1. Home
  2. Smokers

Smokers

Adverse physiological effects of smoking cessation on the gastrointestinal tract: A review

Author/s: 
Mahyoub, Mueataz A., Al-Qurmoti, Sarah, Rai, Ayesha Akram, Abbas, Mustafa, Jebril, Majed

Smoking cessation is known to have numerous health benefits, but it can also induce adverse physiological effects, including those affecting the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). Understanding the adverse physiological effects of smoking cessation on the GIT is critical for healthcare professionals and smokers attempting to quit, as it enables them to anticipate and manage potential challenges during the smoking cessation process. Although the detrimental effects of smoking on the GIT have been well established, there is a gap in the literature regarding the specific physiological reactions that may occur upon smoking cessation. This mini-review summarizes the current literature on the predisposing factors, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and treatment options for adverse physiological effects of smoking cessation on the GIT. We aimed to raise awareness among busy clinical professionals about these adverse effects, empowering them to effectively support individuals striving to quit smoking and maintain their cessation. By consolidating the existing knowledge in this field, this review offers practical implications for smokers, healthcare providers, and policymakers to optimize smoking cessation interventions and support strategies to improve health outcomes.

Keywords 
Smokers smoking tobacco

Effect of Varenicline Added to Counseling on Smoking Cessation Among African American Daily Smokers The Kick It at Swope IV Randomized Clinical Trial

Author/s: 
Cox, L. S., Nollen, N. L., Mayo, M. S., Faseru, B., Greiner, A., Ellerbeck, E. F., Krebill, R., Tyndale, R. F., Benowitz, N. L., Ahluwalia, J. S.

Importance: African American smokers have among the highest rates of tobacco-attributable morbidity and mortality in the US, and effective treatment is needed for all smoking levels.

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of varenicline vs placebo among African American adults who are light, moderate, and heavy daily smokers.

Design, setting, and participants: The Kick It at Swope IV (KIS-IV) trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted at a federally qualified health center in Kansas City. A total of 500 African American adults who were daily smokers of all smoking levels were enrolled from June 2015 to December 2017; final follow-up was completed in June 2018.

Interventions: Participants were provided 6 sessions of culturally relevant individualized counseling and were randomized (in a 3:2 ratio) to receive varenicline (1 mg twice daily; n = 300) or placebo (n = 200) for 12 weeks. Randomization was stratified by sex and smoking level (1-10 cigarettes/d [light smokers] or >10 cigarettes/d [moderate to heavy smokers]).

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was salivary cotinine-verified 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at week 26. The secondary outcome was 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at week 12, with subgroup analyses for light smokers (1-10 cigarettes/d) and moderate to heavy smokers (>10 cigarettes/d).

Results: Among 500 participants who were randomized and completed the baseline visit (mean age, 52 years; 262 [52%] women; 260 [52%] light smokers; 429 [86%] menthol users), 441 (88%) completed the trial. Treating those lost to follow-up as smokers, participants receiving varenicline were significantly more likely than those receiving placebo to be abstinent at week 26 (15.7% vs 6.5%; difference, 9.2% [95% CI, 3.8%-14.5%]; odds ratio [OR], 2.7 [95% CI, 1.4-5.1]; P = .002). The varenicline group also demonstrated greater abstinence than the placebo group at the end of treatment week 12 (18.7% vs 7.0%; difference, 11.7% [95% CI, 6.0%-17.7%]; OR, 3.0 [95% CI, 1.7-5.6]; P < .001). Smoking abstinence at week 12 was significantly greater for individuals receiving varenicline compared with placebo among light smokers (22.1% vs 8.5%; difference, 13.6% [95% CI, 5.2%-22.0%]; OR, 3.0 [95% CI, 1.4-6.7]; P = .004) and among moderate to heavy smokers (15.1% vs 5.3%; difference, 9.8% [95% CI, 2.4%-17.2%]; OR, 3.1 [95% CI, 1.1-8.6]; P = .02), with no significant smoking level × treatment interaction (P = .96). Medication adverse events were generally comparable between treatment groups, with nausea reported more frequently in the varenicline group (163 of 293 [55.6%]) than the placebo group (90 of 196 [45.9%]).

Conclusions and relevance: Among African American adults who are daily smokers, varenicline added to counseling resulted in a statistically significant improvement in the rates of 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at week 26 compared with counseling and placebo. The findings support the use of varenicline in addition to counseling for tobacco use treatment among African American adults who are daily smokers.

Keywords 
Varenicline smoking African Americans Smokers clinical trial

Mobile phone text messaging and app-based interventions for smoking cessation

Author/s: 
Whittaker, Robyn, McRobbie, Hayden, Bullen, Chris, Rodgers, Anthony, Gu, Yulong, Dobson, Rosie

Background: Mobile phone-based smoking cessation support (mCessation) offers the opportunity to provide behavioural support to those who cannot or do not want face-to-face support. In addition, mCessation can be automated and therefore provided affordably even in resource-poor settings. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006, and previously updated in 2009 and 2012.

Objectives: To determine whether mobile phone-based smoking cessation interventions increase smoking cessation rates in people who smoke.

Search methods: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, along with clinicaltrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the most recent searches was 29 October 2018.

Selection criteria: Participants were smokers of any age. Eligible interventions were those testing any type of predominantly mobile phone-based programme (such as text messages (or smartphone app) for smoking cessation. We included randomised controlled trials with smoking cessation outcomes reported at at least six-month follow-up.

Data collection and analysis: We used standard methodological procedures described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We performed both study eligibility checks and data extraction in duplicate. We performed meta-analyses of the most stringent measures of abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer, using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method, pooling studies with similar interventions and similar comparators to calculate risk ratios (RR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted analyses including all randomised (with dropouts counted as still smoking) and complete cases only.

Main results: This review includes 26 studies (33,849 participants). Overall, we judged 13 studies to be at low risk of bias, three at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. Settings and recruitment procedures varied across studies, but most studies were conducted in high-income countries. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that automated text messaging interventions were more effective than minimal smoking cessation support (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.00; I2 = 71%; 13 studies, 14,133 participants). There was also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that text messaging added to other smoking cessation interventions was more effective than the other smoking cessation interventions alone (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33; I2 = 0%, 4 studies, 997 participants). Two studies comparing text messaging with other smoking cessation interventions, and three studies comparing high- and low-intensity messaging, did not show significant differences between groups (RR 0.92 95% CI 0.61 to 1.40; I2 = 27%; 2 studies, 2238 participants; and RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06; I2 = 0%, 3 studies, 12,985 participants, respectively) but confidence intervals were wide in the former comparison. Five studies compared a smoking cessation smartphone app with lower-intensity smoking cessation support (either a lower-intensity app or non-app minimal support). We pooled the evidence and deemed it to be of very low certainty due to inconsistency and serious imprecision. It provided no evidence that smartphone apps improved the likelihood of smoking cessation (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52; I2 = 59%; 5 studies, 3079 participants). Other smartphone apps tested differed from the apps included in the analysis, as two used contingency management and one combined text messaging with an app, and so we did not pool them. Using complete case data as opposed to using data from all participants randomised did not substantially alter the findings.

Authors' conclusions: There is moderate-certainty evidence that automated text message-based smoking cessation interventions result in greater quit rates than minimal smoking cessation support. There is moderate-certainty evidence of the benefit of text messaging interventions in addition to other smoking cessation support in comparison with that smoking cessation support alone. The evidence comparing smartphone apps with less intensive support was of very low certainty, and more randomised controlled trials are needed to test these interventions.

Keywords 
Text Messaging cell phone smoking cessation tobacco Smokers
Subscribe to Smokers