Combination varenicline and bupropion SR for tobacco-dependence treatment in cigarette smokers: a randomized trial

Enhancing translation: A need to leverage complex preclinical models of addictive drugs to accelerate substance use treatment options

Preclinical models of addictive drugs have been developed for decades to model aspects of the clinical experience in substance use disorders (SUDs). These include passive exposure as well as volitional intake models across addictive drugs and have been utilized to also measure withdrawal symptomatology and potential neurobehavioral mechanisms underlying relapse to drug seeking or taking. There are a number of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medications for SUDs, however, many demonstrate low clinical efficacy as well as potential sex differences, and we also note gaps in the continuum of care for certain aspects of clinical experiences in individuals who use drugs. In this review, we provide a comprehensive update on both frequently utilized and novel behavioral models of addiction with a focus on translational value to the clinical experience and highlight the need for preclinical research to follow epidemiological trends in drug use patterns to stay abreast of clinical treatment needs. We then note areas in which models could be improved to enhance the medications development pipeline through efforts to enhance translation of preclinical models. Next, we describe neuroscience efforts that can be leveraged to identify novel biological mechanisms to enhance medications development efforts for SUDs, focusing specifically on advances in brain transcriptomics approaches that can provide comprehensive screening and identification of novel targets. Together, the confluence of this review demonstrates the need for careful selection of behavioral models and methodological parameters that better approximate the clinical experience combined with cutting edge neuroscience techniques to advance the medications development pipeline for SUDs.

Efficacy of bupropion and varenicline genetic markers in choosing pharmacological treatment for smoking cessation, and implications for combining drugs: A randomized controlled trial - GENTSMOKING

INTRODUCTION

Smoking cessation is the best strategy for reducing tobacco-related morbimortality. The goal of this randomized controlled trial was to test whether using the genetically favorable markers to choose a smoking cessation drug treatment (precision medicine) was superior to using the most effective drug (varenicline) in terms of abstinence rates. Additionally, combination therapy was tested when monotherapy failed.

METHODS

This partially blind, single-center study randomized (1:1) 361 participants into two major groups. In the genetic group (n=184), CYP2B6 rs2279343 (genotype AA) participants started treatment with bupropion, and CHRNA4 rs1044396 (genotype CT or TT) participants started treatment with varenicline; when genetic favorable to both, participants started treatment with bupropion, and when favorable to neither, on both drugs. In the control group (n=177), participants started treatment with varenicline, regardless of genetic markers. Drug treatment lasted 12 weeks. Efficacy endpoints were abstinence rates at Weeks 4, and Weeks 8-12, biochemically validated by carbon monoxide in exhaled air. Participants who did not achieve complete abstinence at Week 4, regardless of group, were given the choice to receive combination therapy.

RESULTS

Abstinence rates were 42.9% (95% CI: 36-64) in the control group versus 30.4% (95% CI: 23-37) in the genetic group at Week 4 (p=0.01); and 74% (95% CI: 67-80) versus 52% (95% CI: 49-64) at Week 12 (p<0.001), respectively. The strategy of combining drugs after Week 4 increased abstinence rates in both groups and the significant difference between genetic and control groups was maintained.

CONCLUSIONS

Results show that using these selected genetic markers was inferior to starting treatment with varenicline (control group), which is currently the most effective smoking cessation drug; moreover, the addition of bupropion in cases of varenicline monotherapy failure improves the efficacy rate until the end of treatment.

CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER

NCT03362099.

Combining varenicline preloading with Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) in persons with serious mental illness who smoke: The randomized ACTSLow pilot feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

People with serious mental illness (SMI; bipolar [BD] or schizophrenia spectrum disorders [SSD]) who smoke have 30-60% lower odds of quitting and are more prone to experience neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs) when quitting than smokers without SMI. We pilot-tested the feasibility of combining two different dosing strategies of varenicline preloading with Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) in persons with SMI in an attempt to bolster quit rates without increasing NPSAEs.

METHODS

Twelve-week, single center, randomized, double-blind, pilot feasibility trial of low (0.5mg twice daily, slower titration) versus standard dose (1.0mg twice daily, standard titration) varenicline in persons with BD or SSD with a 12-week follow-up. All participants received up to 10 sessions of ACT for smoking cessation. Participants were asked to preload with varenicline while still smoking and set a flexible target quit day (TQD) by day 35.

RESULTS

Recruitment was hampered by shutdowns related to COVID-19 and the worldwide varenicline recall, respectively. Retention goals were met. Treatment satisfaction was high across both dosing and diagnostic groups. Most participants (92.9%) adhered to preloading instructions and the flexible TQD. Seven-day point prevalence abstinence at week 12 was highest in BD participants (37.5%) but lowest in SSD participants (16.7%) who received the standard dose. Medication was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Although recruitment was hindered by unanticipated world events, feasibility was demonstrated. Participants adhered to and were highly satisfied with the combination of pre-cessation varenicline plus ACT. Findings support testing this combined treatment approach in a fully powered trial of persons with BD who smoke.

The efficacy of tobacco cessation treatment for African American adults: a systematic review

Despite proliferation of evidence-based tobacco cessation treatments, African American adults still suffer higher rates of tobacco-related diseases than White adults. Although tobacco cessation treatment is efficacious, there is a need to reassess the efficacy of tobacco cessation treatment for African American adults. Previous reviews of tobacco cessation treatment studies conducted through 2007 among African American adults highlight the limited research in this area and inconsistent findings on treatment characteristics impacting efficacy. This systematic review examined the efficacy of combined behavioral and pharmacological tobacco cessation treatment for African American adults. Database searches were used to identify studies examining tobacco cessation treatment for predominantly African American samples (>50%). Eligible studies were completed between 2007 and 2021 and (i) involved randomization comparing active combined treatment to a control comparison group and (ii) reported abstinence outcomes at 6 and/or 12 months. Ten studies met inclusion criteria. Active treatment groups typically consisted of a combination of nicotine replacement therapy and behavioral counseling. Abstinence rates for African American adults ranged from 10.0% to 34% in active treatment groups compared to 0.0%-40% in comparison control groups. Our results support the efficacy of combined treatment for tobacco cessation among African American adults. However, cessation rates for African American adults found in this review are lower than those in the general adult population (15%-88%). Additionally, our findings highlight the limited number of studies examining African American tobacco cessation rates and testing of tailored treatment for this population.

Adaptive Smoking Cessation Using Precessation Varenicline or Nicotine Patch: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Adaptive pharmacotherapy, ie, starting a medication regimen and then modifying that regimen based on patient response, is common in many medical domains but is not common in smoking cessation. Recently, studies have found that adaptive treatment using precessation nicotine patches is efficacious for smoking cessation; however, adaptive treatment using precessation varenicline and adaptive treatment in clinical practice settings have not been fully assessed.

Objective

To determine whether adaptive pharmacotherapy leads to higher smoking abstinence rates than standard pharmacotherapy in a clinical practice setting.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This double-blinded stratified placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial compared adaptive treatment with standard treatment for smoking cessation. The study was conducted at a university health system in Durham, North Carolina, from February 2018 to May 2020 and was stopped early due to COVID-19. Data were analyzed as intent-to-treat from May 24, 2021, to February 27, 2022.

Interventions

Participants were allowed to choose varenicline or nicotine patches and were then randomized to adaptive or nonadaptive (standard) treatment. Participants started on their chosen medication (adaptive) or placebo (standard) 4 weeks before their target quit day. Two weeks later, participants were assessed for treatment response. Adaptive participants who did not decrease daily cigarettes smoked by at least 50% (nonresponders) received bupropion in addition to their chosen medication. Participants in the adaptative treatment group who did decrease daily cigarettes smoked by at least 50% (responders) and participants in the standard treatment group received additional placebo bupropion. Participants in the standard treatment group received varenicline starting 1 week before the target quit date or nicotine patches starting on the target quit day. All participants received brief behavioral support.

Main Outcome and Measures

The main outcome was biochemically verified 30-day continuous smoking abstinence 12 weeks after their target quit smoking day. Other measures included demographic characteristics, smoking history, and repeated smoking assessments.

Results

Of the planned 300 participants, a total of 188 participants (mean [SD] age, 49.1 [12.5] years; 102 [54%] female) were enrolled before the trial was stopped because of the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 127 participants chose to use varenicline, including 64 randomized to adaptive treatment and 63 randomized to standard treatment, and 61 participants chose to use nicotine patches, including 31 randomized to adaptive treatment and 30 randomized to standard treatment. At baseline, participants smoked a mean (SD) of 15.4 (7.3) cigarettes per day. At 12 weeks after the target quit day, biochemically verified 30-day continuous smoking abstinence was observed in 23 of 95 participants (24%) in the adaptive treatment group and 8 of 93 participants (9%) in the standard treatment (odds ratio [OR], 3.38; 95% CI, 1.43-7.99; P = .004); among participants who used varenicline, 30-day continuous abstinence was 18 participants (28%) in the adaptive treatment group, and 5 participants (8%) in the standard treatment group (OR, 4.54; 95% CI, 1.57-13.15); among participants who used nicotine patches, 30-day continuous abstinence was 5 participants (16%) in the adaptive treatment group and 3 participants (10%) in the standard treatment group (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 0.38-7.99). Sleep problems were more common for participants in the varenicline adaptive treatment group than in the varenicline standard treatment group (rate ratio, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.18-2.58; P = .03).

