0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Article |

Psychological Intervention and Antidepressant Treatment in Smoking Cessation FREE

Sharon M. Hall, PhD; Gary L. Humfleet, PhD; Victor I. Reus, MD; Ricardo F. Muñoz, PhD; Diane T. Hartz, PhD; Roland Maude-Griffin, BA
[+] Author Affiliations

From the Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco(Drs Hall, Humfleet, Reus, Muñoz, and Hartz); and Edina, Minn (Mr Maude-Griffin).


Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2002;59(10):930-936. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.59.10.930.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  Sustained-release bupropion hydrochloride and nortriptyline hydrochloride have been shown to be efficacious in the treatment of cigarette smoking. It is not known whether psychological intervention increases the efficacy of these antidepressants. This study compared both drugs with placebo. It also examined the efficacy of these 2 drugs and placebo with and without psychological intervention.

Methods  This was a 2 (medical management vs psychological intervention) × 3 (bupropion vs nortriptyline vs placebo) randomized trial. Participants were 220 cigarette smokers. Outcome measures were biologically verified abstinence from cigarettes at weeks 12, 24, 36, and 52.

Results  Psychological intervention produced higher 7-day point-prevalence rates of biochemically verified abstinence than did medical management alone. With the use of point-prevalence abstinence, both nortriptyline and bupropion were more efficacious than placebo. On rates of 1-year continuous abstinence, the 2 drugs did not differ from each other or from placebo. Psychological intervention did not differ from medical management alone on rates of 1-year continuous abstinence.

Conclusions  Both nortriptyline and bupropion are efficacious in producing abstinence in cigarette smokers. Similarly, psychological intervention produces better abstinence rates than simple medical management. Both drugs, and psychological intervention, have limited efficacy in producing sustained abstinence. The data also suggest that combined psychological intervention and antidepressant drug treatment may not be more effective than antidepressant drug treatment alone.

Figures in this Article

THE ANTIDEPRESSANTS bupropion hydrochoride and nortriptyline hydrochloride are useful adjuncts in the treatment of tobacco dependence. A multicenter bupropion trial reported 1-year continuous abstinence rates of 24% for 300 mg/d, 18% for 150 mg/d, 14% for 100 mg/d, and 10% for placebo. The difference from placebo was significant in the 150- and 300-mg/d groups.1 A trial comparing bupropion and nicotine patch reported 1-year continuous abstinence rates of 36% for bupropion and nicotine patch, 33% for bupropion alone, 16% for nicotine patch alone, and 15% for placebo. Bupropion alone or with nicotine patch resulted in significantly higher abstinence rates than did patch alone or placebo.2 Our group reported 1-year continuous abstinence rates of 24% for nortriptyline and 12% for placebo.3 A second study reported that 14% of patients receiving nortriptyline and 3% of patients receiving placebo were abstinent 6 months after treatment.4

Nicotine replacement treatment (NRT) is usually more effective when provided with psychosocial treatment.5,6 The impact of psychosocial interventions in antidepressant treatment for cigarette smoking is unknown. Antidepressants and NRT differ in ease of use, mode of administration, adverse effects, and effects on mood and withdrawal symptoms, all of which might contribute to differences in the role of psychosocial interventions.

Antidepressant studies have involved either psychotherapy or counseling or extensive contact with project staff, including physician reinforcement for quitting smoking,1,2 multiple episodes of brief counseling by "research staff,"1,2 group meetings,3,4 and psychotherapy.3 According to the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research guidelines7,8 available at the time this study was conducted, a more typical practice-based medical management (MM) protocol would entail physician advice to quit smoking and, at most, 1 to 3 brief follow-up visits, and perhaps a referral to a smoking cessation group. Antidepressant efficacy in such a context may differ from that obtained from more extensive psychotherapy. One important question is the effect of psychological intervention (PI) when added to antidepressant therapy.

A second question is the relative efficacy of the 2 drugs. On the basis of the extant literature, we deemed differences in efficacy between bupropion and nortriptyline unlikely, and we did not predict differences between the 2. We did expect, however, that both would produce higher abstinence rates than placebo.

Thus, the following hypotheses were proposed: (1) Abstinence rates will be higher in participants receiving active antidepressant treatment, whether bupropion or nortriptyline, during a 52-week period, than for those receiving placebo. (2) Independent of drug, abstinence rates will be higher for participants receiving PI than for those receiving MM alone. (3) Active drug conditions combined with PI will be more efficacious than the other experimental conditions in producing abstinence.

