Search

Background: Alcohol misuse is a major cause of premature mortality and ill health. Although there is a high prevalence of alcohol problems among patients presenting to general hospital, many of these people are not help seekers and do not engage in specialist treatment. Hospital admission is an opportunity to steer people towards specialist treatment, which can reduce health-care utilization and costs to the public sector and produce substantial individual health and social benefits. Alcohol misuse is associated with other lifestyle problems, which are amenable to intervention. It has been suggested that the development of a healthy or balanced lifestyle is potentially beneficial for reducing or abstaining from alcohol use, and relapse prevention. The aim of the study is to test whether or not the offer of a choice of health-related lifestyle interventions is more acceptable, and therefore able to engage more problem drinkers in treatment, than an alcohol-focused intervention.Methods/design: This is a pragmatic, randomized, controlled, open pilot study in a UK general hospital setting with concurrent economic evaluation and a qualitative component. Potential participants are those admitted to hospital with a diagnosis likely to be responsive to addiction interventions who score equal to or more than 16 on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). The main purpose of this pilot study is to evaluate the acceptability of two sorts of interventions (healthy living related versus alcohol focused) to the participants and to assess the components and processes of the design. Qualitative research will be undertaken to explore acceptability and the impact of the approach, assessment, recruitment and intervention on trial participants and non-participants. The effectiveness of the two treatments will be compared at 6 months using AUDIT scores as the primary outcome measure. There will be additional economic, qualitative and secondary outcome measurements.Discussion: Development of the study was a collaboration between academics, commissioners and clinicians in general hospital and addiction services, made possible by the Collaboration in Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) program of research. CLAHRC was a necessary vehicle for overcoming the barriers to answering an important NHS question--how better to engage problem drinkers in a hospital setting.Trial Registration: ISRCTN47728072. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The prevalence of tobacco use among people living with HIV (PLWH) is up to four times higher than in the general population. Unfortunately, tobacco use increases the risk of progression to AIDS and death. Individual- and group-level interventions, and system-change interventions that are effective in helping PLWH stop using tobacco can markedly improve the health and quality of life of this population. However, clear evidence to guide policy and practice is lacking, which hinders the integration of tobacco use cessation interventions into routine HIV care. This is an update of a review that was published in 2016. We include 11 new studies., Objectives: To assess the benefits, harms and tolerability of interventions for tobacco use cessation among people living with HIV. To compare the benefits, harms and tolerability of interventions for tobacco use cessation that are tailored to the needs of people living with HIV with that of non-tailored cessation interventions., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO in December 2022., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individual-/group-level behavioural or pharmacological interventions, or both, for tobacco use cessation, delivered directly to PLWH aged 18 years and over, who use tobacco. We also included RCTs, quasi-RCTs, other non-randomised controlled studies (e.g. controlled before and after studies), and interrupted time series studies of system-change interventions for tobacco use cessation among PLWH. For system-change interventions, participants could be PLWH receiving care, or staff working in healthcare settings and providing care to PLWH; but studies where intervention delivery was by research personnel were excluded. For both individual-/group-level interventions, and system-change interventions, any comparator was eligible., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed standard Cochrane methods, and used GRADE to assess certainty of the evidence. The primary measure of benefit was tobacco use cessation at a minimum of six months. Primary measures for harm were adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We also measured quit attempts or quit episodes, the receipt of a tobacco use cessation intervention, quality of life, HIV viral load, CD4 count, and the incidence of opportunistic infections., Main Results: We identified 17 studies (16 RCTs and one non-randomised study) with a total of 9959 participants; 11 studies are new to this update. Nine studies contributed to meta-analyses (2741 participants). Fifteen studies evaluated individual-/group-level interventions, and two evaluated system-change interventions. Twelve studies were from the USA, two from Switzerland, and there were single studies for France, Russia and South Africa. All studies focused on cigarette smoking cessation. All studies received funding from independent national- or institutional-level funding. Three studies received study medication free of charge from a pharmaceutical company. Of the 16 RCTs, three were at low risk of bias overall, five were at high risk, and