Conclusions and Relevance

This randomized clinical trial found that adaptive pharmacotherapy was efficacious for smoking cessation treatment in a practice setting.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02501265.

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS): A convenient means of smoking?

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), which are becoming increasingly popular in many parts of the world, have recently become more sophisticated in terms of their more active content and better controlled vaporisation. This review begins by describing how cigarette smoking led to the development of ENDS as a means of combatting nicotine addiction. ENDS are usually categorised as belonging to one of only three main generations, but a fourth has been added in order to differentiate the latest, most powerful, most advanced and innovative that have improved heating efficiency. Descriptions of the principal substances contained in ENDS are followed by considerations concerning the risk of toxicity due to the presence of albeit low concentrations of such a variety of compounds inhaled over a long time, and the increasingly widespread use of ENDS as a means of smoking illicit drugs. We also review the most widely used pharmacotherapeutic approaches to smoking cessation, and recent epidemiological data showing that ENDS can help some people to stop smoking. However, in order to ensure their appropriate regulation, there is a need for higher-quality evidence concerning the health effects and safety of ENDS, and their effectiveness in discouraging tobacco smoking.

Efficacy of insula deep repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with varenicline for smoking cessation: A randomized, double-blind, sham controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Current smoking cessation treatments are limited in terms of efficacy, particularly with regards to long term abstinence. There is a large amount of evidence implicating the insula in nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy of bilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) directed to the insular cortex with the H11 coil, relative to sham stimulation, on smoking abstinence and smoking outcomes in smokers who are receiving standard varenicline treatment.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, sham controlled trial recruited 42 participants who were randomized to receive either active (n = 24) or sham (n = 18) high frequency rTMS directed to the insula (4 weeks), while receiving varenicline treatment (12 weeks). The primary outcome was 7-day point prevalence abstinence at the end of 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Smokers in the active group had significantly higher abstinence rates than those in the sham group (82.4% vs. 30.7%, p = 0.013) at the end of treatment (Week 12). Secondary outcome measures of abstinence rate at the end of rTMS treatment (Week 4), abstinence rate at 6 months, and smoking outcomes (e.g., craving, withdrawal) showed no significant differences between groups. No differences were found in adverse events reported between the groups.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence of the potential benefit of having a combined treatment for smoking cessation using insula rTMS with the H11 coil and varenicline. Maintenance rTMS sessions and continuation of varenicline for those in abstinence may induce longer-term effects and should be considered in future studies.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

Background

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. 

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e‐cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow‐up period of six months from baseline.

Data collection and analysis

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow‐up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel‐Haenszel fixed‐effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs).

Main results

We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk.

We found moderate‐certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I2 = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low‐certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I2 = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate‐certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I2 = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I2 = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low‐certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm.

Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline found no clear evidence of difference in quit rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.26; I2 = 65%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I2 = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low‐certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I2 = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I2 = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low‐certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I2 = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual‐form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low‐certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit.

Authors' conclusions

Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual‐form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be no difference or a benefit from either medication for quitting smoking.

Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard‐dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e‐cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Can medications like varenicline and cytisine (nicotine receptor partial agonists) help people to stop smoking and do they cause unwanted effects?

Key messages

· Varenicline can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. Evidence shows it works better than bupropion and using only one type of nicotine replacement therapy (e.g. only patches). Quit rates might be similar to using more than one type of nicotine replacement therapy at the same time (e.g. patches and gum together).

· Cytisine can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. It may work as well as varenicline, but future evidence may show that while it helps, it is not quite as helpful as varenicline.

· Future studies should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other stop‐smoking medications, and should also  investigate giving cytisine or varenicline at different doses and for different lengths of time.

What are 'nicotine receptor partial agonists'?

Smoking tobacco is extremely bad for people’s health. For people who smoke, quitting is the best thing they can do to improve their health. Many people find it difficult to quit smoking. Nicotine receptor partial agonists (NRPAs) are a type of medication used to help people to stop smoking. They help to reduce the withdrawal symptoms people experience when they stop smoking, like cravings and unpleasant mood changes. They also reduce the pleasure people usually experience when they smoke. The most widely‐available treatment in this drug type is varenicline. Cytisine is another, similar medication. They may cause unwanted effects such as feeling sick (nausea) and other stomach problems, difficulties sleeping, abnormal dreams, and headache. They may also lead to potentially serious unwanted effects, such as suicidal thoughts, heart problems and raised blood pressure.

What did we want to find out?

We wanted to find out if using NRPAs can help people to quit smoking, and if they cause unwanted effects. We wanted to know:

· how many people stopped smoking for at least 6 months; and

· how many people had unwanted effects.

What did we do?

We searched for studies that investigated NRPAs used to help people quit smoking. People in the studies had to be chosen at random to receive an NRPA, or another NRPA, placebo (medication like the NRPA but with no active ingredients) or no treatment. They had to be adult tobacco smokers who wanted to stop smoking.

What did we find?

We found 75 studies that compared NRPAs with:

· placebo or no medicine;

· nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches or gum;

· bupropion (another medicine to help people stop smoking);

· another NRPA;

· e‐cigarettes.

The USA hosted the most studies (28 studies). Other studies took place in a range of countries across the world, some in several countries.

Main results

People are more likely to stop smoking for at least six months using varenicline than using placebo (41 studies, 17,395 people), bupropion (9 studies, 7560 people), or just one type of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches alone (11 studies, 7572 people). They may be just as likely to quit as people using two or more kinds of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches and gum together (5 studies, 2344 people).

Cytisine probably helps more people to stop smoking than placebo (4 studies, 4623 people) and may be just as effective as varenicline (2 studies, 2131 people).

For every 100 people using varenicline to stop smoking, 21 to 25 might successfully stop, compared with only 18 of 100 people using bupropion, 18 of 100 people using a single form of nicotine‐replacement therapy, and 20 of 100 using two or more kinds of nicotine‐replacement therapy. For every 100 people using cytisine to stop smoking, 18 to 23 might successfully stop.

The most common unwanted effect of varenicline is nausea, but this is mostly at mild or moderate levels and usually clears over time. People taking varenicline likely have an increased chance of a more serious unwanted effect that could result in going to hospital, however these are still rare (2.7% to 4% of people on varenicline, compared with 2.7% of people without) and may include many that are unrelated to varenicline. People taking cytisine may also have a slightly increased chance of serious unwanted effects compared with people not taking it, but this may be less likely compared with varenicline.

What are the limitations of the evidence?

The evidence for some of our results is very reliable. We’re very confident that varenicline helps people to quit smoking better than many alternatives. We’re less sure of some other results because fewer or smaller studies provided evidence.

Several results suggest one treatment is better or less harmful than another, but the opposite could still be true.

How up to date is the evidence?

The evidence is up to date to 29 April 2022.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied. However, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco: nicotine withdrawal can produce short-term low mood that antidepressants may relieve; and some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, harms, and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, most recently on 29 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people who smoked, comparing antidepressant medications with placebo or no pharmacological treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used differently. We excluded trials with fewer than six months of follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length for our analyses of harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months' follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Our secondary outcomes were harms and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropouts due to treatment. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 124 studies (48,832 participants) in this review, with 10 new studies added to this update version. Most studies recruited adults from the community or from smoking cessation clinics; four studies focused on adolescents (with participants between 12 and 21 years old). We judged 34 studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not change clinical interpretation of the results.  There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased smoking cessation rates when compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.49 to 1.72; I2 = 16%; 50 studies, 18,577 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that a combination of bupropion and varenicline may have resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I2 = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence to establish whether a combination of bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; I2 = 43%; 15 studies, 4117 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was moderate-certainty evidence that participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs than those taking placebo or no pharmacological treatment. However, results were imprecise and the CI also encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 23 studies, 10,958 participants). Results were also imprecise when comparing SAEs between people randomised to a combination of bupropion and NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.89; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 657 participants) and randomised to bupropion plus varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.42; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1268 participants). In both cases, we judged evidence to be of low certainty. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to AEs than placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.65; I2 = 2%; 25 studies, 12,346 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence that bupropion combined with NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 737 participants) or bupropion combined with varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.45; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1230 participants) had an impact on the number of dropouts due to treatment. In both cases, imprecision was substantial (we judged the evidence to be of low certainty for both comparisons). Bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.80; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7564 participants), and to combination NRT (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 720 participants). However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and single-form NRT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 7613 participants). We also found evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I2 = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), and some evidence that bupropion resulted in superior quit rates to nortriptyline (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants), although this result was subject to imprecision. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion may increase SAEs (moderate-certainty evidence when compared to placebo/no pharmacological treatment). There is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with people receiving placebo or no pharmacological treatment. Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo, although bupropion may be more effective. Evidence also suggests that bupropion may be as successful as single-form NRT in helping people to quit smoking, but less effective than combination NRT and varenicline. In most cases, a paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions regarding harms and tolerability. Further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over other licensed smoking cessation treatments; namely, NRT and varenicline. However, it is important that future studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation measure and report on harms and tolerability.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e-cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from baseline.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk. We found moderate-certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I² = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low-certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I² = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I² = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I² = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low-certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I² = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low-certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm. Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline showed that more people in the varenicline arm quit smoking (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I² = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I² = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I² = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I² = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I² = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual-form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low-certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I² not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I² not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual-form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be a benefit from varenicline for quitting smoking, however further evidence could strengthen this finding or demonstrate a benefit from cytisine. Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard-dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Meta-analysis of the effects of smoking and smoking cessation on triglyceride levels