SUBJECTS

Smokers of 10 or more cigarettes per day were recruited by advertising, public service announcements, and flyers. After telephone screening, potential participants were invited to an orientation meeting. Interested individuals completed an informed consent and were invited to a baseline assessment including a physical examination, electrocardiogram, and blood draws. The sections of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV9 that diagnose depression, dysthymia, and bipolar disorder were administered by master's-level clinicians. Participants were assessed on demographic variables and mood by paper-and-pencil measures and interviews administered by research staff.

Exclusionary criteria included cardiovascular disease, hyperthyroidism, seizure or bulimia, use of a monoamine oxidase inhibitor within 2 weeks, severe allergies including allergies to either experimental drug, life-threatening disease, bipolar disease, current major depressive disorder (MDD), pregnancy or lactation, use of levodopa, migraines, previous treatment for cigarette smoking with nortriptyline or bupropion, treatment for alcohol or other drug use within 6 months, psychiatric hospitalization within 1 year, use of any psychiatric medication, suicidal or psychotic symptoms, and current NRT use.

PROCEDURES

Participants were stratified by number of cigarettes smoked, sex, and history of depression vs no history, and randomly assigned to 1 of the 6 experimental cells in a 3 (bupropion vs nortriptyline vs placebo) × 2 (MM alone vs MM + PI).

Assessments were at baseline and at weeks 12 (end of treatment), 24, 36, and 52. Participants were coded as nonsmoking if they reported smoking no cigarettes, not even a puff, during the previous 7 days, had expired carbon monoxide levels of 10 ppm or less, and had urinary cotinine levels of 60 ng/mL or less.10 Adverse effects were assessed by checklist at baseline and weeks 1, 2, 3, and 6. At 52 weeks, participants indicated which drug they believed they had received and its perceived helpfulness.

MEASURES

Negative affect was assessed with the Profile of Mood States (POMS).11 On the basis of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, participants were classified as positive or negative for MDD. We also administered the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence12 and a adverse effects scale we developed that includes the adverse effects reported for both bupropion and nortriptyline.

COUNSELING INTERVENTIONS
Medical Management

Medical management was developed from the 1996 Agency for Health Care Policy and Research guidelines7 and from the MM condition in the Collaborative Depression Trials.13 Medical management included advice to stop smoking, antidepressant medication, adverse effects monitoring, and educational materials. It did not introduce complex or time-consuming interventions that would be impractical in primary care.

Physicians were 5 licensed psychiatric and internal medicine residents. Participants were provided written information about smoking cessation (Freedom From Smoking).14 During week 1, the physician reviewed the treatment rationale and prescription instructions, discussed behavioral factors important to smoking cessation, and established a quit date during week 5. This session lasted 10 to 20 minutes. Five-minute visits were scheduled during weeks 2, 6, and 11, during which participants were queried about cessation progress. The physician responded briefly to questions and provided encouragement. Advice about specific quitting strategies was not offered.

Psychological Intervention

All participants participated in the MM sessions previously described. In addition, they participated in 5 group sessions.

Providers were 3 master's-level counselors, the most common smoking treatment provider in the health care organizations we consulted. The group intervention was an adaptation of an intervention described in detail elsewhere3,1517 and is available from the first author (S.M.H.). The first 90-minute session was during week 4. Sessions 2 and 3 were during week 5; sessions 4 and 5 were during weeks 7 and 11, respectively. Group size ranged from 3 to 11. The intervention provided health-related information for mood management and smoking cessation, and discussion of cessation. A core element was the development of a quit-smoking plan and weekly modification of it. Methods used included monitoring of cigarette use and affective states; paper-and-pencil exercises focusing on health-related information, motivation to quit, and decreasing relapse-related thoughts; informational handouts; and brief didactic presentations.

PHARMACOLOGIC INTERVENTIONS

Medication was placebo controlled and double blind. The sustained-release properties of bupropion rest on the formulation of the tablet's coating; placebo bupropion was not available. We encapsulated both drugs to maintain the patency of the bupropion formulation and to provide a blinded drug. All participants received capsules that were identical in number and appearance.

The University of California, San Francisco Drug Product Services prepared medication capsules. For nortriptyline, lactose placebo and active drug were encapsulated in powdered form. For bupropion, Wellbutrin SR tablets (Glaxo Wellcome Inc, Research Triangle Park, NC) or similar-sized placebo tablets were inserted into lactose-filled capsules. All capsules were secured with a gelatin mixture to prevent opening.

