Background Black-white differences in smoking abstinence are not well understood. This trial sought to confirm previously reported differences in quitting between blacks and whites and to identify factors underlying this difference. Methods During enrollment, 224 black and 225 white low-income smokers were stratified on race and within race on age and sex to ensure balance on these factors known to impact abstinence. The intervention included varenicline for 12 weeks and six guideline-based smoking cessation counseling sessions. The primary endpoint was cotinine-verified 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at week 26. A priori socioeconomic, smoking, treatment process (eg, treatment utilization, side effects, withdrawal relief), psychosocial, and biological factors were assessed to investigate race differences in abstinence. Unadjusted odds ratios (OR) were used to compare abstinence between blacks and whites. Adjusted odds ratios from logistic regression models were used to examine predictors of abstinence. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Blacks were less likely to achieve abstinence at week 26 (14.3% vs 24.4%, OR = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.32 to 0.83, P = .007). Utilizing best subsets logistic regression, five factors associated with race jointly predicted abstinence: home ownership (yes/no, OR = 3.03, 95% CI = 1.72 to 5.35, P < .001), study visits completed (range = 0–6, OR = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.88 to 4.20, P < .001), income (household member/$1000, OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.06, P = .02), plasma cotinine (per 1 ng/mL, OR = 0.997, 95% CI = 0.994 to 0.999, P = .002), and neighborhood problems (range = 10–30, OR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.81 to 0.96, P = .003). Conclusions The race difference in abstinence was fully explained by lack of home ownership, lower income, greater neighborhood problems, higher baseline cotinine, and higher visit completion, which were disproportionately represented among blacks. Findings illuminate factors that make it harder for blacks in the United States to quit smoking relative to whites and provide important areas for future studies to reduce tobacco-related health disparities.

Analyses indicated that discrimination is a common stressor associated with nicotine dependence. Findings suggest that greater nicotine dependence is a potential pathway through which discrimination may influence health.

This study suggests that stable smokers who currently use ECs possess characteristics that are associated with difficulty in achieving smoking cessation. These characteristics should be considered when examining the effectiveness of ECs on cessation and in designing future cessation trials using ECs.

Introduction Few hospitals treat patients’ tobacco dependence. To be effective, hospital-initiated cessation interventions must provide at least 1 month of supportive contact post-discharge. Study design Individually randomized clinical trial. Recruitment commenced July 2011; analyses were conducted October 2014–June 2015. Setting/participants The study was conducted in two large Midwestern hospitals. Participants included smokers who were aged ≥18 years, planned to stay quit after discharge, and spoke English or Spanish. Intervention Hospital-based cessation counselors delivered the intervention. For patients randomized to warm handoff, staff immediately called the quitline from the bedside and handed the phone to participants for enrollment and counseling. Participants randomized to fax were referred on the day of hospital discharge. Main outcome measures Outcomes at 6 months included quitline enrollment/adherence, medication use, biochemically verified cessation, and cost effectiveness. Results Significantly more warm handoff than fax participants enrolled in quitline (99.6% vs 59.6%; relative risk, 1.67; 95% CI=1.65, 1.68). One in four (25.4% warm handoff, 25.3% fax) were verified to be abstinent at 6-month follow-up; this did not differ significantly between groups (relative risk, 1.02; 95% CI=0.82, 1.24). Cessation medication use in the hospital and receipt of a prescription for medication at discharge did not differ between groups; however, significantly more fax participants reported using cessation medication post-discharge (32% vs 25%, p=0.01). The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of enrolling participants into warm handoff was $0.14. Hospital-borne costs were significantly lower in warm handoff than in fax ($5.77 vs $9.41, p<0.001). Conclusions One in four inpatient smokers referred to quitline by either method were abstinent at 6 months post-discharge. Among motivated smokers, fax referral and warm handoff are efficient and comparatively effective ways to link smokers with evidence-based care. For hospitals, warm handoff is a less expensive and more effective method for enrolling smokers in quitline services.