Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.
National Addictions Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IOPPN), Addictions Sciences Building, London, UK.
Addiction. 2020 Oct;115(10):1800-1814. doi: 10.1111/add.14993. Epub 2020 Mar 7.
Tobacco and cannabis are commonly co-used, and evidence for the influence of co-use on quit outcomes for either substance is mixed. We sought to determine the efficacy of tobacco and/or cannabis use interventions delivered to co-users on cannabis and tobacco use outcomes.
Systematic review with meta-analysis and narrative review, using five databases and author requests for co-use data. Controlled and uncontrolled intervention studies focusing on treatment of tobacco and/or cannabis use assessing use of both pre- and post-intervention were included. Prevention interventions were excluded. Bayesian meta-analysis was used across four outcome measures: risk ratio for tobacco and cannabis cessation post-intervention separately; standardized mean change for tobacco and cannabis reduction post-intervention separately. Narrative reporting of the same outcome measures in non-randomized clinical trials (non-RCTs) and quality assessment of all included studies were conducted.
Twenty studies (12 RCTs and eight uncontrolled) were included. Bayesian meta-analysis with informative priors based on existing data of 11 RCTs (six single-substance, five multi-substance interventions) delivered to co-users (n = up to 1117) showed weak evidence for an effect on cannabis cessation [risk ratio (RR) = 1.48, credibility interval (CrI) = 0.92, 2.49, eight studies] and no clear effect on tobacco cessation (RR = 1.10, CrI = 0.68, 1.87, nine studies). Subgroup analysis suggested that multi-substance interventions might be more effective than cannabis-targeted interventions on cannabis cessation (RR = 2.19, CrI = 1.10, 4.36 versus RR = 1.39, CrI = 0.75, 2.74). A significant intervention effect was observed on cannabis reduction (RR = 0.25, CrI = 0.03, 0.45, nine studies) but not on tobacco reduction (RR = 0.06, CrI = -0.11, 0.23, nine studies). Quality of evidence was moderate, although measurement of co-use and cannabis use requires standardization. Uncontrolled studies targeting both cannabis and tobacco use indicated feasibility and acceptability.
Single and multi-substance interventions addressing tobacco and/or cannabis have not shown a clear effect on either tobacco or cannabis cessation and reduction among co-users. However, dual substance interventions targeting tobacco and cannabis appear feasible.
烟草和大麻通常同时使用,同时使用对任何一种物质的戒烟效果的影响证据都存在差异。我们旨在确定针对同时使用烟草和大麻的人群实施的烟草和/或大麻使用干预措施对大麻和烟草使用结果的疗效。
系统综述,包括荟萃分析和叙述性综述,使用五个数据库和作者对同时使用数据的请求。纳入了专注于治疗烟草和/或大麻使用的对照和非对照干预研究,评估了干预前后的使用情况。排除了预防干预措施。使用四项结局指标进行贝叶斯荟萃分析:干预后分别针对烟草和大麻戒断的风险比;干预后分别针对烟草和大麻减少的标准化平均变化。对非随机临床试验(非 RCT)中的相同结局指标进行叙述性报告,并对所有纳入研究进行质量评估。
纳入了 20 项研究(12 项 RCT 和 8 项非对照研究)。对 11 项 RCT(6 项单物质、5 项多物质干预)中同时使用烟草和大麻的人群(最多 1117 人)进行贝叶斯荟萃分析(基于现有数据的信息先验),结果显示,在大麻戒断方面,干预措施的效果证据较弱[风险比(RR)=1.48,可信度区间(CrI)=0.92,2.49,八项研究],在烟草戒断方面则没有明显效果(RR=1.10,CrI=0.68,1.87,九项研究)。亚组分析表明,多物质干预可能比针对大麻的干预更有效,能促进大麻戒断(RR=2.19,CrI=1.10,4.36 与 RR=1.39,CrI=0.75,2.74)。干预对大麻减少有显著效果(RR=0.25,CrI=0.03,0.45,九项研究),但对烟草减少没有效果(RR=0.06,CrI=-0.11,0.23,九项研究)。证据质量为中等,尽管同时使用和大麻使用的测量需要标准化。针对同时使用烟草和大麻的非对照研究表明其具有可行性和可接受性。
针对同时使用烟草和大麻的人群实施的单物质和多物质干预措施,对同时使用人群的烟草和大麻戒断或减少均未显示出明显效果。然而,针对烟草和大麻的双重物质干预措施似乎是可行的。