Skip to main content
Free AccessGuidelines

S3 Guideline “Screening, Diagnostics, and Treatment of Harmful and Addictive Tobacco Use”

Short Version

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1024/0939-5911/a000423

Introduction

Tobacco smoke belongs to the most dangerous substances containing psychotropic ingredients. By inhaling tobacco smoke, regular smoker ingests large amounts of carcinogenic, teratogenic, and atherogenic substances, without experiencing short-term disturbing impairments of their physical, mental, or social functionality. Although nearly all smokers are aware of the medium- and long-term health risks involved with smoking, nearly one quarter of the population (Federal Office of Statistics, 2014) still smokes cigarettes. The reasons are diverse: In about half of the smokers personal and environmental values, behavioral habits developed in connection with cigarette smoking, dealing with cognitive dissonance, and existing physical or mental dependence impede their withdrawal from tobacco use and make it a protracted, often life-long process characterized by relapses.

Regardless of this fact, many smokers nevertheless do achieve abstinence during their lifetime through their own intentions and efforts. Health-associated information from their environment, being directly addressed by partners and other close persons, recommendations by physicians as well as concerns about tobacco-associated diseases, existing health problems, or perception of own dependence form the background and motivational factors for smoking cessation. From a medical and psychological point of view, however, smoking cessation would in many cases be imperative at a much earlier time point in life and should therefore be recommended at an early stage. For smokers who fail to achieve abstinence after serious smoking cessation attempts, therapeutic support is indicated.

In order to support the motivational process for change, the cessation process itself, and successful coping with relapse, a variety of psychological/psychotherapeutic and pharmacological intervention approaches were developed, some of which have proved to be efficient, whereas others still lack evidence for their efficacy. Different from many other health interventions, the most effective methods according to the scientific state of knowledge are usually not being recommended by medical counsellors to people concerned. Rather, information is gathered by smokers who want to quit from a variety of sparsely regulated offers concerning smoking cessation. It is imperative for all professional counselors and therapists to be able to access successful smoking cessation methods and scientifically established, evidence-based treatment recommendations.

For the collection and distribution of knowledge about treatment approaches, the Consortium of Scientific Medical Expert Associations (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF)) developed strict methodological criteria to ensure that treatment guidelines developed according to these quality criteria reflect the present state of knowledge objectively and independently of any other interests.

The S3 guideline represents the highest quality standard of the AWMF, as does the present „Interdisciplinary Guideline of Quality S3 for Screening, Diagnostics and Treatment of Harmful and Addictive Tobacco Use! (hereafter referred to as “Tobacco Guideline”).

Method

The Tobacco Guideline initiated by the German Society for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, Psychosomatic, and Neurology (DGPPN) as well as the German Society for Addiction Research and Addiction Therapy (DG-Sucht) was developed by 19 authors. A total of 50 persons were involved in the production process of the text over 4 years, for the most part via voluntary work. For the costs incurred between October 2010 (start of design) and October 2014 (presentation of guideline to the AWMF), only interest-free donations (e. g., financial contributions of the DG-Sucht and the DGPPN) as well as contributions in form of personal support from the Central Institute of Mental Health in Mannheim and the Section of Addiction Research and Addiction Medicine in Tübingen) were applied. No third-party funds from private companies were accepted.

The Tobacco Guideline was developed in a methodological process guided by a Steering Committee consisting of prestigious addiction researchers, scientifically supported by the AWMF together with a further S3 guideline for substance-associated disorders: the Alcohol Guideline. The constituent teleconference of this steering group took place on January 10, 2011. During a systematic overview, one or more scientists can elaborate on the state of research and can use their position for the interpretation of the derivation of guidelines, whereas the recommendations of an S3 guideline are negotiated in a much more complicated methodological process. This was also true for the Tobacco Guideline, whre clinical issues were defined in a consensus process and relevant information from systematically researched basic guidelines as well as systematic reviews of the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group were obtained. The responsible work groups applied the Scientific Guideline Manager of the Institute for Lung Research as technical tool for this systematic literature review.

