Suppr超能文献

比较出院后戒烟干预措施对住院患者的效果:HELPING HAND 4 随机临床试验。

Comparative Effectiveness of Postdischarge Smoking Cessation Interventions for Hospital Patients: The Helping HAND 4 Randomized Clinical Trial.

机构信息

Tobacco Research & Treatment Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

出版信息

JAMA Intern Med. 2022 Aug 1;182(8):814-824. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.2300.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Smoking cessation interventions for hospitalized patients must continue after discharge to improve long-term tobacco abstinence. How health systems can best deliver postdischarge tobacco treatment is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if health system-based tobacco cessation treatment after hospital discharge produces more long-term tobacco abstinence than referral to a community-based quitline.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This randomized clinical trial was conducted September 2018 to November 2020 in 3 hospitals in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. Cigarette smokers admitted to a study hospital who received brief in-hospital tobacco treatment and wanted to quit smoking were recruited for participation and randomized for postdischarge treatment to health system-based Transitional Tobacco Care Management (TTCM) or electronic referral to a community-based quitline (QL). Both multicomponent interventions offered smoking cessation counseling and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for up to 3 months. Data were analyzed from February 1, 2021, to April 25, 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

TTCM provided 8 weeks of NRT at discharge and 7 automated calls with a hospital-based counselor call-back option. The QL intervention sent referrals from the hospital electronic health record to the state quitline, which offered 5 counseling calls and an NRT sample.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was biochemically verified past 7-day tobacco abstinence at 6 months. Self-reported point-prevalence and continuous tobacco abstinence and tobacco treatment utilization were assessed 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 1409 participants (mean [SD] age, 51.7 [12.6] years; 784 [55.6%] women; mean [SD] 16.4 [10.6] cigarettes/day) were recruited, including 706 randomized to TTCM and 703 randomized to QL. Participants were comparable at baseline, including 216 Black participants (15.3%), 82 Hispanic participants (5.8%), and 1089 White participants (77.3%). At 1 and 3 months after discharge, more TTCM participants than QL participants used cessation counseling (1 month: 245 participants [34.7%] vs 154 participants [21.9%]; 3 months: 248 participants [35.1%] vs 123 participants [17.5%]; P < .001) and pharmacotherapy (1 month: 455 participants [64.4%] vs 324 participants [46.1%]; 3 months: 367 participants [52.0%] vs 264 participants [37.6%]; P < .001). More TTCM than QL participants reported continuous abstinence for 3 months (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.58) and point-prevalence abstinence at 1 month (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.35) and 3 months (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.09-1.37) but not at 6 months (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.99-1.29). The primary outcome, biochemically verified point-prevalence abstinence at 6 months, was not statistically significantly different between groups (19.9% vs 16.9%; RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.92-1.50).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial, biochemically verified tobacco abstinence rates were not significantly different between groups at the 6-month follow-up. However, the health system-based model was superior to the community-based quitline model throughout the 3 months of active treatment. A longer duration of postdischarge treatment may sustain the superiority of the health system-based model.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03603496.

摘要

重要性

为了提高长期戒烟率,住院患者的戒烟干预措施必须在出院后继续进行。不确定卫生系统如何最好地提供出院后的烟草治疗。

目的

确定基于卫生系统的出院后烟草治疗是否比转介到社区戒烟热线产生更多的长期戒烟效果。

设计、地点和参与者:这项随机临床试验于 2018 年 9 月至 2020 年 11 月在马萨诸塞州、宾夕法尼亚州和田纳西州的 3 家医院进行。招募了在研究医院住院并接受了简短的院内烟草治疗且想戒烟的吸烟者参与,并随机分为基于卫生系统的过渡性烟草护理管理(TTCM)或电子转介到社区戒烟热线(QL)进行出院后治疗。这两种多成分干预措施都提供戒烟咨询和尼古丁替代疗法(NRT),最长可达 3 个月。数据于 2022 年 2 月 1 日至 4 月 25 日进行分析。

干预措施

TTCM 在出院时提供 8 周的 NRT,并提供 7 次与医院咨询师回电选项的自动电话。QL 干预措施从医院电子健康记录中转介给州戒烟热线,该热线提供 5 次咨询电话和一个 NRT 样本。

主要结果和测量

主要结果是在 6 个月时通过生物化学方法验证的过去 7 天的烟草戒断情况。在出院后 1、3 和 6 个月评估了自我报告的点患病率和持续的烟草戒断情况以及烟草治疗的使用情况。

结果

共招募了 1409 名参与者(平均[标准差]年龄,51.7[12.6]岁;784[55.6%]名女性;平均[标准差]16.4[10.6]支/天),包括 706 名随机分配到 TTCM 和 703 名随机分配到 QL。参与者在基线时具有可比性,包括 216 名黑人参与者(15.3%)、82 名西班牙裔参与者(5.8%)和 1089 名白人参与者(77.3%)。在出院后 1 个月和 3 个月时,TTCM 组比 QL 组更多地使用了戒烟咨询(1 个月:245 名参与者[34.7%] vs 154 名参与者[21.9%];3 个月:248 名参与者[35.1%] vs 123 名参与者[17.5%];P<0.001)和药物治疗(1 个月:455 名参与者[64.4%] vs 324 名参与者[46.1%];3 个月:367 名参与者[52.0%] vs 264 名参与者[37.6%];P<0.001)。TTCM 组比 QL 组报告连续 3 个月的戒烟率更高(RR,1.30;95%CI,1.06-1.58)和 1 个月(RR,1.22;95%CI,1.08-1.35)和 3 个月(RR,1.23;95%CI,1.09-1.37)的点患病率戒烟率,但在 6 个月时没有统计学意义(RR,1.14;95%CI,0.99-1.29)。主要结局,即 6 个月时通过生物化学方法验证的点患病率戒烟率,两组之间没有统计学差异(19.9% vs 16.9%;RR,1.18;95%CI,0.92-1.50)。

结论和相关性

在这项随机临床试验中,在 6 个月的随访中,两组的生物化学验证吸烟率没有显著差异。然而,在整个 3 个月的治疗过程中,基于卫生系统的模型明显优于社区戒烟热线模型。更长的出院后治疗时间可能会维持基于卫生系统模型的优势。

试验注册

ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT03603496。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/000c/9237801/4fee51130e67/jamainternmed-e222300-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验