“…Five studies employed a randomized controlled design, of which one was a double-blind trial (Story & Stark, 1991), three were single-blind (Haug, Svikis, & Diclemente, 2004;Reid et al, 2008;Stein et al, 2006), and one study involved a trial with four experimental conditions (Shoptaw et al, 2002). The remaining three studies employed pretestposttest nonequivalent group designs.…”
“…Five studies employed a randomized controlled design, of which one was a double-blind trial (Story & Stark, 1991), three were single-blind (Haug, Svikis, & Diclemente, 2004;Reid et al, 2008;Stein et al, 2006), and one study involved a trial with four experimental conditions (Shoptaw et al, 2002). The remaining three studies employed pretestposttest nonequivalent group designs.…”
“…Yet, all of the smoking cessation pharmacotherapies that have been tested in opioiddependent persons have far lower quit rates (Mooney et al, 2008;Okoli et al, 2010;Reid et al, 2008;Shoptaw et al, 2002;Stein et al, 2006) than those reported in trials of nondrug users (Hurt et al, 1994;Mooney et al, 2008;Okoli et al, 2010;Reid et al, 2008;Shoptaw et al, 2002;Stead et al, 2008;Stein et al, 2006). Over the last two decades, there have been four fully powered randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving smoking cessation interventions specifically with MMT smokers (Haug, Advance Access publication June 20, 2014 nicotine & tobacco research, volume 16, number 11 (november 2014) 1463-1469 early quit days among methadone-maintained smokers Svikis, & Diclemente, 2004;Shoptaw et al, 2002;Stein et al, 2006Stein et al, , 2013Story & Stark, 1991).…”
introduction: Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) patients have an exceedingly high prevalence of tobacco use, and interventions that have been specifically developed for this vulnerable subpopulation have struggled to attain even modest rates of cessation. A significant barrier has been an inability to initiate a quit attempt early in the treatment process and adherence to treatment.
“…In that way, it replicates earlier findings. [21][22][23]45,46 These investigations offered interventions that are efficacious in the general population and found some evidence of efficacy at the end of treatment between experimental and control groups but failed to find long term effects.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A fourth study recruited 225 cigarette smokers from methadone maintenance and other drug and alcohol treatment clinics. 22 Participants were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of CBT+NRT or to treatment as usual. Smoking abstinence rates were 10-11% during the five-week treatment period in the CBT+NRT condition, and "negligible" in the control condition.…”
Introduction: Patients receiving medication assisted therapy (MAT) for opioid use disorder have high cigarette smoking rates. Cigarette smoking interventions have had limited success. We evaluated an intervention to increase cigarette abstinence rates in patients receiving buprenorphineassisted therapy. Methods: Cigarette smokers (N = 175; 78% male; 69% Caucasian; 20% Hispanic), recruited from a buprenorphine clinic were randomly assigned to either an extended innovative system intervention (E-ISI) or to Standard Treatment Control (STC). The E-ISI combined motivational intervention with extended treatment (long-term nicotine replacement therapy , varenicline, and extended cognitive behavioral therapy). STC received written information about quit-lines, medication, and resources. Assessments were held at baseline and 3, 6, 12, and 18 months. Seven-day biochemically verified point-prevalence cigarette abstinence was the primary outcome measure. Results: Fifty-four percent of E-ISI participants entered the extended treatment intervention; E-ISI and STC differed at 3 months on abstinence status but not at months 6, 12, and 18. E-ISI participants were more likely to attempt to quit, to have a goal of complete abstinence, and to be in a more advanced stage of change than STC participants. A higher number of cigarettes smoked and the use of cannabis in the previous 30 days predicted continued smoking Conclusions: The E-ISI was successful in increasing motivation to quit smoking but did not result in long-term abstinence. The failure of treatments that have been efficacious in the general population to produce abstinence in patients receiving MAT of opioid use disorder suggests that harm reduction and other innovative interventions should be explored. Implications: This study demonstrates that an intervention combining motivational interviewing with an extended treatment protocol can increase cigarette quit attempts, enhance cigarette abstinence goals, and further movement through stages of change about quitting smoking in patients receiving MAT for opioid use disorder who smoke cigarettes. The intervention did not increase abstinence rates over those observed in a standard treatment control, however. The latter finding supports those of earlier investigators who also failed to find efficacy for smoking cessation in this population and who also used interventions effective in the general population. This pattern of findings suggests that patients with opioid use disorder can be motivated to change smoking behavior, but alternative and innovative approaches to cigarette smoking treatment should be studied.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.