No abstract

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Main results We identified 51 trials with 22,509 participants. Most recruited adults from the community using media or local advertising. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked an average of 23 cigarettes a day. We judged 18 of the studies to be at high risk of bias, but restricting the analysis only to the five studies at low or to the 28 studies at unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results. We identified very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision, comparing the effect of reduction-toquit interventions with no treatment on cessation rates (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.38; I 2 = 45%; 6 studies, 1599 participants). However, when comparing reduction-to-quit interventions with abrupt quitting (standard care) we found evidence that neither approach resulted in superior quit rates (RR 1. 01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.17; I 2 = 29%; 22 studies, 9219 participants). We judged this estimate to be of moderate certainty, due to imprecision. Subgroup analysis provided some evidence (P = 0.01, I 2 = 77%) that reduction-to-quit interventions may result in more favourable quit rates than abrupt quitting if varenicline is used as a reduction aid. Our analysis comparing reduction using pharmacotherapy with reduction alone found low-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency and imprecision, that reduction aided by pharmacotherapy resulted in higher quit rates (RR 1. 68, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.58; I 2 = 78%; 11 studies, 8636 participants). However, a significant subgroup analysis (P < 0.001, I 2 = 80% for subgroup differences) suggests that this may only be true when fast-acting NRT or varenicline are used (both moderate-certainty evidence) and not when nicotine patch, combination NRT or bupropion are used as an aid (all low-or very low-quality evidence). More evidence is likely to change the interpretation of the latter effects. Although there was some evidence from within-study comparisons that behavioural support for reduction to quit resulted in higher quit rates than self-help resources alone, the relative efficacy of various other characteristics of reduction-to-quit interventions investigated through within-and between-study comparisons did not provide any evidence that they enhanced the success of reduction-to-quit interventions. Pre-quit AEs, SAEs and nicotine withdrawal symptoms were measured variably and infrequently across studies. There was some evidence that AEs occurred more frequently in studies that compared reduction using pharmacotherapy versus no pharmacotherapy; however, the AEs reported were mild and usual symptoms associated with NRT use. There was no clear evidence that the number of people reporting SAEs, or changes in withdrawal symptoms, differed between trial arms. Authors' conclusions There is moderate-certainty evidence that neither reduction-to-quit nor abrupt quitting interventions result in superior long-term quit rates when compared with one another. Evidence comparing the efficacy of reduction-to-quit interve...

Aims To test whether, in comparison to usual care, brief motivational or reduction interventions increase quit attempts (QA) or abstinence among smokers who are not ready to quit. Design A parallel-group randomized controlled trial of brief motivational (n=185), reduction (n=186), or usual care (n=189) telephone interventions delivered over the course of 4 weeks. Outcomes were assessed at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. No medication was provided. Setting United States. Participants 560 adult smokers of ≥ 10 cigarettes per day who were not ready to quit in the next 30 days. Measurements The primary outcomes were whether participants made a QA that lasted ≥ 24 hours and whether they made a QA of any length between baseline and 6-months. Secondary outcomes included 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 6- and 12-months. The 12-month follow-up was added after the study began. Findings A-priori defined comparisons were between motivational versus usual care and reduction versus usual care conditions. The probability of making a QA that lasted ≥ 24 hours was not significantly different between the motivational (38%) or the reduction (31%) conditions and the usual care (34%) condition (motivational versus usual care odds ratio (OR)=1.19 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.78 to 1.82; reduction versus usual care OR=0.89 95% CI=0.57 to 1.36). Bayes factors ranged from 0.13 to 0.18. Findings regarding a QA of any length were similar. At 6 months, the motivational condition had marginally more abstinence than usual care (11% versus 5% OR=2.17 95% CI=0.99 to 4.77) but the reduction condition was not significantly different from usual care (8% versus 5% OR=1.57 95% CI=0.69 to 3.59). At 12 months, the motivational condition had significantly more abstinence than usual care (10% versus 4% OR=2.80 95% CI=1.14 to 6.88) and the reduction condition had marginally more abstinence than usual care (9% versus 4% OR=2.45 95% CI=0.98 to 6.09). Conclusions Among adult smokers who are not ready to quit, both logistic regression and Bayesian analysis indicate that neither motivational nor reduction-based telephone interventions increased the odds of making a quit attempt in comparison to usual care at 6 months. The motivational intervention appeared to increase abstinence at 6 months and did increase abstinence at 12 months. The reduction intervention did not increase abstinence at 6 months but appeared to increase abstinence at 12 months.

No abstract

IMPORTANCE Medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is efficacious, but comorbid stimulant use and other behavioral health problems often undermine efficacy.OBJECTIVE To examine the association of contingency management, a behavioral intervention wherein patients receive material incentives contingent on objectively verified behavior change, with end-of-treatment outcomes for these comorbid behavioral problems.DATA SOURCES A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and reference sections of articles from inception through May 5, 2020. The following search terms were used: vouchers OR contingency management OR financial incentives.STUDY SELECTION Prospective experimental studies of monetary-based contingency management among participants receiving MOUD. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Following Preferred Reporting Items for SystematicReviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline, 3 independent investigators extracted data from included studies for a random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESPrimary outcome was the association of contingency management at end-of-treatment assessments with 6 clinical problems: stimulant use, polysubstance use, illicit opioid use, cigarette smoking, therapy attendance, and medication adherence. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to compute weighted mean effect size estimates (Cohen d) and corresponding 95% CIs separately for each clinical problem and collapsing across the 3 categories assessing abstinence and the 2 assessing treatment adherence outcomes. RESULTSThe search identified 1443 reports of which 74 reports involving 10 444 unique adult participants met inclusion criteria for narrative review and 60 for inclusion in meta-analyses. Contingency management was associated with end-of-treatment outcomes for all 6 problems examined separately, with mean effect sizes for 4 of 6 in the medium-large range (stimulants, Cohen d = 0.70 [95% CI, 0.49-0.92]; cigarette use, Cohen d = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.43-1.14]; illicit opioid use, Cohen d = 0.58 [95% CI, 0.30-0.86]; medication adherence, Cohen d = 0.75 [95% CI, 0.30-1.21]), and 2 in the small-medium range (polysubstance use, Cohen d = 0.46 [95% CI, 0.30-0.62]; therapy attendance, d = 0.43 [95% CI, 0.22-0.65]). Collapsing across abstinence and adherence categories, contingency management was associated with medium effect sizes for abstinence (Cohen d = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.47-0.69) and treatment adherence (Cohen d = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.84) compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These results provide evidence supporting the use of contingency management in addressing key clinical problems among patients receiving MOUD, including the ongoing epidemic of comorbid psychomotor stimulant misuse. Policies facilitating integration of contingency management into community MOUD services are sorely needed.