Smoking increases lipid levels, including triglycerides, leading to increased cardiovascular disease risk. We performed a meta-analysis to quantify the effects of smoking and smoking cessation on triglyceride levels. The PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to identify studies reporting either triglyceride levels in smokers and non-smokers or the effects of smoking cessation on triglyceride levels. Fixed- and random-effects models were used to perform the analyses when three or more studies/comparisons were available. We identified 169 and 21 studies evaluating the effects of smoking and smoking cessation, respectively, on triglyceride levels. Triglyceride levels were 0.50 mmol/L (95% confidence interval: 0.49-0.50 mmol/L) higher in smokers than non-smokers, but the effect differed widely across studies. No statistically significant effect was observed on triglyceride levels between baseline and 6 weeks (mean difference [MD] = 0.02 [-0.09, 0.12] mmol/L), 2 months (MD = 0.03 [-0.21, 0.27] mmol/L), 3 months (MD = 0.08 [-0.03, 0.21] mmol/L), or 1 year (MD = 0.04 [-0.06, 0.14] mmol/L) after quitting. However, a slightly significant decrease in triglyceride levels was observed at 1 month after cessation (MD = -0.15 [-0.15, -0.01] mmol/L). The results of this meta-analysis provide a basis for understanding the effects of smoking and smoking cessation on triglyceride levels, which could have important implications for public health.

Varenicline and related interventions on smoking cessation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Based on randomized controlled trials, a network meta-analysis was conducted to compare treatment effects across varenicline and related smoking interventions.

METHODS

English databases were screened for randomized controlled trials reporting the effect of varenicline as treatment for smoking. The risk of bias in included trials was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook tool. Stata 15.1 software was used to perform network meta-analysis, and the GRADE approach was used to assess the evidence credibility on the tobacco treatment effects of different interventions.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies involving 26,130 smokers were included in the network meta-analysis. Varenicline and 11 other interventions were reported, yielding 66 pairs of comparisons. Network meta-analysis showed that varenicline monotherapy or its combination with other interventions were superior in achieving smoking cessation compared to bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy, counselling, and placebo. Furthermore, compared to the varenicline, evident abstinence superiority was found in varenicline + bupropion (odds ratio = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [1.02, 2.18]). Finally, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value indicated that varenicline + bupropion has the highest probability to become the best intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline monotherapy increased the odds of smoking cessation further than bupropion monotherapy, nicotine replacement therapy, counselling, and placebo, while varenicline combined with other interventions may even achieve a better abstinence effect. More credible evidence has been reported indicating that the combination of varenicline and bupropion is a superior treatment for smoking.

Nicotine Addiction: A Burning Issue in Addiction Psychiatry

Addressing nicotine addiction has been given a low priority, compared with other substance use disorders (SUDs), by the addiction treatment field. Persons with nicotine addiction are reluctant to attempt to stop using nicotine products-despite recognizing it to be a problem-because they are feeling discouraged by multiple past unsuccessful attempts at quitting. By understanding that discouragement is a frequent reason that these people are in Precontemplation and by using traditional clinical interventions applied to other SUDs, clinicians could achieve better overall treatment outcomes.

The effect of Varenicline and Bupropion on smoking cessation: A network meta-analysis of 20 randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to investigate the effect of varenicline (VAR), bupropion (BUP), and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) on smoking cessation.

METHODS

Eight databases were searched in May 2021, and only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using varenicline, bupropion, or NRT (single or combined) for smoking cessation were included. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook tool. Stata 15.1 software was used to perform NMA, and the quality of the evidence was evaluated using Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA).

FINDINGS

Twenty RCTs involving 16,702 smokers were included. The risk of bias results showed that 10 RCTs were rated as high, three were low, and seven were unclear. A total of 21 pairs were compared based on seven interventions. The NMA showed that, compared to the placebo (PLA), the other six interventions had significant efficacy in smoking cessation, where VAR + BUP showed the best effect of all treatments (odds ratio (OR) = 6.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) [3.47, 10.66]). Moreover, VAR + BUP was superior to VAR + NRT (OR = 1.66, 95% CI [1.07, 2.59]) and the three monotherapies (VAR, BUP, and NRT). In the monotherapies, the results of pairwise comparisons of VAR, BUP, and NRT did not show significant differences. Finally, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value indicated that VAR + BUP had the greatest probability of becoming the best intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of VAR, BUP, and NRT alone increased the odds of smoking abstinence better than the placebo, combined interventions were superior to monotherapy, and VAR combined with other interventions had a better smoking cessation effect.

Combined Working Memory Training and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Demonstrates Low Feasibility and Potentially Worse Outcomes on Delay to Smoking and Cognitive Tasks: A Randomized 2 × 2 Factorial Design Pilot and Feasibility Study

INTRODUCTION

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) has shown promising results in treating several Substance Use Disorders including Tobacco Use Disorder. However, questions remain regarding how to optimize treatment outcomes. Enhancement of working memory by rTMS is a potential therapeutic mechanism. The current pilot study examined whether rTMS plus a cognitive training program could enhance the effects of rTMS on smoking behaviors using a controlled, factorial design.

AIMS AND METHODS

We hypothesized that cognitive training plus stimulation would improve control over smoking behaviors, resulting in enhanced cognitive performance and increased latency to smoke on a delay to smoking analog task. Using a 2 × 2 factorial design, nicotine dependent smokers (n = 43) were randomized to receive 10 sessions of active (10 Hz) or sham rTMS delivered to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, plus active or sham working memory training (WMT) prior to and following stimulation.

RESULTS

Contrary to hypotheses, we observed a significant interaction effect, indicating that combining the two active interventions (rTMS+WMT) resulted in worse performance on the smoking analog task (B = -33.0, 95% CI = -64.39, -1.61, p < .05), compared to delivering either intervention alone. Additionally, although active rTMS (compared to sham rTMS) improved letter-sequencing performance (B = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.08-2.38, p < .05), and active WMT (compared to sham WMT) improved back-digit task performance (B = 1.53, 95% CI = 0.02-3.05, p < .05), combining interventions worsened the effect of each on a back-digit task (B = -3.01, 95% CI = -5.96, -0.052, p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

These preliminary findings indicate potential iatrogenic effects of combining rTMS and this working memory training intervention and underscore the need for rigorous evaluation of substance specific conceptual frameworks when selecting future combination interventions.

IMPLICATIONS

Counter to hypothesis, this study found no additional benefit of adding a working memory training program to a rTMS protocol in a sample of daily smokers. The combination condition (active rTMS + active training) resulted in worse performance on a delay to smoking analog task and a measure of working memory performance compared to delivering either intervention alone. These preliminary findings inform strategies for optimizing rTMS in smokers and highlight the need for future studies to consider several key components of candidate combination interventions, including effects on regulation of substance use.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION (IF ANY)

The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03337113).

Treatment of Tobacco Smoking: A Review

IMPORTANCE

More deaths in the US are attributed to cigarette smoking each year than to any other preventable cause. Approximately 34 million people and an estimated 14% of adults in the US smoke cigarettes. If they stopped smoking, they could reduce their risk of tobacco-related morbidity and mortality and potentially gain up to 10 years of life.

OBSERVATIONS

Tobacco smoking is a chronic disorder maintained by physical nicotine dependence and learned behaviors. Approximately 70% of people who smoke cigarettes want to quit smoking. However, individuals who attempt to quit smoking make an average of approximately 6 quit attempts before achieving long-term abstinence. Both behavioral counseling and pharmacotherapy while using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products, varenicline, or bupropion are effective treatments when used individually, but they are most effective when combined. In a meta-analysis including 19 488 people who smoked cigarettes, the combination of medication and behavioral counseling was associated with a quit rate of 15.2% over 6 months compared with a quit rate of 8.6% with brief advice or usual care. The EAGLES trial, a randomized double-blind clinical trial of 8144 people who smoked, directly compared the efficacy and safety of varenicline, bupropion, nicotine patch, and placebo and found a significantly higher 6-month quit rate for varenicline (21.8%) than for bupropion (16.2%) and the nicotine patch (15.7%). Each therapy was more effective than placebo (9.4%). Combining a nicotine patch with other NRT products is more effective than use of a single NRT product. Combining drugs with different mechanisms of action, such as varenicline and NRT, has increased quit rates in some studies compared with use of a single product. Brief or intensive behavioral support can be delivered effectively in person or by telephone, text messages, or the internet. The combination of a clinician's brief advice to quit and assistance to obtain tobacco cessation treatment is effective when routinely administered to tobacco users in virtually all health care settings.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Approximately 34 million people in the US smoke cigarettes and could potentially gain up to a decade of life expectancy by stopping smoking. First-line therapy should include both pharmacotherapy and behavioral support, with varenicline or combination NRT as preferred initial interventions.

Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes.

DESIGN

Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results.

SETTING

Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events.

DATA SOURCES

Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model.

RESULTS

Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard.

LIMITATIONS

Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK.

FUTURE WORK

Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Most people who stop smoking gain weight. This can discourage some people from making a quit attempt and risks offsetting some, but not all, of the health advantages of quitting. Interventions to prevent weight gain could improve health outcomes, but there is a concern that they may undermine quitting.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effects of: (1) interventions targeting post-cessation weight gain on weight change and smoking cessation (referred to as 'Part 1') and (2) interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that plausibly affect post-cessation weight gain (referred to as 'Part 2').

SEARCH METHODS

Part 1 - We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; latest search 16 October 2020. Part 2 - We searched included studies in the following 'parent' Cochrane reviews: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, e-cigarettes, and exercise interventions for smoking cessation published in Issue 10, 2020 of the Cochrane Library. We updated register searches for the review of nicotine receptor partial agonists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Part 1 - trials of interventions that targeted post-cessation weight gain and had measured weight at any follow-up point or smoking cessation, or both, six or more months after quit day. Part 2 - trials included in the selected parent Cochrane reviews reporting weight change at any time point.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. Change in weight was expressed as difference in weight change from baseline to follow-up between trial arms and was reported only in people abstinent from smoking. Abstinence from smoking was expressed as a risk ratio (RR). Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the inverse variance method for weight, and Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking.

MAIN RESULTS

Part 1: We include 37 completed studies; 21 are new to this update. We judged five studies to be at low risk of bias, 17 to be at unclear risk and the remainder at high risk.  An intermittent very low calorie diet (VLCD) comprising full meal replacement provided free of charge and accompanied by intensive dietitian support significantly reduced weight gain at end of treatment compared with education on how to avoid weight gain (mean difference (MD) -3.70 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.82 to -2.58; 1 study, 121 participants), but there was no evidence of benefit at 12 months (MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI -3.49 to 0.89; 1 study, 62 participants). The VLCD increased the chances of abstinence at 12 months (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73; 1 study, 287 participants). However, a second study  found that no-one completed the VLCD intervention or achieved abstinence. Interventions aimed at increasing acceptance of weight gain reported mixed effects at end of treatment, 6 months and 12 months with confidence intervals including both increases and decreases in weight gain compared with no advice or health education. Due to high heterogeneity, we did not combine the data. These interventions increased quit rates at 6 months (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.96; 4 studies, 619 participants; I² = 21%), but there was no evidence at 12 months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.06; 2 studies, 496 participants; I² = 26%). Some pharmacological interventions tested for limiting post-cessation weight gain (PCWG) reduced weight gain at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine, phenylpropanolamine, naltrexone). The effects of ephedrine and caffeine combined, lorcaserin, and chromium were too imprecise to give useful estimates of treatment effects. There was very low-certainty evidence that personalized weight management support reduced weight gain at end of treatment (MD -1.11 kg, 95% CI -1.93 to -0.29; 3 studies, 121 participants; I² = 0%), but no evidence in the longer-term 12 months (MD -0.44 kg, 95% CI -2.34 to 1.46; 4 studies, 530 participants; I² = 41%). There was low to very low-certainty evidence that detailed weight management education without personalized assessment, planning and feedback did not reduce weight gain and may have reduced smoking cessation rates (12 months: MD -0.21 kg, 95% CI -2.28 to 1.86; 2 studies, 61 participants; I² = 0%; RR for smoking cessation 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90; 2 studies, 522 participants; I² = 0%). Part 2: We include 83 completed studies, 27 of which are new to this update. There was low certainty that exercise interventions led to minimal or no weight reduction compared with standard care at end of treatment (MD -0.25 kg, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.29; 4 studies, 404 participants; I² = 0%). However, weight was reduced at 12 months (MD -2.07 kg, 95% CI -3.78 to -0.36; 3 studies, 182 participants; I² = 0%). Both bupropion and fluoxetine limited weight gain at end of treatment (bupropion MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.67; 10 studies, 1098 participants; I² = 3%); (fluoxetine MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.53; 2 studies, 144 participants; I² = 38%; low- and very low-certainty evidence, respectively). There was no evidence of benefit at 12 months for bupropion, but estimates were imprecise (bupropion MD -0.26 kg, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.78; 7 studies, 471 participants; I² = 0%). No studies of fluoxetine provided data at 12 months. There was moderate-certainty that NRT reduced weight at end of treatment (MD -0.52 kg, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.05; 21 studies, 2784 participants; I² = 81%) and moderate-certainty that the effect may be similar at 12 months (MD -0.37 kg, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.11; 17 studies, 1463 participants; I² = 0%), although the estimates are too imprecise to assess long-term benefit. There was mixed evidence of the effect of varenicline on weight, with high-certainty evidence that weight change was very modestly lower at the end of treatment (MD -0.23 kg, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.06; 14 studies, 2566 participants; I² = 32%); a low-certainty estimate gave an imprecise estimate of higher weight at 12 months (MD 1.05 kg, 95% CI -0.58 to 2.69; 3 studies, 237 participants; I² = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is no intervention for which there is moderate certainty of a clinically useful effect on long-term weight gain. There is also no moderate- or high-certainty evidence that interventions designed to limit weight gain reduce the chances of people achieving abstinence from smoking.

Determination of shared genetic etiology and possible causal relations between tobacco smoking and depression

BACKGROUNDS

Cigarette smoking is strongly associated with major depressive disorder (MDD). However, any genetic etiology of such comorbidity and causal relations is poorly understood, especially at the genome-wide level.

METHODS

In the present in silico research, we analyzed summary data from the genome-wide association study of the Psychiatric Genetic Consortium for MDD (n = 191 005) and UK Biobank for smoking (n = 337 030) by using various biostatistical methods including Bayesian colocalization analysis, LD score regression, variant effect size correlation analysis, and Mendelian randomization (MR).

RESULTS

By adopting a gene prioritization approach, we identified 43 genes shared by MDD and smoking, which were significantly enriched in membrane potential, gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor activity, and retrograde endocannabinoid signaling pathways, indicating that the comorbid mechanisms are involved in the neurotransmitter system. According to linkage disequilibrium score regression, we found a strong positive correlation between MDD and current smoking (rg = 0.365; p = 7.23 × 10-25) and a negative correlation between MDD and former smoking (rg = -0.298; p = 1.59 × 10-24). MR analysis suggested that genetic liability for depression increased smoking.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings inform the concomitant conditions of MDD and smoking and support the use of self-medication with smoking to counteract depression.

[Combinations of pharmacological treatments in smoking cessation. A systematic review]

INTRODUCTION

The effectiveness of the three validated smoking cessation medications, nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and bupropion, may be insufficient, in hard-core smokers.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review investigates the efficacy of combinations of different medications in smoking abstinence and their tolerability.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared the combined medications with varenicline and nicotine patches vs. varenicline; two found an increase in abstinence rates with the combined medications. In one study, the beneficial effect was only observed in heavy smokers. The four RCTs comparing the combined medications with varenicline and bupropion (vs. varenicline) demonstrated an increase in abstinence rates with the combined medications, most often in heavy smokers who are very dependent on tobacco. The results of the three RCTs comparing the combined medications with bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy vs. varenicline were discordant. Three studies included other molecules (mecamylamine, selegiline, sertraline, buspirone). Combined medications were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Combination treatments can achieve higher smoking abstinence rates than monotherapies, especially in smokers who have failed to quit (Hard-core smokers). Treatment with a combination of varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy is a therapeutic option in smoking cessation.

Cessation classification likelihood increases with higher expired-air carbon monoxide cutoffs: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Expired-air carbon monoxide (CO) is commonly used to biochemically verify smoking status. The CO cutoff and CO monitor brand may affect the probability of classifying smokers as abstinent, thus influencing conclusions about the efficacy of cessation trials. No systematic reviews have tested this hypothesis. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis examining whether the likelihood of smoking cessation classification varied due to CO cutoff and monitor brand.

METHODS

Eligible studies (k = 122) longitudinally assessed CO-verified cessation in adult smokers in randomized trials. Primary meta-regressions separately assessed differences in quit classification likelihood due to continuous and categorical CO cutoffs (Low, 3-4 parts per million [ppm]; [SRNT] Recommended, 5-6 ppm; Moderate, 7-8 ppm; and High, 9-10 ppm); exploratory analyses compared likelihood outcomes between monitor brands: Bedfont and Vitalograph.

RESULTS

The likelihood of quit classification increased 18% with each 1 ppm increase above the lowest cutoff (3 ppm). Odds of classification as quit significantly increased between each cutoff category and High: 261% increase from Low; 162% increase from Recommended; and 150% increase from Moderate. There were no differences in cessation classification between monitor brands.

