Jonathan Livingstone-Banks, Aishwarya Lakshmi Vidyasagaran, Ray Croucher, Faraz Siddiqui, Sufen Zhu, Zainab Kidwai, Tom Parkhouse, Ravi Mehrotra, Kamran Siddiqi
{"title":"戒烟无烟烟草的干预措施。","authors":"Jonathan Livingstone-Banks, Aishwarya Lakshmi Vidyasagaran, Ray Croucher, Faraz Siddiqui, Sufen Zhu, Zainab Kidwai, Tom Parkhouse, Ravi Mehrotra, Kamran Siddiqi","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD015314.pub2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>While combustible tobacco has been the subject of a very large amount of research, smokeless tobacco products receive less attention. Most smokeless tobacco products are very harmful and cause global health inequality. It is therefore important to identify evidence-based cessation aids.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the effects of behavioural and pharmacological interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched the following databases from inception to 16 February 2024: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; ClinicalTrials.gov (through CENTRAL); World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (through CENTRAL). We also searched references of eligible studies.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people of any age using smokeless tobacco, regardless of tobacco smoking status. Eligible studies could test any intervention designed to support people to quit smokeless tobacco use, and had to measure abstinence from either all tobacco use or smokeless tobacco use at six months or longer.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>The outcome of interest was abstinence from all tobacco use or from smokeless tobacco use at six months or longer.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess bias in included studies.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. We grouped studies by comparisons of eligible interventions and comparators, reporting individual study and pooled effects as appropriate. We used a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model for analyses of behavioural interventions and a fixed effect Mantel-Haenszel model for analyses of pharmacotherapies to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>We included 43 trials of 20,346 people. Thirty-three trials were conducted in North America, five in India, two in Scandinavia, one in Pakistan and one in Turkey. One study was conducted across multiple sites in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. Studies tested behavioural interventions (e.g. cessation counselling and brief advice) and pharmacotherapies (e.g. nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline, and bupropion). We judged five studies to be at low risk of bias overall, 22 at high risk of bias, and the remaining 16 at unclear risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>We found moderate-certainty evidence of increased quit rates from counselling compared with minimal support (RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.16; I<sup>2</sup> = 69%; 21 studies, n = 7417; downgraded because of heterogeneity), brief advice compared with no support (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.48; I<sup>2</sup> = 49%; 7 studies, n = 6271; downgraded because of imprecision), and varenicline compared with placebo (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.68; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; 2 studies, n = 508; downgraded because of imprecision). We found low-certainty evidence (downgraded because of imprecision and risk of bias) of increased quit rates from NRT compared with placebo or no medication (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.33; I<sup>2</sup> = 39%; 11 studies, n = 2826). Low-certainty evidence (downgraded because of imprecision) did not show benefit from bupropion compared with placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.44; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; 2 studies, n = 293). We planned subgroup analyses to explore whether smokeless tobacco type affects intervention efficacy, but found insufficient data.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Cessation counselling, brief advice, and varenicline each probably help more people to quit smokeless tobacco use than minimal or no support, or placebo. NRT may help more people to quit smokeless tobacco use than placebo or no medication. Low-certainty evidence does not currently support bupropion as a smokeless tobacco cessation intervention. Despite the majority of smokeless tobacco users living in South and Southeast Asia, only a minority of trials are conducted in those regions. Future trials should address this imbalance.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>None REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015314.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"4 ","pages":"CD015314"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11998898/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation.\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Livingstone-Banks, Aishwarya Lakshmi Vidyasagaran, Ray Croucher, Faraz Siddiqui, Sufen Zhu, Zainab Kidwai, Tom Parkhouse, Ravi Mehrotra, Kamran Siddiqi\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.CD015314.pub2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>While combustible tobacco has been the subject of a very large amount of research, smokeless tobacco products receive less attention. Most smokeless tobacco products are very harmful and cause global health inequality. It is therefore important to identify evidence-based cessation aids.