The basic aim of the guideline process was to formulate treatment recommendations: What should or can generally be offered smokers specifically as motivation or support in smoking cessation? Additionally, questions were answered concerning screening, diagnostics, and documentation as well as adequate settings. Recommendations furthermore address problematic offers that should not be adopted.

The level of evidence (LoE) assigned to the recommendations also inform about the quality and reliability of the scientific information in the respective recommendation. Recommendation levels (A = strong recommendation, corresponding to “is to be”, B to “should”, O to “can”) stem from a complex consideration of the LoE regarding the clinical relevance, the benefit-risk profile, patient preferences, implementability into the treatment, and where applicable other relevant variables. If no systematic literature research has been carried out, recommendations considered necessary could also be formulated as “clinical consensus issues” (CCI).

All recommendations based on background texts, recommendation levels, and evaluations of evidence levels were presented to the attending experts during the “consensus conferences.” During these days-long conferences, moderated by a representative of the AWMF and attended by a representative group of up to 35 delegates of expert societies, professional associations, and representatives of patients and relatives, the suggestions for recommendations were discussed intensively and if necessary modified, until they could either be accepted or refused. The potential influence of conflicts of interests were considered in all votes: Existing declarations of all delegates on potential or actual conflicts of interests were used by an independent third party in order to decide whether delegates were allowed to take part in votes concerning scientific areas in which potential conflicts of interests had been determined.

All 78 recommendations of this Guideline and the three clinical algorithms employed to visualize the treatment process according to the Guideline received the approval of at least 75 % (on average 95.2 %) of the delegates of a consensus conference (see Table 1). A detailed description of the methodology may be found in the guideline report of the extended version of the Guideline. ( http://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/076-006m_S3_Tabak_2015-02.pdf)

Table 1 Overview of recommendations of the Tobacco Guideline

Results and Discussion

When people contact the health system as patients, their cigarette smoking status is systematically queried. This information is also included in the patient’s documentation. If the severity of the tobacco dependence needs to be assessed in a further diagnostic process, this is done via the Fagerström Test for Tobacco Dependence (FTCD). Smokers who are willing to quit but require external support initially receive offers for low-threshold approaches, especially brief counseling, motivational therapy, and telephone counseling. If more intensive treatment is required, behavioral single or group therapy, possibly combined with medications, can be suggested. In cases involving distinct withdrawal symptoms, medications should be recommended. If a nicotine replacement therapy or a combination of nicotine replacement therapies proves ineffective, varenicline or bupropion should be offered after determining the indications or contraindications. Children, adolescents, and pregnant women should not be prescribed medication for withdrawal treatments.

The recommendations of the present Guideline largely comply with other more recent national and international guidelines for smoking cessation. The German Tobacco Guideline, however, puts more emphasis than other international guidelines on the assessment of potential risks and contraindications concerning the pharmacological interventions.

Clinical Algorithms

The glossary of the AWMF defines “algorithm” as something that “… clearly defines the course of action for the solution of a problem or certain kinds of problems” ( http://www.leitlinien.de/leitlinienmethodik/leitlinien-glossar/glossar/algorithmus). This guideline describes an algorithm that summarizes the available knowledge on how someone using tobacco products can quit smoking.

In order to make the logic of the key recommendations of this S3 Guideline more assessable, given the variety of recommendations, graphic depictions (hereinafter referred to as “clinical algorithms”) were compiled by using the recommended standard elements (Figure 1) on the website www.leitlinien.de.

Figure 1 Standard elements of clinical algorithms (source: http://www.leitlinien.de/ leitlinienmethodik/leitlinien-glossar/glossar/algorithmus). Klinischer Zustand = clinical state; Entscheidung = decision; Handlung = action; logische Sequenz = logical sequence; Numerierung der Symbole = numbering of the symbols.

The following three clinical algorithms should be understood as partial algorithms of a single clinical algorithm, divided up for a better overview. All three algorithms refer to one another and complement each other to form a total picture of the evidence-based support for the achievement of tobacco abstinence according to the current state of research.

Clinical algorithm 1 describes recommendations on harm reduction for smokers who do not want to or are unable to quit smoking. The recommendations of low-threshold approaches are also addressed.

Clinical algorithm 1

Clinical algorithm 2 outlines the recommended clinical pathway for smokers who require a more intensive, psychotherapy-based treatment.

Clinical algorithm 2

If the process toward tobacco abstinence is substantially impaired by withdrawal symptoms, psychotropic drugs in addition to counseling or treatment may be considered. The relevant decision process is shown in algorithm 3.

Clinical algorithm 3

Recommendations for Diagnostics and Documentation

Diagnostics: Categorical and Dimensional

Table 2

Table 2

Documentation

Table 3

Table 3

Recommendations for the Treatment of Harmful and Addictive Tobacco Use

Motivational Treatment and Brief Interventions

Table 4

Table 4

Harm Reduction

Table 5

Table 5

Psychotherapeutic Interventions

Table 6

Table 6

Medications for Withdrawal Treatment and Relapse Prevention (e. g., Nicotine Replacement Therapy, Bupropion, Varenicline, Other Antidepressants and Substance Groups Not to Be Considered)

Table 7

Table 7

Somatic Therapy Approaches (e. g., Acupuncture, Magnetic Stimulation, Electronic Cigarette)

Table 8

Table 8

Sex and Age Aspects (e. g., Women, Pregnancy, Adolescents)

Adolescents

Table 9

Table 9

Women

Table 10

Table 10

Pregnant Women

Table 11

Table 11

Older People

Table 12

Table 12

Somatic Comorbidity

Table 13

Table 13

Mental Comorbidity

General Key Recommendations

Table 14

Table 14

Special Recommendations for Comorbid Depressive Disorders

Table 15

Table 15

Special Recommendations for Comorbid Schizophrenic Disorders

Table 16

Table 16

Setting, Medical Treatment Situation and Aspects of Financing

Table 17

Table 17

Conflicts of interests

Andreas: Pfizer

Bartsch: keine Interessenskonflikte

Batra: Kath. Fachhochschule, Bezirksärztekammer, Südwürttemberg, Ärztekammer Westfalen‐Lippe, Dtsch. Psychologenakademie, Wissenstransfer Uni Tübingen, Thieme, Kohlhammer, Alkermes, Pfizer, Parexel

Hoch: Dozententätigkeit Rhein‐Ruhr Universität Bochum, FU Berlin, Deutsche Psychologenakademie, BMG, EMCDDA, Deutscher Ärzteverlag, Desitin

Gohlke: keine Interessenskonflikte

Jähne: Daiichi Sankyo, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Volkshochschulen, Akademie für ärztliche Fort- und Weiterbildung Südbaden, Ärztekammer Nordrhein, Deutsche Krebshilfe, Institut für Hausärztliche Fortbildung, Ministerium für Arbeit und Sozialordnung, Familie, Frauen und Senioren des Landes Baden-Württemberg.

Kröger: Pfizer, BMG

Lindinger: Krankenkassen, Berufsgenossenschaften, Bundesamt für Gesundheit (Schweiz), Arbeitsgemeinschaft Tabakprävention (Schweiz,) Bundeszentrale für Gesundheitliche Aufklärung (BZgA), Deutsches netz Rauchfreier Krankenhäuser und Gesundheitseinrichtungen (DNRFK), Universität Tübingen, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Deutsche Psychologenakademie

Mann: Lundbeck, Pfizer, Novartis

Mühlig: Mühlig: Vortragstätigkeit bei Pfizer, Mundipharma, Dozententätigkeit in Psychotherapeutenausbildung, bei Psychotherapeuten- und Ärztekammer und Weiterbildungsakademie (TUCed); Forschungsaufträge: AOKplus, Bundesregierung; Versorgung: Leiter Raucherambulanz Chemnitz, Tabakentwöhnungskurse, Psychotherapie

Neumann: Dozent für Ärztekammer Brandenburg, Thieme‐Verlag, Südd. Verlagsgruppe, MIC Kongressoprganisation.

Petersen: keine Interessenskonflikte

Pötschke-Langer: keine Interessenskonflikte

Ratje: Berlin‐Chemie AG, Publikation in „Der Allgemeinarzt“, Programmschulung für DGNTF e.V.

