Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33270009›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2020

Nicotine replacement treatment, e-cigarettes and an online behavioural intervention to reduce relapse in recent ex-smokers: a multinational four-arm RCT.

Hayden J McRobbie, Anna Phillips-Waller, Catherine El Zerbi, Ann McNeill, Peter Hajek, Francesca Pesola, James Balmford, Stuart G Ferguson, Lin Li, Sarah Lewis and 4 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 43% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Nudging Interventions on Alcohol and Tobacco Consumption in Adults: A Scoping Review of the Literature.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 9 institutions in 5 countries.

Hayden J McRobbieHealth and Lifestyle Research Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7777-1845
Anna Phillips-WallerHealth and Lifestyle Research Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6856-6439
Catherine El ZerbiCancer Prevention Group, School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4041-2379
Ann McNeillCancer Prevention Group, School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6223-4000
Peter HajekHealth and Lifestyle Research Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9160-4296
Francesca PesolaCancer Prevention Group, School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2054-7930
James BalmfordInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1423-4361
Stuart G FergusonCollege of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7378-3497
Lin LiMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4764-1679
Sarah LewisClinical Sciences Building, University of Nottingham, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5308-6619
Ryan J CourtneyNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Randwick, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1339-3221
Coral GartnerSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6651-8035
Linda BauldUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7411-4260
Ron BorlandMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0059-178X
King's College London · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBThe University of Melbourne · AUThe University of Queensland · AUUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Freiburg · DEUniversity of Nottingham · GBUniversity of Tasmania · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16893Cancer Research UK 25356Cancer Research UK 27047Department of Health 13/155/05
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRelapse remains an unresolved issue in smoking cessation. Extended stop smoking medication use can help, but uptake is low and several behavioural relapse prevention interventions have been found to be ineffective. However, opportunistic 'emergency' use of fast-acting nicotine replacement treatment or electronic cigarettes may be more attractive and effective, and an online behavioural Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol has shown promise. The present trial aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these two interventions.

designA randomised controlled trial.

settingEnglish stop smoking services and Australian quitlines, Australian social media and St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Fitzroy, VIC.

participantsEx-smokers abstinent for at least 4 weeks, with some participants in Australia also recruited from 1 week post quit date. The planned sample size was 1400, but the trial was curtailed when 235 participants were recruited.

interventionsParticipants were randomised in permuted blocks of random sizes to (1) oral nicotine replacement treatment/electronic cigarettes to use if at risk of relapse, plus static text messages ( OUTCOME MEASURES: Owing to delays in study set-up and recruitment issues, the study was curtailed and the primary outcome was revised. The original objective was to determine whether or not the two interventions, together or separately, reduced relapse rates at 12 months compared with usual care. The revised primary objective was to determine whether or not number of interventions received (i.e. none, one or two) affects relapse rate at 6 months (not biochemically validated because of study curtailment). Relapse was defined as smoking on at least 7 consecutive days, or any smoking in the last month at final follow-up for both the original and curtailed outcomes. Participants with missing outcome data were included as smokers. Secondary outcomes included sustained abstinence (i.e. no more than five cigarettes smoked over the 6 months), nicotine product preferences (e.g. electronic cigarettes or nicotine replacement treatment) and Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol coping strategies used. Two substudies assessed reactions to interventions quantitatively and qualitatively. The trial statistician remained blinded until analysis was complete.

resultsThe 6-month relapse rates were 60.0%, 43.5% and 49.2% in the usual-care arm, one-intervention arm and the two-intervention arm, respectively ( LIMITATIONS: The inability to recruit sufficient participants resulted in a lack of power to detect clinically relevant differences. Self-reported abstinence was not biochemically validated in the curtailed trial, and the ecological momentary assessment substudy was perceived by some as an intervention.

conclusionsRecruiting recent ex-smokers into an interventional study proved problematic. Both interventions were well received and safe. Combining the interventions did not surpass the effects of each intervention alone. There was a trend in favour of single interventions reducing relapse, but it did not reach significance and there are reasons to interpret the trend with caution. FUTURE WORK: Further studies of both interventions are warranted, using simpler study designs.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN11111428.

fundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in

Indexed as

Behavior TherapyElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsInternet-Based InterventionSecondary PreventionSmoking CessationAdultAustraliaCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandEx-SmokersFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTobacco Use Cessation DevicesTreatment OutcomeELECTRONIC CIGARETTENICOTINE PRODUCTSONLINE INTERVENTIONRELAPSE PREVENTIONSMOKING

Identifiers

PMID33270009
PMCPMC7750867
OpenAlexW3109121820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.