CONCLUSIONS

As expected, higher CO cutoffs were associated with greater likelihood of cessation classification. The lack of CO monitor brand differences may have been due to model-level variance not able to be followed up in the present dataset. Researchers are advised to report outcomes using a range of cutoffs-including the recommended range (5-6 ppm)-and the CO monitor brand/model used. Using higher CO cutoffs significantly increases likelihood of quit classification, possibly artificially elevating treatment strategies.

Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation in healthy adults: A network meta-analysis

Smoking is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in different non-communicable diseases, and cessation leads to immense health benefits. The present network meta-analysis has been conducted to evaluate and compare the effects of available pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation in adults. A standard meta-analysis protocol was developed and after performing a comprehensive literature search on MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane databases, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, reviewers extracted data from 97 randomized controlled trials. PRISMA guidelines were followed in data extraction, analysis and reporting of findings. Random effects Bayesian network meta-analysis was done to pool the effects across the interventions. Network graph was built, and for closed triangles in the network graph, node splitting analysis was performed. The primary outcome measure was self-reported biochemically verified smoking abstinence at six months. The number of participants achieving continuous abstinence was reported. Data for the number of participants reporting at least one adverse event was also extracted, if available. Combination of nicotine receptor agonist and nicotine replacement therapy had a significant odd of 4.4 (95%CrI:2.2-8.7), bupropion and nicotine receptor agonist 4.0 (95%CrI:2.1-7.7), bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy 3.8 (95%CrI:2.3-6.2), combination nicotine replacement therapy has an odd of 2.6 (95%CrI:1.8-3.8), and nicotine receptor agonist had a significant odd of 2.7 (95%CrI:2.3-3.2) when compared to placebo (moderate quality of evidence) for continuous abstinence at 6 months. When compared with behavioural therapy, the odds ratio of interventions was not statistically significant. Combination of nicotine receptor agonist and nicotine replacement therapy has the highest probability of being the best treatment for abstinence from smoking.

Combined administration of varenicline and bupropion produces additive effects on accumbal dopamine and abolishes the alcohol deprivation effect in rats

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is detrimental to health and causes preterm death. Unfortunately, available pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments have small effect sizes, and improved treatments are needed. Smoking and AUD share heritability and are pharmacologically associated, since drug-induced dopamine (DA) output in nucleus accumbens (nAc) involves nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) in both cases. Smoking therapy agents, such as the partial nAChR agonist varenicline or the DA/noradrenaline transporter inhibitor bupropion, could potentially also be used for AUD. To investigate this hypothesis, the effects of varenicline, bupropion, or a combination of the two on nAc DA levels, ethanol intake, and the alcohol deprivation effect (ADE) were examined. In vivo microdialysis showed that varenicline (1.5 mg/kg) and bupropion (2.5, 5, or 10 mg/kg) elevated nAc DA levels and that the combination produced additive effects. Five days treatment with varenicline, bupropion, or the combination did not suppress ethanol consumption, as compared with vehicle-treated control. However, combined administration of varenicline and bupropion completely blocked the ADE when readministering ethanol following 14 days of abstinence. Since ADE is considered highly predictive for the clinical outcome in man, our data suggest that the combination of varenicline and bupropion could be a promising treatment for AUD.

Varenicline: mode of action, efficacy, safety and accumulated experience salient for clinical populations

Objective: Varenicline, a selective partial agonist of the α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, is a smoking cessation pharmacotherapy that more than doubles the chance of quitting smoking at 6 months compared with placebo. This article reviews salient knowledge of the discovery, pharmacological characteristics, and the efficacy and safety of varenicline in general and in specific populations of smokers and provides recommendations to support use in clinical practice.Methods: Literature searches for varenicline were conducted using PubMed, with date limitations of 2000-2018 inclusive, using search terms covering the discovery, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety in different populations of smokers, alternative quit approaches and combination therapy. Selection of safety and efficacy data was limited to clinical trials, meta-analyses and observational studies.Results: Standard administration of varenicline is efficacious in helping smokers to quit, including smokers with cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Furthermore, varenicline efficacy may be improved with pre-loading, a gradual quitting approach for smokers unwilling or unable to quit abruptly, and extended treatment in smokers who have recently quit to help maintain abstinence. Initial concerns regarding the association of varenicline with increased risk of neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular adverse events have been disproven after extensive clinical evaluations, and the benefit-risk profile of varenicline is considered favorable.Conclusions: Varenicline is efficacious and safe for all adult smokers with a range of clinical characteristics. Evidence suggests that approaches offering greater flexibility in timing and duration of treatment may further extend treatment efficacy and clinical reach.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Whilst the pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco. Firstly, nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms and antidepressants may relieve these. Additionally, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, safety and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Specialized Register, which includes reports of trials indexed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO, clinicaltrials.gov, the ICTRP, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in May 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited smokers, and compared antidepressant medications with placebo or no treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used in a different way. We excluded trials with less than six months follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length in safety analyses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months follow-up, expressed as a risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. Similarly, we presented incidence of safety and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropout due to drug, as RRs (95% CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 115 studies (33 new to this update) in this review; most recruited adult participants from the community or from smoking cessation clinics. We judged 28 of the studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk did not change clinical interpretation of the results. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased long-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.52 to 1.77; I² = 15%; 45 studies, 17,866 participants). There was insufficient evidence to establish whether participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs compared to those taking placebo. Results were imprecise and CIs encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I² = 0%; 21 studies, 10,625 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded one level due to imprecision). We found high-certainty evidence that use of bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to adverse events of the drug than placebo (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.56; I² = 19%; 25 studies, 12,340 participants). Participants randomized to bupropion were also more likely to report psychiatric AEs compared with those randomized to placebo (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.37; I² = 15%; 6 studies, 4439 participants). We also looked at the safety and efficacy of bupropion when combined with other non-antidepressant smoking cessation therapies. There was insufficient evidence to establish whether combination bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.51; I² = 52%; 12 studies, 3487 participants), or whether combination bupropion and varenicline resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I² = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). We judged the certainty of evidence to be low and moderate, respectively; in both cases due to imprecision, and also due to inconsistency in the former. Safety data were sparse for these comparisons, making it difficult to draw clear conclusions. A meta-analysis of six studies provided evidence that bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.79; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 6286 participants), whilst there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and NRT (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; I² = 18%; 10 studies, 8230 participants). We also found some evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I² = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), whilst there was insufficient evidence to determine whether bupropion or nortriptyline were more effective when compared with one another (RR 1.30 (favouring bupropion), 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants). There was no evidence that any of the other antidepressants tested (including St John's Wort, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)) had a beneficial effect on smoking cessation. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion also increases the number of adverse events, including psychiatric AEs, and there is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with placebo. However, there is no clear evidence to suggest whether people taking bupropion experience more or fewer SAEs than those taking placebo (moderate certainty). Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo. Evidence suggests that bupropion may be as successful as NRT and nortriptyline in helping people to quit smoking, but that it is less effective than varenicline. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the other antidepressants tested, such as SSRIs, aid smoking cessation, and when looking at safety and tolerance outcomes, in most cases, paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions. Due to the high-certainty evidence, further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over front-line smoking cessation aids already available. However, it is important that where studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation are carried out they measure and report safety and tolerability clearly.

A randomized controlled trial of a smoking cessation smartphone application with a carbon monoxide checker

Evidence of the long-term efficacy of digital therapies for smoking cessation that include a smartphone application (app) is limited. In this multi-center randomized controlled trial, we tested the efficacy of a novel digital therapy for smoking cessation: the "CureApp Smoking Cessation (CASC)" system, including a CASC smartphone app, a web-based patient management PC software for primary physicians, and a mobile exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) checker. A total of 584 participants with nicotine dependence were recruited from October 2017 to January 2018, and allocated 1:1 to the CASC intervention group or the control group. Both groups received a standard smoking cessation treatment with pharmacotherapy and counseling for 12 weeks. Meanwhile, the intervention group used the CASC system, and the control group used a control-app without a mobile CO checker, each for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was the biochemically validated continuous abstinence rate (CAR) from weeks 9 to 24. The main secondary outcome was an extended CAR from weeks 9 to 52. Except for 12 participants who did not download or use the apps, 285 participants were assigned to the intervention group, and 287, to the control. CAR from weeks 9 to 24 in the intervention group was significantly higher than that in the control group (63.9% vs. 50.5%; odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24 to 2.42; P = 0.001). The CAR from weeks 9 to 52 was also higher in the intervention group than that in the control group (52.3% vs. 41.5%; OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.16; P = 0.010). No specific adverse events caused by the CASC system were reported. Augmenting standard face-to-face counseling and pharmacotherapy with a novel smartphone app, the CASC system significantly improved long-term CARs compared to standard treatment and a minimally supportive control app.

Extending varenicline preloading to 6 weeks facilitates smoking cessation: A single-site, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Initiating varenicline use 4 weeks before the target quit date (TQD) reduces smoking in the run-in phase and increases end-treatment cessation rates; however, the lack of a smoke intake plateau suggests longer preloading periods are required. This study assessed whether varenicline preloading for 6 weeks reduced pre-quit smoke intake and enhanced 6-month abstinence outcomes compared with the standard 1-week preloading.