Nortriptyline drug dose was titrated for each participant until a therapeutic serum level (50-150 ng/mL) was obtained. All participants assigned to active nortriptyline hydrochloride received 25 mg/d for 3 days, followed by 50 mg/d for 4 days. At the end of the week, serum levels of nortriptyline were assessed. Dosage was increased to 75 mg/d if a therapeutic serum level had not been reached. At week 4, serum levels were assessed again and, if necessary, drug dosage was increased to 100 mg/d. At week 6, serum levels were assessed to determine final dose. At the end of week 12, drug dose was decreased by 25 mg every 2 days, with the final drug administration being 25 mg over 3 days. Whenever a dose was titrated for a participant receiving active drug, the dose was titrated for a participant receiving placebo. Titration was performed by a physician who had no contact with participants or clinical staff. The mean nortriptyline blood level for participants abstinent at week 6 was 59.9 ng/mL (SD, 25.2 ng/mL). We report only blood levels for abstinent participants, since nicotine is known to result in lowered nortriptyline levels.18 Daily nortriptyline hydrochloride dosages at week 7 were as follows: 50 mg/d, n = 2; 75 mg/d, n = 26; 100 mg/d, n = 25, and 125 mg/d, n = 5.

Bupropion hydrochloride dosage began at 150 mg/d for the first 3 days. The dosage was increased to 300 mg/d, where it remained until week 12, when the dose was decreased to 150 mg for 3 days, then discontinued. Dose reductions occurred if participants reported unpleasant adverse effects. Mean bupropion blood level for abstinent subjects was 36.0 ng/mL. At week 7, all participants receiving bupropion were receiving 300 mg/d.

Participants returned pill bottles at each clinic visit. Pills were counted and number of pills taken was recorded. If a patient failed to return a bottle, he or she was asked to call clinic staff with the pill count.

STATISTICAL METHODS

The principal data analysis method was a generalized linear model (GLM), a generalization of the classic linear model that computes estimates by means of likelihood functions instead of least squares. A GLM allows use of repeated measurements when there are missing data, without dropping participants with data missing or assuming that missing data equate to smoking.1921 We used SAS PROC MIXED version 6.12 software (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC). When abstinence was the dependent variable, we also used the GLIMMIX Macro for SAS (SAS Institute Inc), which interacts with PROC MIXED to modify it so that it is appropriate for dichotomous data.22 A single GLM was used to evaluate the 3 hypotheses. Abstinence status at weeks 12, 24, 38, and 52 were the dependent variables. The design was a 2 (active drug vs placebo) × 2 (MM vs MM/PI) × 2 (MDD history vs no history) model with assessment entered as a repeated variable. Since no interactions of assessment with independent variables were predicted, these interactions were dropped from the final model when no significant effects emerged. Since we performed a single test for each hypothesis, the hypothesis-wise error rate was held at P = .05.

We evaluated effects of sex and its interaction with the 3 design variables on abstinence rates at weeks 12 to 52 by means of 3 GLM models computed with the GLIMMIX Macro. We used a parallel procedure to compare the 3 drug conditions(bupropion, nortriptyline, and placebo). Effect sizes are expressed as odds ratios and confidence intervals.

Analysis of variance and χ2 tests were used to evaluate baseline differences among treatment conditions, continuous abstinence rates, and the rate of occurrence of adverse effects. Tests were 2-tailed, with P<.05, all comparisons.

PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS

Demographic, smoking, and psychiatric characteristics of participants in each experimental condition are given in Table 1. There were no significant differences between conditions at baseline.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Baseline Variables by Psychological Intervention and Drug Condition*
ATTRITION

Figure 1 shows participant flow from first telephone contact to week 52. Smokers (N = 220) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 pharmacologic treatments (nortriptyline, bupropion, or placebo) and 1 of 2 counseling treatments (MM or PI). A history of MDD was present in 33% of the participants. Because of a medical emergency, it was necessary to break the blind for 1 participant, who was receiving placebo drug. Thus, the usable sample (N = 219) consisted of 122 men and 97 women.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Attrition flow chart. ECG indicates electrocardiogram; MM, medical management; and PI, psychological intervention. Asterisk indicates n = 219, because the blind was broken for 1 female subject in the group receiving placebo and PI.

