Simultaneous evaluation of abstinence and relapse using a Markov chain model in smokers enrolled in a two-year randomized trial

Hung-Wen Yeh, Edward F Ellerbeck, Jonathan D Mahnken, Hung-Wen Yeh, Edward F Ellerbeck, Jonathan D Mahnken

Abstract

Background: GEE and mixed models are powerful tools to compare treatment effects in longitudinal smoking cessation trials. However, they are not capable of assessing the relapse (from abstinent back to smoking) simultaneously with cessation, which can be studied by transition models.

Methods: We apply a first-order Markov chain model to analyze the transition of smoking status measured every 6 months in a 2-year randomized smoking cessation trial, and to identify what factors are associated with the transition from smoking to abstinent and from abstinent to smoking. Missing values due to non-response are assumed non-ignorable and handled by the selection modeling approach.

Results: Smokers receiving high-intensity disease management (HDM), of male gender, lower daily cigarette consumption, higher motivation and confidence to quit, and having serious attempts to quit were more likely to become abstinent (OR = 1.48, 1.66, 1.03, 1.15, 1.09 and 1.34, respectively) in the next 6 months. Among those who were abstinent, lower income and stronger nicotine dependence (OR = 1.72 for ≤ vs. > 40 K and OR = 1.75 for first cigarette ≤ vs. > 5 min) were more likely to have relapse in the next 6 months.

Conclusions: Markov chain models allow investigation of dynamic smoking-abstinence behavior and suggest that relapse is influenced by different factors than cessation. The knowledge of treatments and covariates in transitions in both directions may provide guidance for designing more effective interventions on smoking cessation and relapse prevention.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00440115.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Transition probabilities of self-reported smoking status based on the available observations.

References

    1. Diggle P, Liang KY, Zeger SL. Analysis of Longitudinal Data. 2. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002.
    1. Hall SM, Delucchi KL, Velicer WF, Kahler CW, Ranger-Moore J, Hedeker D, Tsoh JY, Niaura R. Statistical analysis of randomized trials in tobacco treatment: longitudinal designs with dichomotous outcome. Nicotine Tob Res. 2001;3:193–202.
    1. Ross SM. Stochastic Process. 2. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1995.
    1. Ellerbeck EF, Mahnken JD, Cupertino AP, Cox LS, Greiner KA, Mussulman LM, Nazir N, Shireman TI, Resnicow K, Ahluwalia JS. Effect of Varying levels of disease management on smoking cessation: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:437–446.
    1. Yang X, Li J, Shoptaw S. Imputation-based strategies for clinical trial longitudinal data with nonignorable missing values. Stat Med. 2008;27:2826–2849. doi: 10.1002/sim.3111.
    1. Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin DB. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J Royal Stat Soc. B. 1977;39:1–38.
    1. Cox LS, Cupertino AP, Mussulman LM, Nazir N, Greiner KA, Mahnken JM, Ahluwalia JS, Ellerbeck EF. Design and baseline characteristics from the KAN-QUIT disease management intervention for rural smokers in primary care. Prev Med. 2008;47:200–205. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.04.013.
    1. Bhat UN, Miller GK. Elements of Applied Stochastic Processes. 3. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2002.
    1. Chen B, Yi GY, Cook RJ. Progressive multi-state models for informatively incomplete longitudinal data. J of Stat Plan Infer. 2011;141:80–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jspi.2010.05.014.
    1. Little RJ, Rubin DB. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. 2. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2002.
    1. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 1994.
    1. Fitzmaurice GM, Heath AF, Clifford P. Logistic regression models for binary panel data with attrition. J Royal Stat Soc. A. 1996;159:249–263. doi: 10.2307/2983172.
    1. Fitzmaurice GM, Lipsitz SR, Molenberghs G, Ibrahim JG. A protective estimator for longitudinal binary data subject to non-ignorable non-monotone missingness. J Royal Stat Soc. A. 2005;168:723–735. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2005.00374.x.
    1. Ibraham JG, Chen MH, Lipsitz SR. Missing responses in generalised linear mixed models when the missing data mechanism is nonignorable. Biometrika. 2001;82:551–564.
    1. Cox LS, Wick JA, Nazir N, Cupertino AP, Mussulman LM, Ahluwalia JS, Ellerbeck EF. Predictors of early versus late smoking abstinence within a 24-month disease management program. Nicotine Tob Res. 2011;13:215–220. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntq227.
    1. Li YP, Chan W. Analysis of longitudinal multinomial outcome data. Biom J. 2006;48(2):319–326. doi: 10.1002/bimj.200510187.
    1. Schafer J. Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 1997.
    1. Yeh HW, Chan W, Symanski E. Intermittent missing observations in discrete-time hidden markov models. Stat Commu Comp Simu. 2012;41:167–181. doi: 10.1080/03610918.2011.581778.
    1. Enders CK. A Premier on the use of modern missing-data methods in psychosomatic medicine research. Psychosom Med. 2006;68:427–436. doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000221275.75056.d8.
    1. Yeh HW, Chan W, Symanski E, Davis BR. Estimating transition probabilities for ignorable intermittent missing data in a discrete-time Markov chain. Stat Commu Comp Simu. 2010;39:433–448.
    1. Martin RA, Velicer WF, Fava JL. Latent transition analysis to the stages of change for smoking cessation. Addict Behav. 1996;21:67–80. doi: 10.1016/0306-4603(95)00037-2.
    1. Velicer WF, Martin RA, Collins LM. Latent transition analysis for longitudinal data. Addiction. 1996;91:S197–S209. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1996.tb02339.x.
    1. Delucchi KL, Weisner C. Transitioning into and out of problem drinking: A 7-year, 5-wave study. Alcoh Clinic Exper Res. 2007;31:61A–61A. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2006.00288.x.
    1. Lanza ST, Collins LM. A new SAS procedure for latent transition analysis: transitions in dating and sexual risk behavior. Dev Psychol. 2008;44(2):446–456. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.446.

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel