Development and Demonstration of Tobacco Treatment Measures for Cancer Registries: Novel Metrics for Quality Improvement.

BACKGROUND: Individuals undergoing cancer treatment have better outcomes when they discontinue tobacco use. Few cancer centers systematically provide evidence-based cessation services. As part of a national quality improvement initiative [Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3i)], we collaborated with our cancer registry to develop and implement two tobacco treatment metrics for tracking the provision of behavioral support and pharmacotherapy. METHODS: Post-development, the tobacco treatment metrics were integrated into the registry for all future patients. We used means and frequencies to summarize tobacco treatment for cases treated between 2017 and 2019, coinciding with the timeframe of C3i participation. RESULTS: Of 17,735 cancer cases reviewed, both measures were captured on 17,654 (99.5%) of patients, with 3,091 (17.4%) identified as users of tobacco. Across the 3 years, 557 (18%) of individuals who used tobacco received either tobacco cessation pharmacotherapy or behavioral support; with 478 (15.5%) receiving behavioral counseling, 352 (11.4%) receiving pharmacotherapy, and 273 (8.8%) receiving both-considered gold standard care. Tobacco treatment varied substantially across cancer types. The odds of receiving gold standard care were 2.37 times greater in 2019 compared with 2017. (OR, 2.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-3.46; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The new metrics demonstrated high completion rates and their potential to track quality improvement efforts over time. They identified suboptimal treatment reach, but a potential increase in treatment over time and greater treatment among tobacco-related versus nontobacco-related cancers. IMPACT: Continued tobacco use worsens cancer care outcomes. Integrating measures into cancer registries is a viable option for tracking tobacco treatment and cessation in the context of cancer care.

Impact of Adding Telephone-Based Care Coordination to Standard Telephone-Based Smoking Cessation Counseling Post-hospital Discharge: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cessation counseling and pharmacotherapy are recommended for hospitalized smokers, but better coordination between cessation counselors and providers might improve utilization of pharmacotherapy and enhance smoking cessation. OBJECTIVE: To compare smoking cessation counseling combined with care coordination post-hospitalization to counseling alone on uptake of pharmacotherapy and smoking cessation. DESIGN: Unblinded, randomized clinical trial PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized smokers referred from primarily rural hospitals INTERVENTIONS: Counseling only (C) consisted of telephone counseling provided during the hospitalization and post-discharge. Counseling with care coordination (CCC) provided similar counseling supplemented by feedback to the smoker's health care team and help for the smoker in obtaining pharmacotherapy. At 6 months post-hospitalization, persistent smokers were re-engaged with either CCC or C. MAIN MEASURES: Utilization of pharmacotherapy and smoking cessation at 3, 6, and 12 months post-discharge. KEY RESULTS: Among 606 smokers randomized, 429 (70.8%) completed the 12-month assessment and 580 (95.7%) were included in the primary analysis. Use of any cessation pharmacotherapy between 0 and 6 months (55.2%) and between 6 and 12 months (47.1%) post-discharge was similar across treatment arms though use of prescription-only pharmacotherapy between months 6-12 was significantly higher in the CCC group (30.1%) compared with the C group (18.6%) (RR, 1.61 (95% CI, 1.08, 2.41)). Self-reported abstinence rates of 26.2%, 20.3%, and 23.4% at months 3, 6, and 12, respectively, were comparable across the two treatment arms. Of those smoking at month 6, 12.5% reported abstinence at month 12. Validated smoking cessation at 12 months was 19.3% versus 16.9% in the CCC and C groups, respectively (RR, 1.13 (95% CI, 0.80, 1.61)). CONCLUSION: Supplemental care coordination, provided by counselors outside of the health care team, failed to improve smoking cessation beyond that achieved by cessation counseling alone. Re-engagement of smokers 6 months post-discharge can lead to new quitters, at which time care coordination might facilitate use of prescription medications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01063972.

