Search

Aim: To compare effects of three post‐relapse interventions on smoking abstinence. Design: Sequential three‐phase multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART). Setting: Eighteen Wisconsin, USA, primary care clinics. Participants: A total of 1154 primary care patients (53.6% women, 81.2% White) interested in quitting smoking enrolled from 2015 to 2019; 582 relapsed and were randomized to relapse recovery treatment. Interventions: In phase 1, patients received cessation counseling and 8 weeks nicotine patch. Those who relapsed and agreed were randomized to a phase 2 relapse recovery group: (1) reduction counseling + nicotine mini‐lozenges + encouragement to quit starting 1 month post‐randomization (preparation); (2) repeated encouragement to quit starting immediately post‐randomization (recycling); or (3) advice to call the tobacco quitline (control). The first two groups could opt into phase 3 new quit treatment [8 weeks nicotine patch + mini‐lozenges plus randomization to two treatment factors (skill training and supportive counseling) in a 2 × 2 design]. Phase 2 and 3 interventions lasted ≤ 15 months. Measurements The study was powered to compare each active phase 2 treatment with the control on the primary outcome: biochemically confirmed 7‐day point‐prevalence abstinence 14 months post initiating phase 2 relapse recovery treatment. Exploratory analyses tested for phase 3 counseling factor effects. Findings Neither skill training nor supportive counseling (each on versus off) increased 14‐month abstinence rates; skills on versus off 9.3% (14/151) versus 5.2% (8/153), P = 0.19; support on versus off 6.6% (10/152) versus 7.9% (12/152), P = 0.73. Phase 2 preparation did not produce higher 14‐month abstinence rates than quitline referral; 3.6% (8/220) versus 2.1% [3/145; risk difference = 1.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −1.8−5.0%, odds ratio (OR) = 1.8, 95% CI = 0.5–6.9]. Recycling, however, produced higher abstinence rates than quitline referral; 6.9% (15/217) versus 2.1% (three of 145; risk difference, 4.8%, 95% CI = 0.7–8.9%, OR = 3.5, 95% CI = 1.0–12.4). Recycling produced greater entry into new quit treatment than preparation: 83.4% (181/217) versus 55.9% (123/220), P < 0.0001. Conclusions: Among people interested in quitting smoking, immediate encouragement post‐relapse to enter a new round of smoking cessation treatment ('recycling') produced higher probability of abstinence than tobacco quitline referral. Recycling produced higher rates of cessation treatment re‐engagement than did preparation/cutting down using more intensive counseling and pharmacotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The present research examined the relation of psychiatric disorders to tobacco dependence and cessation outcomes. Method: Data were collected from 1,504 smokers (58.2% women; 83.9% White; mean age = 44.67 years, SD = 11.08) making an aided smoking cessation attempt as part of a clinical trial. Psychiatric diagnoses were determined with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview structured clinical interview. Tobacco dependence was assessed with the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (FTND) and the Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives (WISDM). Results: Diagnostic groups included those who were never diagnosed, those who had ever been diagnosed (at any time, including in the past year), and those with past-year diagnoses (with or without prior diagnosis). Some diagnostic groups had lower follow-up abstinence rates than did the never diagnosed group (ps less than 0.05). At 8 weeks after quitting, strong associations were found between cessation outcome and both past-year mood disorder and ever diagnosed anxiety disorder. At 6 months after quitting, those ever diagnosed with an anxiety disorder (OR = 0.72, p = 0.02) and those ever diagnosed with more than one psychiatric diagnosis (OR = 0.74, p = 0.03) had lower abstinence rates. The diagnostic categories did not differ in smoking heaviness or the FTND, but they did differ in dependence motives assessed with the WISDM. Conclusion: Information on recent or lifetime psychiatric disorders may help clinicians gauge relapse risk and may suggest dependence motives that are particularly relevant to affected patients. These findings also illustrate the importance of using multidimensional tobacco dependence assessments. (Contains 1 figure, 2 tables, and 1 footnote.)

Few studies have examined whether nicotine dependence self-report questionnaires can predict specific behaviors and symptoms at specific points in time. The present study used data from a randomized clinical trial (N = 608; M. E. Piper et al., 2007) to assess the construct validity of scales and items from 3 nicotine dependence measures: the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (T. F. Heatherton, L. T. Kozlowski, R. C. Frecker & K.-O. Fagerstrom, 1991), the Nicotine Dependence Syndrome Scale (S. Shiffman, A. J. Waters, & M. Hickcox, 2004), and the Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives (M. E. Piper et al., 2004). Scales from these measures were used to predict participants' reports on real-time measures of withdrawal symptoms and smoking behavior and retrospective self-report questionnaires to assess convergent and discriminative validity. The nicotine dependence measures' scales and items generally predicted the real-time measures of similar constructs, but the percent of variance accounted for was low. The nicotine dependence measures did, however, show evidence of discriminative validity. Thus, this study provides modest support for the construct validity of these nicotine dependence scales. (Contains 10 footnotes, 5 tables, and 1 figure.)

