断证据质量为高。我们判断少数试验在一个或多个领域存在高偏倚风险,但结果对排除这些试验不敏感。
为使用药物疗法戒烟的人亲自提供行为支持或通过电话提供行为支持有小但重要的效果。根据47项试验的汇总估计,增加行为支持量可能会使成功几率提高约10%至25%。亚组分析表明,在一系列基线支持水平上,更多支持带来的增量益处相似。