METHODS

In this randomised single-centre controlled trial, (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02634281), conducted between February 2016 and July 2018 in Israel, daily smokers (n = 242) aged ≥ 18 years were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive varenicline preloading for 6 weeks (n = 121) or a placebo for 5 weeks followed by varenicline for 1 week (n = 121) before the TQD. Participants and researchers were masked to both group assignment and treatment allocation. Both groups received standard 12-week post-TQD varenicline treatment. The primary outcome was the 24-week biochemically verified continuous abstinence rate (CAR) from weeks 6 (TQD)-30. Secondary outcomes included the 23-week CAR from 1-week post-TQD (week 7) to week 30, and the 7-day point-prevalence (PP) abstinence at week 30. Other measures included pre- and post-quit rewards, smoking urges, nausea, aversion, and markers of cigarette consumption.

FINDINGS

By intention-to-treat, the 24-week CAR, weeks 6-30 with extended preloading was significantly higher than with standard preloading (23·1% vs. 4·1%; risk reduction [RR]: -0·19 [95% confidence interval [CI]:-0·10-0·24]; p < 0·001). Extended preloading also showed better secondary outcomes. Extended preloading significantly decreased pre-quit rewards, urges, and smoke intake, including unsolicited smoking abstinence. Post-quit urges remained remarkably lower with extended preloading. Participants receiving extended preloading reported more nausea at week 4 (39.6% vs 11.5%) and abnormal dreams at week 6 (7.7% vs. 0%). Participants receiving standard preloading reported more constipation at week 7 (7.6% vs. 0%) and dizziness at weeks 7 (12.1% vs. 2.5%) and 12 (10.7% vs 1.4%).

INTERPRETATION

Extended preloading reduced ad lib smoking, enhanced cessation rates at 3 and 6 months, and decreased pre- and post-quit rewards and smoking drive in a pattern compatible with a reinforcement-reduction mechanism. These data substantiate extending the standard pre-treatment period, and suggest that targeting pre-quit smoking sensations should be a treatment priority, although confirmatory evidence is needed from larger clinical trials.

FUNDING

This study was funded by a 2013 Global Research Award for Nicotine Dependence (GRAND) supported by Pfizer, Inc. (#WI182915).

Identifying sequential episodes of pharmacotherapy as a method for assessing treatment failure in comparative effectiveness research

PURPOSE

To describe and implement a novel method of measuring comparative effectiveness using sequential episodes of pharmacotherapy as a proxy for treatment failure.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using linked deidentified data from the British Columbia Ministry of Health during a government-sponsored smoking cessation reimbursement program.Three study cohorts were created based on first use of varenicline, bupropion, or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), for adults aged 18 or older, in the period September 30th, 2011 to March 31st, 2013. The study cohorts were analyzed for sequential episodes of pharmacotherapy, defined as re-initiating a smoking cessation pharmacotherapy after an initial episode of treatment and washout period. The statistical analysis used propensity score adjusted log-binomial regression models with one-year and two-year fixed follow-up after a 12-week washout period. A sensitivity analysis excluded the washout period. A secondary analysis investigated predictors of receiving a sequential episode of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy RESULTS: 116,442 participants of the B.C. Smoking Cessation Program were analyzed. Compared to NRT, varenicline users were 13% less likely, and bupropion users were 18% less likely, to re-start smoking cessation therapy within 1-year after an initial course of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Sequential episodes of pharmacotherapy identified treatment failures to smoking cessation therapy. Based on sequential episodes of pharmacotherapy during a drug benefit policy of smoking cessation medications, varenicline and bupropion were more effective aids to smoking cessation than NRT. The method was also used to identify patient characteristics associated with treatment effectiveness.

Combination therapy of varenicline and bupropion in smoking cessation: A meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The effects of the combination therapy of varenicline and bupropion in smoking cessation are still controversial.

METHODS

Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were scanned without time and language limitation. Subgroup analysis was performed to assess the effect of combination therapy in smokers with different level of nicotine dependence and cigarette consumption.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials involving a total of 1230 smokers were included. Compared with varenicline monotherapy, combination treatment with varenicline and bupropion could significantly improve the abstinence rate at the end of treatment (RR 1.153, 95% CI 1.019 to 1.305, P=0.024). The benefit existed at 6months follow-up (RR 1.231, 95% CI 1.017 to 1.490, P=0.033), disappeared at 12months follow-up (RR 1.130, 95% CI 0.894 to 1.428, P=0.305), and mainly concentrated in highly dependent smokers (RR 1.631, 95% CI 1.290 to 2.061, P<0.001) and heavy smokers (RR 1.515, 95% CI 1.226 to 1.873, P<0.001) rather than individuals with low nicotine dependence (RR 0.989, 95% CI 0.815 to 1.199, P=0.907) or low cigarette consumption (RR 0.985, 95% CI 0.800 to 1.212, P=0.252). For safety outcomes, the combination treatment was associated with more anxiety (RR 1.717, 95% CI 1.176 to 2.505, P=0.005) and insomnia (RR 1.268, 95% CI 1.076 to 1.494, P=0.005) symptoms compared with varenicline monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Compared with varenicline monotherapy, combination treatment with varenicline and bupropion can significantly improve the abstinence rate at the end of treatment and 6months follow-up, mainly in highly dependent smokers and heavy smokers.

Current advances in research in treatment and recovery: Nicotine addiction

The health harms of combusted tobacco use are undeniable. With market and regulatory pressures to reduce the harms of nicotine delivery by combustion, the tobacco product landscape has diversified to include smokeless, heated, and electronic nicotine vaping products. Products of tobacco combustion are the main cause of smoking-induced disease, and nicotine addiction sustains tobacco use. An understanding of the biology and clinical features of nicotine addiction and the conditioning of behavior that occurs via stimuli paired with frequent nicotine dosing, as with a smoked cigarette, is important for informing pharmacologic and behavioral treatment targets. We review current advances in research on nicotine addiction treatment and recovery, with a focus on conventional combustible cigarette use. Our review covers evidence-based methods to treat smoking in adults and policy approaches to prevent nicotine product initiation in youth. In closing, we discuss emerging areas of evidence and consider new directions for advancing the field.

Complementary therapeutic approaches in asthma

Asthma is defined by The Initiative for Asthma (GINA 2018) as a heterogeneous disease, which include chronic airway inflammation and a history of respiratory symptoms. In the last decades asthma had a rise in prevalence, becoming one of the most frequent diagnosed diseases in the world. The main goals of asthma management are to achieve good symptom control, minimize the risks of exacerbations, decrease rescue medication intake, improve the quality of life by decreasing respiratory system inflammation and ameliorating the patient’s lung function. Beside effective medications, asthma continues to impair quality of life for most patients. Due to the difficulty of controlling symptoms and exacerbations, the need of developing complementary options of treatment is increasing in order to achieve an optimum control and a lower risk of acute episodes or fatal events. Pulmonary rehabilitation is suggested for asthma patients when adequate medical therapy poorly control the symptoms and mental, physical or social consequences of illness persist during the daily life. The following non-drug therapy components are included in the rehabilitation program: physical training, comprehensive smoking cessation program, comprehensive patient education, respiratory physiotherapy, psychosocial support and comprehensive nutritional counseling. These complementary therapies have been proven to improve muscle strength, exercise capacity and symptomatology. Also, it has been associated to fewer exacerbations and a lower use of rescue medication, leading to a better quality of life. Key words: asthma, quality of life, symptomatology, rehabilitation, physiotherapy,

Combination of varenicline and nicotine patch for smoking cessation: A case report

Standard pharmacotherapy approaches to treat tobacco use may be ineffective in people with high nicotine dependence. Individuals with high nicotine dependence may be good candidates for a new treatment approach-combination of varenicline and nicotine patch.

Smoking cessation interventions for potential use in the lung cancer screening setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Current guidelines recommend delivery of smoking cessation interventions with lung cancer screening (LCS). Unfortunately, there are limited data to guide clinicians and policy-makers in choosing cessation interventions in this setting. Several trials are underway to fill this evidence gap, but results are not expected for several years.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature on the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions among populations eligible for LCS. We searched PubMed, Medline, and PsycINFO for randomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions published from 2010-2017. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they sampled individuals likely to be eligible for LCS based on age and smoking history, had sample sizes >100, follow-up of 6- or 12-months, and were based in North America, Western Europe, Australia, or New Zealand.

RESULTS

Three investigators independently screened 3,813 abstracts and identified 332 for full-text review. Of these, 85 trials were included and grouped into categories based on the primary intervention: electronic/web-based, in-person counseling, pharmacotherapy, and telephone counseling. At 6-month follow-up, electronic/web-based (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% CI 1.03-1.25), in-person counseling (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.25-1.70), and pharmacotherapy (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33-1.77) interventions significantly increased the odds of abstinence. Telephone counseling increased the odds but did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.98-1.50). At 12-months, in-person counseling (OR 1.28 95% CI 1.10-1.50) and pharmacotherapy (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17-1.84) remained efficacious, although the decrement in efficacy was of similar magnitude across all intervention categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Several categories of cessation interventions are promising for implementation in the LCS setting.