Graphic Jump Location

Thirty-seven participants (17%) failed to complete treatment: 15 for personal reasons, 12 because of perceived medication adverse effects (bupropion, 6; nortriptyline, 3; placebo, 3), 1 because of an unrelated medical condition, and 9 for undisclosed reasons. There were no significant differences between psychological treatment conditions (χ21 [N = 219]= 1.37, P = .24) or diagnostic categories (χ21 [N = 219] = 3.19, P = .07) in treatment dropout. There were significant differences between the drug conditions(χ22 [N = 219] = 7.29, P= .03; bupropion, 15.1% [n = 11]; nortriptyline, 10.0% [n = 7]; placebo, 26.0%[n = 19]). The rate for placebo was significantly greater than the rate for nortriptyline (χ21 [N = 219] = 6.74, P = .009), but not for bupropion (χ21 [N= 219] = 2.69, P = .10). The 2 active drugs did not differ from one another (χ21 [N = 219] = 1.01, P = .31). The mean number of counseling sessions attended was 3.58 (SD, 1.61).

The percentages and numbers of participants for whom we were unable to collect smoking data were as follows: week 12, 15% (n = 33); week 26, 16%(n = 35); week 36, 17% (n = 38); and week 52, 19% (n = 42), with no significant differences between drug, psychological treatment, or diagnostic categories.

ABSTINENCE

Main effects for drug, psychological treatment condition, and assessment time were each significant at P<.05 (Table 2). There were no other significant effects. Neither main effects for MDD diagnosis nor the interaction of this variable with other variables was significant. Thus, both the first and second hypotheses—that active drug would be more effective than placebo (Figure 2) and that the PI would be more effective than MM alone (Figure 3)—were supported. The lack of a significant interaction between drug and PI condition indicated lack of support for the hypothesis that active medication plus PI would be the most efficacious condition.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Percent Abstinent, Number Assessed, and Number Abstinent by Assessment Time, Treatment Condition, and Drug*
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Seven-day point-prevalence abstinence rates by pharmacologic intervention.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Seven-day point-prevalence abstinence rates by psychological intervention (PI) and drug. MM indicates medical management.

Graphic Jump Location

We did not hypothesize a difference in efficacy between the 2 active drugs. None was found (χ21 [N = 126] = 1.88, P = .17).

The interaction of bupropion vs nortriptyline with diagnosis fell short of traditional levels of significance (χ21 [N = 126] = 3.39, P = .07). There were few differences between the 2 drugs for participants without a history of depression, but there were higher abstinence rates for bupropion than nortriptyline for participants with a history of depressive disorder. For example, with missing data omitted, the 52-week abstinence rate for participants without a history of MDD was 27% for nortriptyline and 24% for bupropion (20% with missing data coded as smoking for both drugs), whereas for participants with a history of MDD, the 52-week abstinence rate was 16% for nortriptyline (13% with missing data coded as relapsed) and 38% for bupropion (33% with missing data coded as relapsed). Continuous abstinence rates for the 1-year period were 20.7% for bupropion, 13.2% for nortriptyline, and 11.8% for placebo (χ22[N = 162] = 1.96, P = .38). For the 2 psychosocial conditions, they were 13% for MM and 18% for PI (χ22[N = 162]<1).

Main effects for sex approached significance (χ21 [N = 189] = 2.68, P = .10), favoring better abstinence rates for men when compared with women. Abstinence rates for men were as follows: week 12, 44%; week 24, 29%; week 36, 26%; and week 52, 24%. For women, these rates were as follows: week 12, 41%; week 24, 20%; week 36, 28%; and week 52, 23%.

For all analyses, there were no differences in significance when the data were reanalyzed with missing data coded as smoking. With missing data coded as smoking, continuous abstinence rates were as follows: bupropion, 16.4%; nortriptyline, 9.6%; and placebo, 8.2% (χ22[N = 219] = 2.80, P = .25); and MM, 10%, and PI, 13% (χ22 [N = 219]<1).

Fifty-four participants, or 25% of the sample, reported using out-of-study NRT (n = 34) or bupropion during follow-up (15 in the bupropion group, 14 in the nortriptyline group, and 25 in the placebo group). Placebo recipients were more likely than active-drug recipients to use nonstudy pharmacological therapies (χ21 [N = 219] = 5.42, P = .20).

Of the 54 subjects who reported use of extrastudy medications, however, only 14 were abstinent at the time of the report, and they were distributed fairly equally across the treatment conditions. At week 24, 1 participant who reported out-of-study medication was abstinent (nortriptyline condition); at week 36, 1 abstinent participant in each of the antidepressant conditions and 2 in the placebo condition were using out-of-study medications. At week 52, the out-of-study medication count was 4 in the bupropion group, 2 in the nortriptyline group, and 3 in the placebo group.