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the effects of behavioural and pharmacological interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched the following databases from inception to 16 February 2024: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; ClinicalTrials.gov (through CENTRAL); World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (through CENTRAL). We also searched references of eligible studies.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people of any age using smokeless tobacco, regardless of tobacco smoking status. Eligible studies could test any intervention designed to support people to quit smokeless tobacco use, and had to measure abstinence from either all tobacco use or smokeless tobacco use at six months or longer.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>The outcome of interest was abstinence from all tobacco use or from smokeless tobacco use at six months or longer.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess bias in included studies.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. We grouped studies by comparisons of eligible interventions and comparators, reporting individual study and pooled effects as appropriate. We used a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model for analyses of behavioural interventions and a fixed effect Mantel-Haenszel model for analyses of pharmacotherapies to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>We included 43 trials of 20,346 people. Thirty-three trials were conducted in North America, five in India, two in Scandinavia, one in Pakistan and one in Turkey. One study was conducted across multiple sites in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. Studies tested behavioural interventions (e.g. cessation counselling and brief advice) and pharmacotherapies (e.g. nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline, and bupropion). We judged five studies to be at low risk of bias overall, 22 at high risk of bias, and the remaining 16 at unclear risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>We found moderate-certainty evidence of increased quit rates from counselling compared with minimal support (RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.16; I<sup>2</sup> = 69%; 21 studies, n = 7417; downgraded because of heterogeneity), brief advice compared with no support (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.48; I<sup>2</sup> = 49%; 7 studies, n = 6271; downgraded because of imprecision), and varenicline compared with placebo (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.68; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; 2 studies, n = 508; downgraded because of imprecision). We found low-certainty evidence (downgraded because of imprecision and risk of bias) of increased quit rates from NRT compared with placebo or no medication (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.33; I<sup>2</sup> = 39%; 11 studies, n = 2826). Low-certainty evidence (downgraded because of imprecision) did not show benefit from bupropion compared with placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.44; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; 2 studies, n = 293). We planned subgroup analyses to explore whether smokeless tobacco type affects intervention efficacy, but found insufficient data.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Cessation counselling, brief advice, and varenicline each probably help more people to quit smokeless tobacco use than minimal or no support, or placebo. NRT may help more people to quit smokeless tobacco use than placebo or no medication. Low-certainty evidence does not currently support bupropion as a smokeless tobacco cessation intervention. Despite the majority of smokeless tobacco users living in South and Southeast Asia, only a minority of trials are conducted in those regions. Future trials should address this imbalance.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>None REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015314.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"CD015314\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11998898/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015314.pub2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015314.pub2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