Objective: The present research examined the relation of psychiatric disorders to tobacco dependence and cessation outcomes. Method: Data were collected from 1,504 smokers (58.2% women; 83.9% White; mean age = 44.67 years, SD = 11.08) making an aided smoking cessation attempt as part of a clinical trial. Psychiatric diagnoses were determined with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview structured clinical interview. Tobacco dependence was assessed with the Fagerstrtim Test of Nicotine Dependence (FTND) and the Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives (WISDM). Results: Diagnostic groups included those who were never diagnosed, those who had ever been diagnosed (at any time, including in the past year), and those with past-year diagnoses (with or without prior diagnosis). Some diagnostic groups had lower follow-up abstinence rates than did the never diagnosed group (ps < .05). At 8 weeks after quitting, strong associations were found between cessation outcome and both past-year mood disorder and ever diagnosed anxiety disorder. At 6 months after quitting, those ever diagnosed with an anxiety disorder (OR = .72, p = .02) and those ever diagnosed with more than one psychiatric diagnosis (OR = .74, p = .03) had lower abstinence rates. The diagnostic categories did not differ in smoking heaviness or the FTND, but they did differ in dependence motives assessed with the WISDM. Conclusion: Information on recent or lifetime psychiatric disorders may help clinicians gauge relapse risk and may suggest dependence motives that are particularly relevant to affected patients. These findings also illustrate the importance of using multidimensional tobacco dependence assessments. Keywords: smoking cessation, psychiatric disorders, nicotine dependence, depression, anxiety DOI: 10.1037/a0018065

Aims: To identify when smoking cessation treatments affect craving, negative affect and anhedonia, and how these symptoms relate to abstinence, to help evaluate the effects of particular intervention components in multi‐component treatments and accelerate treatment refinement. Design Secondary analysis of data from a two‐arm randomized controlled trial. Setting: Seven primary care clinics in Wisconsin, United States. Participants: Adult primary care patients who smoked daily (n = 574). Intervention and comparator: Intervention was abstinence‐optimized treatment (A‐OT, n = 276) comprising 3 weeks of nicotine mini‐lozenges pre‐target quit day (TQD), 26 weeks of combination nicotine patch and mini‐lozenges post‐TQD and extensive psychosocial support. The comparator was recommended usual care (RUC, n = 298), comprising brief counseling and 8 weeks of nicotine patch post‐TQD. Measurements Time‐varying effect models examined dynamic effects of A‐OT (versus RUC) on the primary outcomes of nightly cigarette craving, negative affect and anhedonia from 1 week pre‐ to 2 weeks post‐TQD. Exploratory models examined within‐person relations between nicotine medication use and same‐day symptom ratings. Secondary logistic regression analyses examined associations between post‐TQD craving, negative affect and anhedonia and 1‐month post‐TQD abstinence. Findings A‐OT significantly suppressed pre‐ and post‐TQD craving (β = −0.27 to −0.46 across days) and post‐TQD anhedonia (β = −0.24 to −0.38 across days), relative to RUC. Within individuals, using patches was associated with lower negative affect in RUC (β = −0.42 to −0.52), but not in A‐OT. Using more mini‐lozenges was associated with greater craving (β = 0.04–0.07) and negative affect (β = 0.03–0.05) early, and with lower anhedonia (β = −0.06 to −0.12) later. Greater post‐TQD craving (OR = 0.68) and anhedonia (OR = 0.85) predicted lower odds of abstinence 1 month post‐TQD. Conclusion: Time‐varying effect models showed that a multi‐component treatment intervention for smoking cessation suppressed significant withdrawal symptoms more effectively than recommended usual care among daily adult smokers motivated to quit. The intervention reduced craving pre‐ and post‐target quit day (TQD) and anhedonia post‐TQD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study examined relations of two affective vulnerabilities, high anxiety sensitivity (AS) and low distress tolerance (DT), with tobacco dependence, withdrawal, smoking cessation, and pharmacotherapy response.Methods: Smokers interested in quitting (N = 1067; 52.2% female, 28.1% African American) were randomized to 12 weeks of nicotine patch, nicotine patch plus nicotine lozenge, or varenicline. Baseline questionnaires assessed AS, DT, negative affect, anxiety, and dependence. Withdrawal was assessed the first-week post-quit via ecological momentary assessment.Results: DT, but not AS, predicted biochemically confirmed point-prevalence abstinence at multiple endpoints: weeks 4, 12, 26, and 52 post-quit (ps < .05); relations remained after controlling for pharmacotherapy treatment, AS, baseline negative affect, anxiety, and anxiety disorder history (ps < .05). Additional exploratory analyses examining week 4 abstinence showed DT predicted abstinence (p = .004) even after controlling for baseline dependence, post-quit withdrawal (craving and negative affect), and treatment. DT moderated treatment effects on abstinence in exploratory analyses (interaction p = .025); those with high DT were especially likely to be abstinent at week 4 with patch plus lozenge versus patch alone.Conclusions: DT, but not AS, predicted abstinence over 1 year post-quit (higher DT was associated with higher quit rates), with little overlap with other affective measures. DT also predicted early abstinence independent of dependence and withdrawal symptoms. Results suggest low DT may play a meaningful role in motivation to use tobacco and constitute an additional affective risk factor for tobacco cessation failure beyond negative affect or clinical affective disorders.Implications: People in a stop-smoking study who reported a greater ability to tolerate distress were more likely to quit smoking and remain smoke-free 1 year later. Smokers with high DT were more likely to be smoke-free 4 weeks after their target quit day if they received nicotine patch plus nicotine lozenge rather than nicotine patch alone.Trial Registration: NCT01553084. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]