MAINTENANCE OF THE BLIND

As part of the informed consent procedures, participants were informed about the adverse effects of each drug. It is not surprising that participants receiving active drug were more likely to guess that they had received active drug (87%) than placebo participants were to believe they were receiving active drug (67%; χ21 [N = 160] = 9.06, P = .003; odds ratio, 3.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.48-7.30). Of the active drug participants who were able to correctly guess their assignment to active or placebo drug, 49% of the nortriptyline recipients and 58% of the bupropion recipients correctly guessed drug assignment (χ21 [N = 96]<1, P = .35). Thus, bupropion recipients were no more likely than nortriptyline participants to correctly identify which drug they had received.

ADVERSE EFFECTS

Of the potential adverse effects (dry mouth, rash, weight gain, light-headedness, shaky hands, constipation, blurry vision, sexual problems, difficulty in urinating, racing heart, swollen legs, chest pain or pressure, shortness of breath, weight loss, headaches, agitation, nausea or vomiting, dizziness, difficulty sleeping, and sweating), postbaseline endorsement rates differed between nortriptyline and placebo on the following: (1) dry mouth: nortriptyline, 72%; placebo, 33% (χ21 [N = 131] = 19.71, P<.001; odds ratio, 5.16; 95% confidence interval, 2.45-10.86); and(2) constipation: nortriptyline, 32%; placebo, 14% (χ21 [N = 131]=5.91, P= .02; odds ratio, 2.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-6.85). Bupropion did not differ from placebo on any item.

As predicted, bupropion and nortriptyline were more efficacious than placebo in producing abstinence when measured by point-prevalence abstinence during the course of a year. Similarly, PI was more efficacious than MM alone. The hypothesis that PI would add to antidepressant treatment was not supported. As has been the case in other recent studies (eg, Hall et al3), MDD did not predict failure to quit smoking.

The equivalent effectiveness of bupropion and nortriptyline, a generic drug, and nortriptyline's much lower cost, suggest that it might be a useful alternative to bupropion for some smokers. The drugs have different adverse effect and risk profiles, however. Nortriptyline has been shown to be related to an increased rate of serious cardiac events in patients with ischemic heart disease.23

The present study does not indicate whether it is the content of the PI or increased contact that increases abstinence. Visual inspection of data values in Figure 3 suggests potential differences between MM-placebo, and the remaining 3 conditions (MM–active drug, MM/PI–placebo, and MM/PI–active drug) at weeks 12, 24, and 52. The PI did not increase abstinence rates when added to the active drug; it may bring abstinence rates in the placebo condition to about the same level as active drug. Additional research in the role of psychological treatment with antidepressants is warranted. The interaction of drug with history of MDD did not reach statistically significant levels (P= .07). Inspection of the data suggests potential superiority of bupropion for smokers with a history of MDD, but virtually no difference in patients without a history of MDD. The effect may warrant further examination in a study designed to address this question.

Abstinence rates in the present study were lower than those reported in earlier work with nortriptyline3 and bupropion.1,2 This difference may reflect the changing nature of participants entering smoking treatment trials. Smokers in the present study smoked fewer cigarettes, were less likely to have a partner or spouse, were more likely to be blue collar or service workers, and were less likely to be white. A recent study24 has shown decreasing abstinence rates in smoking cessation studies during the past 25 years. The authors of that study attribute this to increasing difficulty in quitting cigarettes among individuals who continue to smoke despite current pressures.

Although nortriptyline and bupropion were significantly more efficacious than placebo when point-prevalence rates were compared, this was not the case when 1-year continuous abstinence rates were evaluated. Also, as the modest week 24 and 52 abstinence rates indicate, the field must continue to seek more efficacious treatments. Two recent clinical trials, both with acceptable rigor, one published in 199625 and the second in 1999,2 failed to find differences between placebo and active NRT. Recent reviews of NRT effectiveness have suggested decreasing efficacy of nicotine patch, but not nicotine gum, since they were introduced in the 1980s.26 As the population of smokers changes, interventions may experience a declining efficacy.

Given the information provided to participants as part of the informed consent procedures, it is not surprising that they were able to correctly guess which drug they had received. Indeed, in studies of drugs with detectable effects that report the maintenance of the blind, participants are often able to correctly guess which drug they received.2729 Nevertheless, given the complex blinding procedures we used because a placebo bupropion sustained-release capsule was unavailable, it was reassuring that the bupropion recipients were no more likely than the nortriptyline recipients to guess their drug.