Recreational and ergogenic substance use and substance use disorders in elite athletes: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Substances from various classes may be used for recreational purposes, self-treatment or to boost performance. When substance use shifts from occasional to regular, heavy or hazardous use, positive and negative effects can develop that vary by substance class and athlete. Regular use of recreational or performance enhancing substances can lead to misuse, sanctions or use disorders.

OBJECTIVE

To review the prevalence, patterns of use, risk factors, performance effects and types of intervention for all classes of recreational and performance enhancing substances in elite athletes by sport, ethnicity, country and gender.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted to identify studies that compared the prevalence and patterns of substance use, misuse and use disorders in elite athletes with those of non-athletes and provided detailed demographic and sport variations in reasons for use, risk factors and performance effects for each main substance class.

RESULTS

Alcohol, cannabis, tobacco (nicotine) and prescribed opioids and stimulants are the most commonly used substances in elite athletes, but generally used at lower rates than in non-athletes. In contrast, use/misuse rates for binge alcohol, oral tobacco, non-prescription opioids and anabolic-androgenic steroids are higher among athletes than non-athletes, especially in power and collision sports. Cannabis/cannabinoids seem to have replaced nicotine as the second most commonly used substance.

CONCLUSIONS

Substance use in elite athletes varies by country, ethnicity, gender, sport and competitive level. There are no studies on substance use disorder prevalence in elite male and female athletes and few studies with direct comparison groups.

Mental health in elite athletes: International Olympic Committee consensus statement (2019)

Mental health symptoms and disorders are common among elite athletes, may have sport related manifestations within this population and impair performance. Mental health cannot be separated from physical health, as evidenced by mental health symptoms and disorders increasing the risk of physical injury and delaying subsequent recovery. There are no evidence or consensus based guidelines for diagnosis and management of mental health symptoms and disorders in elite athletes. Diagnosis must differentiate character traits particular to elite athletes from psychosocial maladaptations.

Management strategies should address all contributors to mental health symptoms and consider biopsychosocial factors relevant to athletes to maximise benefit and minimise harm. Management must involve both treatment of affected individual athletes and optimising environments in which all elite athletes train and compete. To advance a more standardised, evidence based approach to mental health symptoms and disorders in elite athletes, an International Olympic Committee Consensus Work Group critically evaluated the current state of science and provided recommendations.

Can the use of varenicline improve the efficacy of pharmacotherapy for nicotine addiction?

Introduction: Smoking is a huge medical and social problem in Poland, with as many as about 24% of Poles being addicted to nicotine. Approximately 6 million people worldwide die every year from conditions that are closely related to tobacco addiction, such as cancer and cardiovascular, metabolic or lung diseases. The difficulty in combatting nicotine dependence is largely due to the complex mechanism of this addiction. The motivation of a patient to quit smoking is of great importance in the difficult withdrawal process. Strengthening this motivation is one of the most important tasks of physicians and addiction therapists.

Overview of literature: Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) has been the most widely known way to break away from smoking addiction for many years now. It involves delivering nicotine to the body in ways that are less harmful than through tobacco smoke. As a consequence, the cravings for nicotine are reduced, making it easier for the patient to break with the addiction. Clinical trials have shown that the use of NRT is associated with a 50-70% increased chance of maintaining abstinence from smoking compared to placebo. There are many NRT products, including nicotine chewing gum, nicotine patches, lozenges, dissolvable nicotine sticks, or inhalers. Bupropion is a selective dopamine–noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor. This drug is one of the most commonly used in the pharmacotherapy of depression in the United States. At the same time, it has been found to have a positive effect on people trying to break up with the habit of smoking cigarettes. The mechanism of action remains unknown in this case, but studies clearly indicate the efficacy of bupropion, which is comparable to the efficacy of NRT. Varenicline is a partial agonist selective for α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. It has a higher affinity for these receptors than nicotine. By stimulating them, it causes an increase in dopamine secretion (but to a lesser extent than cigarette smoking), helping in this way ease withdrawal symptoms.

Conclusions: Varenicline has higher efficacy than bupropion and NRTs. Simultaneous use of two NRT forms increases the effectiveness of this method to a level comparable to varenicline. Contrary to previous reports, it seems that varenicline does not increase self-aggressive behaviour and the risk of suicide. The effectiveness of antinicotinic drugs depends on the sex of the patient. For both sexes, the most effective drug is varenicline. It is slightly more effective in women than in men. By contrast, NRT and bupropion show greater therapeutic potential in men.

Review of the role of cigarette smoking in diabetic foot

Diabetic foot ulceration has been a serious issue over the past decades in Asia, causing economic and social problems. Therefore, it is important to identify and reduce the risk factors of diabetic foot. Cigarette smoking has been reported to be associated with diabetes and its macrovascular complications, but the relationship between smoking and diabetic foot ulcers is still unclear. In the present review, we summarize the effects of cigarette smoking on diabetic foot ulcers with respect to peripheral neuropathy, vascular alterations and wound healing. One underlying mechanism of these impacts might be the smoking-induced oxidative stress inside the cells. At the end of this review, the current mainstream therapies for smoking cessation are also outlined. We believe that it is urgent for all diabetic patients to quit smoking so as to reduce their chances of developing foot ulcers and to improve the prognosis of diabetic foot ulcers.

Fit & quit: An efficacy trial of two behavioral post-cessation weight gain interventions

While smoking cessation leads to significant improvements in both mortality and morbidity, post-cessation weight gain partially attenuates this benefit. Even though post-cessation weight gain is small (4.7 kg on average), it is a stated reason to delay cessation attempts and is associated with smoking relapse. Fit & Quit is a randomized, controlled efficacy trial that aims to examine the ability of a weight stability intervention and a weight loss intervention to reduce post-cessation weight gain. For this purpose, Fit & Quit will randomize participants to three conditions: (a) Small Changes, a weight gain prevention intervention; (b) Look AHEAD Intensive Lifestyle Intervention; and (c) a lower-intensity bibliotherapy intervention. All conditions will receive a highly efficacious behavioral (i.e., rate reduction skills, motivational interviewing) and pharmacological (i.e., varenicline) smoking cessation program. A total of 400 participants will be recruited and randomized to the three interventions. Participants will be recruited in waves, with 10 waves of approximately 40 participants per wave. The primary outcomes of this study include post-cessation weight gain and cessation status at 12-month follow-up. Fit & Quit will integrate and adapt the strongest evidence-based interventions available for weight management and smoking cessation. Fit & Quit is highly innovative in the areas of the target population, study design, and use of technology. For these reasons, we expect that Fit & Quit will make a significant public health contribution to curtailing the important cessation barrier of post-cessation weight gain.

Role of CYP2B6 pharmacogenomics in bupropion-mediated smoking cessation

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Pharmacogenomics holds promise in smoking cessation because of its potential to shed light on the complexity of drug metabolism and improve treatments using therapeutic agents. The cytochrome P450 2B6 gene (CYP2B6) encodes CYP2B6 enzyme that has been found to mediate the hydroxylation of bupropion, a smoking cessation aid. CYP2B6 exhibits a range of polymorphic variants that alter the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of bupropion. Genetic variations in CYP2B6 may influence the risk of adverse effects or efficacy of treatment with bupropion. The objective of this review was to investigate the influence of pharmacogenomics on smoking cessation therapy.

METHODS

A thorough literature search was conducted on PubMed, SCOPUS and EMBASE using keywords related to bupropion, smoking cessation, pharmacogenomics and CYP2B6. Research and review articles, case reports and clinical and preclinical studies pertinent to the research topic were identified, evaluated and summarized. Cited articles within the above-mentioned sources also provided pertinent information.

RESULTS

There is strong literature evidence to prove that CYP2B6 polymorphisms affect pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of bupropion, thus affecting the therapeutic outcome of smoking cessation therapy.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSIONS

Complete understanding of pharmacogenetic variation of bupropion pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics will be beneficial for designing safer and more personalized smoking cessation therapy with improved outcomes.

Effectiveness of auricular acupuncture combined with nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to establish if the auricular acupuncture treatment can play a complementary role in enhancing the smoking cessation rate of the smokers receiving conventional therapy, such as NRT and behavioral counseling.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study. Republic of Korea Air Force soldiers who visited the clinic with the intention to quit smoking from September 2016 to March 2017 were reviewed. The smoking cessation program consisted of a 6-weeks treatment period with follow-up at 3 and 6 months from the baseline. Smokers who chose to receive nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) were compared with those who chose to receive auricular acupuncture combined with NRT. Both groups received behavioral counseling.

RESULTS

A total of 148 subjects were reviewed in the study. Of the 86 smokers who received combination therapy, 41 achieved continuous abstinence (47.7%), while 19 out of the 62 smokers stayed abstinent from the NRT group (30.6%). There was a significant difference between the two groups (p=0.037). Minnesota Nicotine Withdrawal Scale scores significantly decreased after the treatment in both groups, but there was no significant difference between the two groups (p=0.681). No serious adverse events were reported from both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that conventional treatments, such as NRT and behavioral counseling, when combined with auricular acupuncture could be a safer and more effective smoking cessation treatment than conventional treatments alone.