Rüther: Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson

Schweizer: DGH, MEG

Thürauf: Alberti‐Konzept‐Gesundheit, Hanns‐Seidel‐Stiftung, Janssen‐Cilag, Klinik Barmelweid

Ulbricht: keine Interessenskonflikte

Appendix

Appendix 1: „Off-Label-Use“: For Application of Medications for Smoking Cessation, Not Approved in Germany

Medications for smoking cessation approved in Germany for use from the age of 18 years onward are all applications for nicotine substitution (i. e., inhaler, gum, lozenge, mouth spray, patch, sublingual tablet), and bupropion and varenicline. Only certain nicotine-replacement systems have been approved for application with concomitant tobacco use for the gradual reduction of smoking or in combination with nicotine replacement systems (for more information, see the prescription information provided with the products). All other medications or combinations thereof (e. g., bupropion and nicotine gum) and especially their application prior to the age of 18 are not approved. Their application would be considered so-called “off-label-use.”

To ensure patient safety, in Germany medications can only be brought to the market after authorization by an admission board (e. g. Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, BfArM). The basis of the admission is an application by the producing pharmaceutical company after the drug has undergone an extensive verification procedure to ensure efficacy and tolerability based on clinical studies. Information on the admission results may be found (among other places) in the package information leaflet. This procedure is applied separately for each product, each indication, and each patient group by the pharmaceutical company and is therefore both extensive and expensive. For many medications only the most frequent fields of application are applied for. Off-label use means going beyond the official application of a medication, especially when applying the licensed medications in fields of application not approved by the admission board (Joint Federal Committee).

For many of the substances described here smoking cessation represents only an additional indication, or its efficacy in smoking cessation was examined only after the main indication of the medication had been approved (e. g., a blood pressure medication or antidepressant). These compounds are not licensed for this purpose and can be prescribed only for smoking cessation as off-label compounds. There was no administrative examination of the application, and in most cases only insufficient data concerning the benefit/risk evaluation are available. Because of the limited experiences, a certain risk remains when judging the benefit and/or application risks.

The German Federal Ministry of Health (FMH) mandated the Joint Federal Committee in 2005 to establish expert groups to evaluate the state of knowledge concerning off-label use of certain substances and medications, for instance, for their use in oncology, neurology, and pediatrics, but not for smoking cessation.

Medications that can be prescribed and refunded following admission were specified by the Federal Social Court of Germany in its verdict, ref. B 1 KR 37/00 R, dated March 19, 2002. It acknowledges the necessity of restricted off-label use under strict premises:

“Prescription of a medication for an application field not covered under the admission can be taken into consideration only if

  1. 1.
    treatment is for a severe (life-threatening or permanently impairing the quality of life) disorder is concerned,
  2. 2.
    if no other therapy is available, and
  3. 3.
    based on the data available there is a justified prospect that the respective compound will achieve treatment success (either curative or palliative). In order to assume the latter, research findings have to be available giving sufficient reason to expect that the medication can be applied for the indication in question. This can be assumed if either an extension of the admission has already been applied for and the results of a controlled clinical phase III trial (standard or placebo) have already been published and proved a clinically relevant efficacy or a clinically relevant benefit at justifiable risk; or if findings subsequent to admission procedure have been published allowing for scientifically verifiable statements on the quality and efficacy of the medication in the new application field, and if consent in relevant expert circles exists in the aforementioned sense because of said findings” (Joint Federal Committee).

This guideline presents evaluations of efficacy on the basis of clinical studies on smoking cessation and the well-known application risks. Often there are fewer data available for rare applications such as smoking cessation than for the main indication of the compound in question.

The decision to apply certain medications lies with the prescribing physician in each individual case. The physician can be held responsible for any consequences if an off-label medication causes damage to a patient. Strict liability on the part of the pharmaceutical company (according to paragraph 84, section 1, no. 1 of the German Drug Law) is explicitly provided only for medications that have already been admitted for that purpose. The prescribing physician has to inform the patient about the precise indication or the absence of admission of a medication as well as all application risks and side effects.

Source: http://www.g-ba.de/institution/sys/faq/78/ (February 15, 2014)

Prof. Dr. Anil Batra, Section for Addiction Research and Medicine, University Hospital Tübingen, Dept. of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Calwer Str. 14, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany, E-mail