To our knowledge, this is the first clinical trial to report the use of out-of-study medication during the follow-up period. We found a high rate of such use (54 patients [25% of the sample]), but only 14 of these 54 participants were abstinent. Recoding these abstinent participants as smoking does not change the overall findings. They represent less than 6% of the sample and were fairly equally distributed across conditions. Nevertheless, given the increasing availability of smoking cessation medications, we recommend that studies routinely report these data to better understand outcomes and the processes of abstinence and relapse.

The results of the present study are limited by the select nature of the sample resulting from the need to meet both criteria necessary to complete the research, such as availability during the course of the year, and medical exclusionary criteria.

Submitted for publication July 20, 2001; final revision received November 12, 2001; accepted December 11, 2001.

This study was supported by grants R01 DA02538 and 2 P50 DA09253 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Bethesda, Md, and grant R01 CA71378 from the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda.

We thank Kevin Delucchi, PhD, for his statistical consultation and Heather Kenna for manuscript preparation.

Corresponding author and reprints: Sharon M. Hall, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, 401 Parnassus Ave, Box 0984, San Francisco, CA 94143-0984 (e-mail: smh@itsa.ucsf.edu).

Hurt  RDSachs  DPLGlover  EDOfford  KPJohnston  JADale  LCKhayralla  MASchroeder  DRGlover  PNSullivan  RCroghan  ITSullivan  PM A comparison of sustained-release bupropion and placebo for smoking cessation. N Engl J Med. 1997;3371195- 1202
Link to Article
Jorenby  DELeischow  SJNides  MARennard  SIJohnston  JAHughes  ARSmith  SSMuramoto  MLDaughton  DMDoan  KFiore  MCBaker  TB A controlled trial of sustained-release bupropion, a nicotine patch, or both for smoking cessation. N Engl J Med. 1999;340685- 691
Link to Article
Hall  SMReus  VIMuñoz  RFSees  KLHumfleet  GHartz  DTFrederick  STriffleman  E Nortriptyline and cognitive-behavioral therapy in the treatment of cigarette smoking. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1998;55683- 690
Link to Article
Prochazka  AVWeaver  MJKeller  RTFryer  GELicari  PALofaso  D A randomized trial of nortriptyline for smoking cessation. Arch Intern Med. 1998;1582035- 2039
Link to Article
Hughes  JGust  SSkoog  KKeenan  RFenwick  J Symptoms of tobacco withdrawal: a replication and extension. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1991;4852- 59
Link to Article
Fiore  MCJorenby  DEBaker  TBKenford  SL Tobacco dependence and the nicotine patch: clinical guidelines for effective use. JAMA. 1992;2682687- 2694
Link to Article
Fiore  MCBailey  WCCohen  SJ Smoking Cessation Clinical Practice Guidelines No. 18.  Rockville, Md Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, US Dept of Health and Human Services1996;Publication96-0692
Fiore  MC A clinical practice guideline for treating tobacco use and dependence: a US Public Health Service report. JAMA. 2000;2833244- 3254
Link to Article
First  MGibbons  MSpitzer  RWilliams  J Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV: Users Guide.  New York Biometrics Research Dept, New York State Psychiatric Institute1996;
Jarvis  MJTunstall-Pedeo  HFeyerabend  CVesy  CSaloojee  Y Comparison of tests used to distinguish smokers from non-smokers. Am J Public Health. 1987;771435- 1483
Link to Article
McNair  DMLorr  MDroppleman  LF Manual for the Profile of Mood States.  San Diego, Calif Educational & Instructional Testing Service1981;
Payne  TSmith  PMcCracken  LMcSherry  WCAntony  M Assessing nicotine dependence: a comparison of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire (FTQ) with the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) in a clinical sample. Addict Behav. 1994;19307- 317
Link to Article