The effectiveness and safety of combining varenicline with nicotine e-cigarettes for smoking cessation in people with mental illnesses and addictions: study protocol for a randomised-controlled trial

Background

Smoking rates are higher in New Zealand (NZ) adults with mental illnesses and alcohol and other drug (AOD) addictions, compared to the overall population. Quit attempts using “gold standard” smoking cessation treatments often fail in people with these conditions, so more flexible treatment regimens that adapt to a person’s responsiveness to treatment are worth investigating. The STATUS trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of combining varenicline with nicotine e-cigarettes for smoking cessation among varenicline non-responders in treatment for mental health illnesses and/or AOD addictions.

Methods

This is a pragmatic two-arm, open-label, randomised trial. Participants will be daily smokers using mental health and/or addiction services in Auckland, aged ≥18 years, motivated to quit smoking, and eligible to access varenicline through the NZ special authority process. After 2 weeks of using varenicline plus behavioural support, participants who have not reduced their daily smoking by ≥50% will be randomised (1:1) to either 10 weeks of continued varenicline use or 10 weeks of varenicline plus an 18 mg/mL nicotine e-cigarette. All participants will receive weekly withdrawal-orientated behavioural support calls for 6 weeks post-randomisation. The primary outcome is self-reported biochemically-verified (exhaled carbon monoxide) continuous abstinence at 24 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes, measured at six, 12 and 24 weeks post-randomisation include: self-reported continuous abstinence, 7-day point prevalence abstinence, smoking reduction, time to relapse, cross-over, use of other smoking cessation support, serious adverse events, treatment adherence, compliance, acceptability, dual use, continuation of treatment use, mental illness symptoms and AOD use, health-related quality of life, and cost-analysis. A sample size of 338 will confer 80% power (p = 0.05) to detect a 15% absolute difference between the varenicline alone and varenicline plus e-cigarette groups.

Discussion

People with mental illness and/or AOD addictions are just as motivated as others to quit smoking, but are less likely to succeed. Adapting smoking cessation medication after a lack of responsiveness in the first 2 weeks of initial treatment in this priority population by adding a nicotine e-cigarette may be one way to increase long-term quit rates.

Trial Registration

Australian NZ Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12616001355460 (29 September 2016).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-5351-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

An RCT with the combination of varenicline and bupropion for smoking cessation: clinical implications for front line use

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Despite the availability of several efficacious smoking cessation treatments, fewer than 25% of smokers who quit remain abstinent 1 year post-treatment. This study aimed to determine if varenicline and bupropion combination treatment would result in higher abstinence rates than varenicline alone.

DESIGN

A double-blind, randomized, parallel-group smoking cessation clinical trial in which participants were exposed to 12 weeks of treatment and followed for 12 months.

SETTING

Hospital-based out-patient clinic in Texas, USA specializing in cancer prevention.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 385 community smokers (58.44% male) who smoked 1 pack of cigarettes/day [mean = 19.66 cigarettes/day, standard deviation (SD) = 9.45]; had average carbon monoxide (CO) of 26.43 parts per million (SD = 13.74); and were moderately dependent (Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence = 4.79; SD = 2.07).

INTERVENTIONS AND COMPARATOR

Smokers were randomized in a 3 : 1 (active: Placebo) ratio to 12 weeks of treatment as follows: placebo (n = 56), varenicline (Var; n = 166), and varenicline + bupropion (Combo; n = 163).

MEASUREMENTS

A priori primary outcome: prolonged abstinence at 12 months.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

7-day point prevalence abstinence and continuous abstinence; all abstinence measures at end of treatment and 6-month follow-ups.

FINDINGS

Intention-to-treat analysis: the Combo group (n = 163) failed to demonstrate superiority to the Var group (n = 166) for prolonged abstinence at 12 months [odds ratio (OR) = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.50-1.64], supported by Bayes factor = 0.06. Both the Var (OR = 6.66, 95% CI = 1.61-59.27) and Combo groups (OR = 6.06, 95% CI = 1.45-54.09) demonstrated superiority to the Placebo group (n = 56; score = 8.38, P < 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of bupropion to varenicline treatment does not appear to increase smoking abstinence rates above that of varenicline alone. The findings support previous research showing a consistently favorable effect of both varenicline and the combination of varenicline and bupropion on smoking cessation compared with placebo.

Helping Patients With ESRD and Earlier Stages of CKD to Quit Smoking

Among the many adverse effects of tobacco exposure is the increased risk for progression of kidney disease. Individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD), who already face increased cardiovascular event rates compared to the general population, are at even greater risk if they smoke. Despite these risks and the increased focus on smoking cessation in the general population in recent years, national guidelines have not specifically targeted individuals with CKD. There are similarly sparse data specific to individuals with CKD regarding the safety and efficacy of evidence-based smoking cessation modalities. This review aims to identify the risks of nicotine dependence in individuals with CKD and the potential benefits of smoking cessation; discuss current strategies for smoking cessation, including behavioral and pharmacologic therapies such as varenicline; and extrapolate these interventions to the unique challenges of this population. Much of the data presented stem from evidence for the general population but are described with additional consideration in dosing of nicotine replacement therapy, as well as non-nicotine pharmacotherapy and treatment modality for individuals with CKD.

Combination Varenicline/Bupropion Treatment Benefits Highly Dependent Smokers in an Adaptive Smoking Cessation Paradigm

Introduction

This study replicated and extended results of a previous trial, which found that combination varenicline/bupropion treatment increased smoking abstinence in smokers who were male, highly dependent, and who did not respond to prequit nicotine patch treatment with a >50% reduction in expired-air carbon monoxide in the first week.

Methods

One hundred and twenty-two male nicotine patch nonresponders and 52 responders were identified. Smokers in each group were randomized to receive 12 weeks of varenicline plus bupropion treatment versus varenicline plus placebo. The primary outcome was continuous smoking abstinence at weeks 8–11 after the target quit date.

Results

For smokers with a high level of dependence, judged by having a baseline Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) score ≥ 6 and cigarette consumption ≥ 20/d, combination varenicline/bupropion treatment increased the abstinence rate relative to varenicline alone: 71.0% versus 43.8% (odds ratio = 3.14; 95% confidence interval = 1.11–8.92, p [one tailed] = .016). In contrast, less dependent smokers did not show a benefit of combination treatment relative to varenicline (abstinence rates of 32.1% vs. 45.6%, respectively); there was a significant interaction of treatment and dependence level. Patch nonresponders tended to benefit the most from combination treatment, which was well tolerated overall.

Conclusions

Combination varenicline/bupropion treatment proved significantly more efficacious than varenicline alone among highly dependent male smokers. These results, together with prior studies, support an adaptive treatment paradigm that assigns smoking cessation treatment according to baseline smoker characteristics and initial response to nicotine patch treatment.

Implications

This study replicated, in a prospective manner, an important and surprising retrospective finding from a previous clinical trial, which showed that a specific subpopulation of smokers benefited substantially from receiving a combination treatment of varenicline plus bupropion, relative to varenicline plus placebo. Specifically, male smokers having high baseline nicotine dependence (FTND score ≥ 6 and cigarette consumption ≥ 20/d), showed a marked increase in smoking abstinence rate on combination pharmacotherapy. The present study likewise found an enhancement in end-of-treatment abstinence rate in this subgroup, from 43.8% to 71.0%. The adaptive treatment paradigm, which classifies smokers based on initial dependence level and response to prequit nicotine patch treatment, may be used to identify target populations of smokers whose success can be enhanced by intervening with combination pharmacotherapy before the quit-smoking date.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01806779.

Varenicline for tobacco-dependence treatment in alcohol-dependent smokers: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use is prevalent among persons with alcohol abuse and dependence. Varenicline has been shown to be the most effective pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and may decrease alcohol consumption. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of 12 weeks of varenicline for increasing smoking abstinence rates in smokers with alcohol abuse or dependence.

METHODS

Participants were eligible for enrollment if they were 18 years or older, smoked 10 or more cigarettes per day for at least 6 months, had current alcohol abuse or dependence, and were interested in quitting smoking. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 12 weeks of varenicline 1 mg twice daily or matching placebo. The primary end point was 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at week 12.

RESULTS

The 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence rate at 12 weeks was significantly higher with varenicline (n = 16) than placebo (n = 17) (43.8% vs 5.9%; P = .01). At 24 weeks, the 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence rate was still significantly higher with varenicline than placebo (31.3% vs 0%; P = .02). At 12 weeks, mean (SD) drinks per drinking day was significantly lower with varenicline than placebo (5.7 [3.9] vs 9.0 [5.3] drinks; treatment effect estimate, -2.8 [90% CI, -6.6 to -1.0]). Adverse events were minor and comparable to varenicline clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline is safe and efficacious for increasing smoking abstinence rates in smokers with alcohol abuse or dependence. Varenicline may decrease alcohol consumption in this population of smokers.