Effect of Long-term Nicotine Replacement Therapy vs Standard Smoking Cessation for Smokers With Chronic Lung Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have particular difficulty quitting. Long-term nicotine replacement therapy (LT-NRT) might offer a strategy for reducing harm from cigarettes and provide a pathway for later cessation. Objective: To compare the effect of LT-NRT vs standard smoking cessation (SSC) on exposure to cigarette smoke, harm related to smoking, and cessation among smokers with COPD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This unblinded, randomized clinical trial recruited smokers who self-reported a diagnosis of COPD at any level of readiness to quit from May 23, 2014, through November 30, 2015. The 12-month follow-up was completed December 6, 2016. Patients were recruited at a clinical research unit of an academic medical center. Analysis was based on intention to treat and performed from March 8 through November 30, 2017. Interventions: Standard smoking cessation treatment included 10 weeks of NRT and 4 follow-up counseling sessions for those willing to make a quit attempt. Long-term NRT included 12 months of NRT and 6 follow-up counseling sessions regardless of initial willingness to quit. Overall, 198 patients were randomized to SSC, and 197 were included in the primary analysis; 200 patients were randomized to LT-NRT, and 197 were included in the primary analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 7-day abstinence verified by carbon monoxide (CO) levels at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included cigarettes smoked per day (CPD), exposure to CO, urinary excretion of 4-methylnitrosamino-1-3-pyridyl-1-butanol (NNAL) (a smoking-related carcinogen), and adverse events. Results: Among 398 patients who were randomized (59.8% female; mean [SD] age, 56.0 [9.3] years), the mean (SD) CPD was 23.1 (12.3). Twelve-month follow-up was completed by 373 participants (93.7%), and 394 (99.0%) were included in the primary analysis. At 12 months, CO-verified abstinence occurred in 23 of 197 participants (11.7%) in the SSC arm and 24 of 197 (12.2%) in the LT-NRT arm (risk difference, 0.5%; 95% CI, -5.9% to 6.9%). Continuing smokers in the SSC and LT-NRT arms had similar, significantly reduced harms caused by smoking, including cigarette consumption by 12.4 and 14.5 CPD, respectively, exhaled CO level by 5.5 and 7.8 ppm, respectively, and mean urinary NNAL excretion by 21.7% and 23.0%, respectively. In multivariate analyses, continuing smokers with greater adherence to NRT experienced less reduction in NNAL exposure. The frequency of major adverse cardiac events was similar in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Similar rates of cessation and similar reductions in exposure to tobacco smoke resulted with LT-NRT and SSC. Among continuing smokers, ongoing use of NRT was not associated with reductions in smoke exposure. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02148445.

Understanding smoking cessation in rural communities.

CONTEXT: Rural communities are adversely impacted by increased rates of tobacco use. Rural residents may be exposed to unique communal norms and other factors that influence smoking cessation. PURPOSE: This study explored facilitating factors and barriers to cessation and the role of rural health care systems in the smoking-cessation process. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with smokers (N = 63) in 7 Midwestern rural communities. Qualitative analysis and thematic coding of transcripts was conducted. FINDINGS: Three levels of pertinent themes--intrinsic, health-system resource, and community/social factors--were identified. Intrinsic factors facilitating cessation included willingness to try various cessation methods, beliefs about consequences of continuing smoking (eg, smoking-related illnesses), and benefits of quitting (eg, saving money). Intrinsic barriers included skepticism about resources, low self-efficacy and motivation for smoking cessation, concern about negative consequences of quitting (eg, weight gain), and perceived benefits of continued smoking (eg, enjoyment). Key health-system resource facilitators were pharmacotherapy use and physician visits. Resource barriers included infrequent physician visits, lack of medical/financial resources, limited local smoking-cessation programs, and lack of knowledge of existing resources. In terms of community/social factors, participants acknowledged the negative social impact/image of smoking, but also cited a lack of alternative activities, few public restrictions, stressors, and exposure to other smokers as barriers to cessation. CONCLUSIONS: Smokers in rural communities face significant challenges that must be addressed. A multilevel model centered on improving access to health care system resources while addressing intrinsic and community/social factors might enhance smoking-cessation interventions and programs in rural communities.