eight were at unclear risk. Behavioural support or system-change interventions versus no or less intensive behavioural support Low-certainty evidence (7 studies, 2314 participants) did not demonstrate a clear benefit for tobacco use cessation rates in PLWH randomised to receive behavioural support compared with brief advice or no intervention: risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.42, with no evidence of heterogeneity. Abstinence at six months or more was 10% (n = 108/1121) in the control group and 11% (n = 127/1193) in the intervention group. There was no evidence of an effect on tobacco use cessation on system-change interventions: calling the quitline and transferring the call to the patient whilst they are still in hospital ('warm handoff') versus fax referral (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.76 to 13.99; 1 study, 25 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the studies in this comparison assessed SAE. Pharmacological interventions versus placebo, no intervention, or another pharmacotherapy Moderate-certainty evidence (2 studies, 427 participants) suggested that varenicline may help more PLWH to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.62) with no evidence of heterogeneity. Abstinence at six months or more was 7% (n = 14/215) in the placebo control group and 13% (n = 27/212) in the varenicline group. There was no evidence of intervention effects from individual studies on behavioural support plus nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) versus brief advice (RR 8.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 126.67; 15 participants; very low-certainty evidence), behavioural support plus NRT versus behavioural support alone (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.36; 560 participants; low-certainty evidence), varenicline versus NRT (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.83; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and cytisine versus NRT (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.11; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence (2 studies, 427 participants) did not detect a difference between varenicline and placebo in the proportion of participants experiencing SAEs (8% (n = 17/212) versus 7% (n = 15/215), respectively; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.22) with no evidence of heterogeneity. Low-certainty evidence from one study indicated similar SAE rates between behavioural support plus NRT and behavioural support only (1.8% (n = 5/279) versus 1.4% (n = 4/281), respectively; RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.64). No studies assessed SAEs for the following: behavioural support plus NRT versus brief advice; varenicline versus NRT and cytisine versus NRT., Authors' Conclusions: There is no clear evidence to support or refute the use of behavioural support over brief advice, one type of behavioural support over another, behavioural support plus NRT over behavioural support alone or brief advice, varenicline over NRT, or cytisine over NRT for tobacco use cessation for six months or more among PLWH. Nor is there clear evidence to support or refute the use of system-change interventions such as warm handoff over fax referral, to increase tobacco use cessation or receipt of cessation interventions among PLWH who use tobacco. However, the results must be considered in the context of the small number of studies included. Varenicline likely helps PLWH to quit smoking for six months or more compared to control. We did not find evidence of difference in SAE rates between varenicline and placebo, although the certainty of the evidence is low., (Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of a complex behavioural intervention, ProLife, on tuberculosis (TB) treatment success, medication adherence, alcohol use and tobacco smoking., Design: Multicentre, individual, randomised controlled trial where participants were assigned (1:1) to the ProLife intervention or usual care., Setting: 27 primary care clinics in South Africa., Participants: 574 adults starting treatment for drug-sensitive pulmonary TB who smoked tobacco or reported harmful/hazardous alcohol use., Interventions: The intervention, delivered by lay health workers (LHWs), consisted of three brief motivational interviewing (MI) sessions, augmented with short message service (SMS) messages, targeting medication adherence, alcohol use and tobacco smoking., Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was successful versus unsuccessful TB treatment at 6-9 months, from TB records. Secondary outcomes were biochemically confirmed sustained smoking cessation, reduction in the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) score, improved TB and antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence and ART initiation, each measured at 3 and 6 months by questionnaires; and cure rates in patients who had bacteriology-confirmed TB at baseline, from TB records., Results: Between 15 November 2018 and 31 August 2019, 574 participants were randomised to receive either the intervention (n=283) or usual care (n=291). TB treatment success rates did not differ significantly between intervention (67.8%) and control (70.1%; OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.64% to 1.27%). There was no evidence of an effect at 3 and 6 months, respectively, on continuous smoking abstinence (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.14; OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.63), TB medication adherence (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.87; OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.07), taking ART (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.65; OR 2.05, 95% CI 0.80 to 5.27) or AUDIT scores (mean score difference 0.55, 95% CI -1.01 to 2.11; -0.04, 95% CI -2.0 to 1.91) and adjusting for baseline values. Cure rates were not significantly higher (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.63)., Conclusions: Simultaneous targeting of multiple health risk behaviours with MI and SMS using LHWs may not be an effective approach to improve TB outcomes., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN62728852., Competing Interests: Competing interests: OAA-Y, the principal investigator, received a research grant (MRC-RFA-02: TB -05-2015) which was allocated to Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University to pay for the expenses related to the research project, and received support for attending meetings and for travel by Tax Justice Network Africa. He is the vice chair of the Standing Committee on Health, Academy of Science, SA (not remunerated). As coprincipal investigator, KS received part of the MRC-Newton research grant (MRC-RFA-02: TB -05-2015), which was allocated to the University of York to support the research by the authors affiliated to the University of York (KS, NDM, MK, SP and JL). GL received a small monthly remuneration per month from 1 October 2018 to 30 June 2020 as academic research coordinator. AVZ was employed as a research data manager on a part-time basis from 1 September 2017 to 30 June 2020., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Second-hand smoke is associated with more than 1.2 million deaths per year among non-smokers. Smoking in public places is prohibited in The Gambia but there is no information on the level of exposure to second-hand smoke among adolescents and adults 15-64 years. The aim of this study was to assess the level and predictors of exposure to second-hand smoke in public places and compliance with smoke-free regulations in The Gambia., Methods: A population-based survey was conducted in an established Health and Demographic Surveillance System (HDSS). A total of 4547 participants (15-64 years) from households within the Farafenni HDSS were interviewed at their homes but only 3343 were included in our analysis. Factors associated with exposure to second-hand smoke in public places were assessed by three different multivariable regression models., Results: Exposure to tobacco smoke in public places was high (66.1%), and higher in men (79.9%) than women (58.7%). Besides being male, less education, lower household income, urban residence and not aware of smoke-free regulations were strongly associated with exposure to second-hand smoke., Conclusion: Despite existing smoke-free regulations, reported exposure to second-hand smoke remains high in public places in The Gambia. The Ministry of Health should continue to strengthen their advocacy and sensitization programs to ensure smoke-free regulations are fully implemented. Some population subgroups are at a higher risk of exposure and could be targeted by interventions; and settings where these subgroups are exposed should be targeted by enforcement efforts.

Introduction: The prevalence of smoking among people living with HIV (PLWH) in Uganda is high., Aims and Methods: We assessed the smoking patterns, behaviors, and associated factors among PLWH in Uganda through a cross-sectional survey. Descriptive statistics were used to describe smoking patterns and behaviors. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with current smoking status., Results: We recruited 777 participants between October and November 2019: 387 (49.8%) current smokers and 390 (50.2%) nonsmokers. 60.9% were males, and the mean age was 40.5 (SD 10.7) years. In multivariate logistic regression, the following increased the odds of being a current smoker: being male (odds ratio [OR] 6.60 [95% confidence interval, CI = 4.34-10.04]), having at least two smokers among five closest friends (OR 3.97 [95% CI = 2.08-7.59]), living in smoking-permitted households (OR 5.83 [95% CI = 3.32-10.23]), alcohol use (OR 3.96 [95% CI = 2.34-6.71]), a higher perceived stress score (OR 2.23 [95% CI = 1.50-3.34]), and higher health-related quality of life (OR 5.25 [95% CI = 1.18-23.35]). Among smokers, the mean Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence score was 3.0 (SD 1.9), and 52.5% were making plans to quit. Self-efficacy to resist smoking and knowledge of the impact of smoking on PLWH's health were low., Conclusions: Being male, having at least two smokers among five closest friends, living in smoking-permitted households, alcohol use, higher perceived stress scores, and higher health-related quality of life were associated with being a current smoker. Smokers had low to moderate nicotine dependence, high willingness to quit, and low self-efficacy., Implications: Future behavioral smoking cessation interventions for PLWH should address co-consumption with alcohol and comorbid mental health conditions that are common among PLWH such as stress. In addition, they should take into account the lack of knowledge among this population of the impact of smoking on their health, and low self-efficacy. Given the relatively low levels of nicotine dependency and high levels of willingness to quit in our sample, smoking cessation interventions, if offered, are likely to support this population in achieving long-term smoking abstinence., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco.)