Fawcett  JEpstein  PFiester  SJElkin  IAutry  JH Clinical management—imipramine/placebo administration manual: NIMH Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1987;23309- 324
American Lung Association, Freedom From Smoking.  New York, NY American Lung Association1993;
Hall  SMMunoz  RFReus  VI Cognitive-behavioral intervention increases abstinence rates for depressive-history smokers. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994;62141- 146
Link to Article
Hall  SMTunstall  CRugg  DJones  RTBenowitz  H Nicotine gum and behavioral treatment in smoking cessation. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1985;53256- 258
Link to Article
Hall  SMTunstall  CDGinsberg  DBenowitz  NLJones  RT Nicotine gum and behavioral treatment: a placebo controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1987;55603- 605
Link to Article
Linnoila  MGeorge  LGuthrie  SLeventhal  B Effects of alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking in antidepressant levels of depressed patients. Am J Psychiatry. 1981;138841- 842
McCullagh  PNelder  JA Generalized Linear Models. 2nd London, England Chapman Hall1989;
Gibbons  RDHedeker  DWaternaux  CDavis  JM Random regression models: a comprehensive approach to the analysis of longitudinal psychiatric data. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1988;24438- 443
Gibbons  RDHedeker  DElkin  IWaternaux  CKraemer  HGreenhouse  JBShea  TMImber  SDSotsky  SMWatkins  JT Some conceptual and statistical issues in analysis of longitudinal psychiatric data. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1993;50739- 750
Link to Article
Little  RCMilliken  GAStroup  WW SAS System for Mixed Models.  Cary, NC SAS Institute Inc1996;
Roose  SPLaghrissi-Thode  FKennedy  JSNelson  JCBigger  JTPollock  BGGaffney  ANarayan  MFinkel  MSMcCafferty  JGergel  I Comparison of paroxetine and nortriptyline in depressed patients with ischemic heart disease. JAMA. 1998;279287- 291
Link to Article
Irvin  JEBrandon  TH The increasing recalcitrance of smokers in clinical trials. Nicotine Tob Res. 2000;279- 84
Link to Article
Hall  SMMunoz  RFReus  VISees  KLDuncan  CHumfleet  GLHartz  D Mood management and nicotine gum in smoking treatment: a therapeutic content and placebo-controlled study. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996;641003- 1009
Link to Article
Fox  BJWelsh  SKFiore  MCBaker  TB Have nicotine patch and nicotine gum lost their efficacy over time?  Paper presented at: 7th Annual Meeting of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco March 2001 Seattle, Wash
Moscucci  MByrne  LWeintraub  MCox  C Blinding, unblinding, and the placebo effect: an analysis of patients' guesses of treatment assignment in a double-blind clinical trial. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1987;41259- 265
Link to Article
Ney  PCollins  CSpensor  C Double blind: double talk or are there ways to do better research? Med Hypotheses. 1986;21119- 126
Link to Article
Rabkin  JMarkowitz  JStewart  JMcGrath  PHarrison  WQuitkin  FKlein  D How blind is blind? assessment of patient and doctor medication guesses in a placebo-controlled trial of imipramine and phenelzine. Psychiatry Res. 1986;1975- 86
Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Attrition flow chart. ECG indicates electrocardiogram; MM, medical management; and PI, psychological intervention. Asterisk indicates n = 219, because the blind was broken for 1 female subject in the group receiving placebo and PI.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Seven-day point-prevalence abstinence rates by pharmacologic intervention.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Seven-day point-prevalence abstinence rates by psychological intervention (PI) and drug. MM indicates medical management.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Baseline Variables by Psychological Intervention and Drug Condition*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Percent Abstinent, Number Assessed, and Number Abstinent by Assessment Time, Treatment Condition, and Drug*