理由:虽然可燃烟草一直是大量研究的主题,但无烟烟草产品受到的关注较少。大多数无烟烟草制品非常有害,并造成全球健康不平等。因此,确定以证据为基础的戒烟辅助工具非常重要。目的:评估行为和药物干预对无烟烟草戒烟的影响。检索方法:我们检索了以下数据库,从成立到2024年2月16日:Cochrane中央对照试验登记册(Central);MEDLINE;Embase;PsycINFO;ClinicalTrials.gov(通过CENTRAL);世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(通过CENTRAL)。我们还检索了符合条件研究的参考文献。入选标准:我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCTs),招募使用无烟烟草的任何年龄人群,无论吸烟状况如何。符合条件的研究可以测试任何旨在支持人们戒烟无烟烟草使用的干预措施,并且必须测量所有烟草使用或无烟烟草使用在六个月或更长时间内的戒断情况。结果:关注的结果是在6个月或更长时间内完全戒烟或无烟烟草使用。偏倚风险:我们使用Cochrane RoB 1工具评估纳入研究的偏倚。综合方法:采用标准Cochrane方法进行筛选和资料提取。我们通过比较符合条件的干预措施和比较物对研究进行分组,适当地报告个别研究和综合效果。我们使用随机效应Mantel-Haenszel模型分析行为干预,使用固定效应Mantel-Haenszel模型分析药物治疗,以95%置信区间(CI)计算风险比(RR)。我们使用GRADE评估证据的确定性。纳入的研究:我们纳入了43项试验,涉及20,346人。33项试验在北美进行,5项在印度,2项在斯堪的纳维亚,1项在巴基斯坦,1项在土耳其。其中一项研究在孟加拉国、印度和巴基斯坦的多个地点进行。研究测试了行为干预(例如戒烟咨询和简短建议)和药物治疗(例如尼古丁替代疗法(NRT)、伐尼克兰和安非他酮)。我们判定5项研究总体偏倚风险低,22项偏倚风险高,其余16项偏倚风险不明确。综合结果:我们发现中等确定性的证据表明,与最小支持相比,咨询增加了戒烟率(RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.44至2.16;I2 = 69%;21项研究,n = 7417;由于异质性而降级),简短建议与无支持相比(RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03 - 1.48;I2 = 49%;7项研究,n = 6271;因不精确而降级)和伐尼克兰与安慰剂相比(RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 - 1.68;I2 = 0%;2项研究,n = 508;由于不精确而降级)。我们发现低确定性证据(由于不精确和偏倚风险而降级)表明,与安慰剂或未用药相比,NRT的戒烟率增加(RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05至1.33;I2 = 39%;11项研究,n = 2826)。低确定性证据(由于不精确而降级)未显示安非他酮与安慰剂相比有获益(RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 - 1.44;I2 = 0%;2项研究,n = 293)。我们计划进行亚组分析,以探讨无烟烟草类型是否影响干预效果,但发现数据不足。作者的结论是:戒烟咨询、简短建议和伐尼克林都可能比很少或没有支持或安慰剂更能帮助人们戒掉无烟烟草。NRT可能比安慰剂或无药物治疗能帮助更多的人戒烟。低确定性证据目前不支持安非他酮作为无烟戒烟干预措施。尽管大多数无烟烟草使用者生活在南亚和东南亚,但只有少数试验在这些区域进行。未来的试验应该解决这种不平衡。注册:协议可通过DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015314获得。
Interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation.
Rationale: While combustible tobacco has been the subject of a very large amount of research, smokeless tobacco products receive less attention. Most smokeless tobacco products are very harmful and cause global health inequality. It is therefore important to identify evidence-based cessation aids.
Objectives: To assess the effects of behavioural and pharmacological interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation.
Search methods: We searched the following databases from inception to 16 February 2024: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; ClinicalTrials.gov (through CENTRAL); World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (through CENTRAL). We also searched references of eligible studies.
Eligibility criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people of any age using smokeless tobacco, regardless of tobacco smoking status. Eligible studies could test any intervention designed to support people to quit smokeless tobacco use, and had to measure abstinence from either all tobacco use or smokeless tobacco use at six months or longer.
Outcomes: The outcome of interest was abstinence from all tobacco use or from smokeless tobacco use at six months or longer.
Risk of bias: We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess bias in included studies.
Synthesis methods: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. We grouped studies by comparisons of eligible interventions and comparators, reporting individual study and pooled effects as appropriate. We used a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model for analyses of behavioural interventions and a fixed effect Mantel-Haenszel model for analyses of pharmacotherapies to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
Included studies: We included 43 trials of 20,346 people. Thirty-three trials were conducted in North America, five in India, two in Scandinavia, one in Pakistan and one in Turkey. One study was conducted across multiple sites in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. Studies tested behavioural interventions (e.g. cessation counselling and brief advice) and pharmacotherapies (e.g. nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline, and bupropion). We judged five studies to be at low risk of bias overall, 22 at high risk of bias, and the remaining 16 at unclear risk of bias.
Synthesis of results: We found moderate-certainty evidence of increased quit rates from counselling compared with minimal support (RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.16; I2 = 69%; 21 studies, n = 7417; downgraded because of heterogeneity), brief advice compared with no support (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.48; I2 = 49%; 7 studies, n = 6271; downgraded because of imprecision), and varenicline compared with placebo (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.68; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, n = 508; downgraded because of imprecision). We found low-certainty evidence (downgraded because of imprecision and risk of bias) of increased quit rates from NRT compared with placebo or no medication (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.33; I2 = 39%; 11 studies, n = 2826). Low-certainty evidence (downgraded because of imprecision) did not show benefit from bupropion compared with placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.44; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, n = 293). We planned subgroup analyses to explore whether smokeless tobacco type affects intervention efficacy, but found insufficient data.
Authors' conclusions: Cessation counselling, brief advice, and varenicline each probably help more people to quit smokeless tobacco use than minimal or no support, or placebo. NRT may help more people to quit smokeless tobacco use than placebo or no medication. Low-certainty evidence does not currently support bupropion as a smokeless tobacco cessation intervention. Despite the majority of smokeless tobacco users living in South and Southeast Asia, only a minority of trials are conducted in those regions. Future trials should address this imbalance.
Funding: None REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015314.
期刊介绍:
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.