References

Hurt  RDSachs  DPLGlover  EDOfford  KPJohnston  JADale  LCKhayralla  MASchroeder  DRGlover  PNSullivan  RCroghan  ITSullivan  PM A comparison of sustained-release bupropion and placebo for smoking cessation. N Engl J Med. 1997;3371195- 1202
Link to Article
Jorenby  DELeischow  SJNides  MARennard  SIJohnston  JAHughes  ARSmith  SSMuramoto  MLDaughton  DMDoan  KFiore  MCBaker  TB A controlled trial of sustained-release bupropion, a nicotine patch, or both for smoking cessation. N Engl J Med. 1999;340685- 691
Link to Article
Hall  SMReus  VIMuñoz  RFSees  KLHumfleet  GHartz  DTFrederick  STriffleman  E Nortriptyline and cognitive-behavioral therapy in the treatment of cigarette smoking. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1998;55683- 690
Link to Article
Prochazka  AVWeaver  MJKeller  RTFryer  GELicari  PALofaso  D A randomized trial of nortriptyline for smoking cessation. Arch Intern Med. 1998;1582035- 2039
Link to Article
Hughes  JGust  SSkoog  KKeenan  RFenwick  J Symptoms of tobacco withdrawal: a replication and extension. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1991;4852- 59
Link to Article
Fiore  MCJorenby  DEBaker  TBKenford  SL Tobacco dependence and the nicotine patch: clinical guidelines for effective use. JAMA. 1992;2682687- 2694
Link to Article
Fiore  MCBailey  WCCohen  SJ Smoking Cessation Clinical Practice Guidelines No. 18.  Rockville, Md Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, US Dept of Health and Human Services1996;Publication96-0692
Fiore  MC A clinical practice guideline for treating tobacco use and dependence: a US Public Health Service report. JAMA. 2000;2833244- 3254
Link to Article
First  MGibbons  MSpitzer  RWilliams  J Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV: Users Guide.  New York Biometrics Research Dept, New York State Psychiatric Institute1996;
Jarvis  MJTunstall-Pedeo  HFeyerabend  CVesy  CSaloojee  Y Comparison of tests used to distinguish smokers from non-smokers. Am J Public Health. 1987;771435- 1483
Link to Article
McNair  DMLorr  MDroppleman  LF Manual for the Profile of Mood States.  San Diego, Calif Educational & Instructional Testing Service1981;
Payne  TSmith  PMcCracken  LMcSherry  WCAntony  M Assessing nicotine dependence: a comparison of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire (FTQ) with the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) in a clinical sample. Addict Behav. 1994;19307- 317
Link to Article
Fawcett  JEpstein  PFiester  SJElkin  IAutry  JH Clinical management—imipramine/placebo administration manual: NIMH Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1987;23309- 324
American Lung Association, Freedom From Smoking.  New York, NY American Lung Association1993;
Hall  SMMunoz  RFReus  VI Cognitive-behavioral intervention increases abstinence rates for depressive-history smokers. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994;62141- 146
Link to Article
Hall  SMTunstall  CRugg  DJones  RTBenowitz  H Nicotine gum and behavioral treatment in smoking cessation. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1985;53256- 258
Link to Article
Hall  SMTunstall  CDGinsberg  DBenowitz  NLJones  RT Nicotine gum and behavioral treatment: a placebo controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1987;55603- 605
Link to Article
Linnoila  MGeorge  LGuthrie  SLeventhal  B Effects of alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking in antidepressant levels of depressed patients. Am J Psychiatry. 1981;138841- 842
McCullagh  PNelder  JA Generalized Linear Models. 2nd London, England Chapman Hall1989;
Gibbons  RDHedeker  DWaternaux  CDavis  JM Random regression models: a comprehensive approach to the analysis of longitudinal psychiatric data. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1988;24438- 443
Gibbons  RDHedeker  DElkin  IWaternaux  CKraemer  HGreenhouse  JBShea  TMImber  SDSotsky  SMWatkins  JT Some conceptual and statistical issues in analysis of longitudinal psychiatric data. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1993;50739- 750
Link to Article
Little  RCMilliken  GAStroup  WW SAS System for Mixed Models.  Cary, NC SAS Institute Inc1996;
Roose  SPLaghrissi-Thode  FKennedy  JSNelson  JCBigger  JTPollock  BGGaffney  ANarayan  MFinkel  MSMcCafferty  JGergel  I Comparison of paroxetine and nortriptyline in depressed patients with ischemic heart disease. JAMA. 1998;279287- 291
Link to Article
Irvin  JEBrandon  TH The increasing recalcitrance of smokers in clinical trials. Nicotine Tob Res. 2000;279- 84
Link to Article
Hall  SMMunoz  RFReus  VISees  KLDuncan  CHumfleet  GLHartz  D Mood management and nicotine gum in smoking treatment: a therapeutic content and placebo-controlled study. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996;641003- 1009
Link to Article
Fox  BJWelsh  SKFiore  MCBaker  TB Have nicotine patch and nicotine gum lost their efficacy over time?  Paper presented at: 7th Annual Meeting of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco March 2001 Seattle, Wash
Moscucci  MByrne  LWeintraub  MCox  C Blinding, unblinding, and the placebo effect: an analysis of patients' guesses of treatment assignment in a double-blind clinical trial. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1987;41259- 265
Link to Article
Ney  PCollins  CSpensor  C Double blind: double talk or are there ways to do better research? Med Hypotheses. 1986;21119- 126
Link to Article
Rabkin  JMarkowitz  JStewart  JMcGrath  PHarrison  WQuitkin  FKlein  D How blind is blind? assessment of patient and doctor medication guesses in a placebo-controlled trial of imipramine and phenelzine. Psychiatry Res. 1986;1975- 86
Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 97

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Smoking cessation. Clin Chest Med 2014;35(1):165-76.
JAMAevidence.com