Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

Differences in the effectiveness of individual-level smoking cessation interventions by socioeconomic status

BACKGROUND

People from lower socioeconomic groups are more likely to smoke and less likely to succeed in achieving abstinence, making tobacco smoking a leading driver of health inequalities. Contextual factors affecting subpopulations may moderate the efficacy of individual-level smoking cessation interventions. It is not known whether any intervention performs differently across socioeconomically-diverse populations and contexts.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether the effects of individual-level smoking cessation interventions on combustible tobacco cigarette use differ by socioeconomic groups, and their potential impact on health equalities.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to 1 May 2023 for Cochrane reviews investigating individual-level smoking cessation interventions. We selected studies included in these reviews that met our criteria. We contacted study authors to identify further eligible studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel, cluster or factorial randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating any individual-level smoking cessation intervention which encouraged complete cessation of combustible tobacco cigarette use compared to no intervention, placebo, or another intervention in adults. Studies must have assessed or reported smoking quit rates, split by any measure of socioeconomic status (SES) at longest follow-up (≥ six months), and been published in 2000 or later.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We assessed the availability of smoking abstinence data by SES in lieu of selective reporting. The primary outcome was smoking cessation quit rates, split by lower and higher SES, at the longest follow-up (≥ six months). Where possible, we calculated ratios of odds ratios (ROR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each study, comparing lower to higher SES. We pooled RORs by intervention type in random-effects meta-analyses, using the generic inverse-variance method. We subgrouped by type of SES indicator and economic classification of the study country. We summarised all evidence in effect direction plots and categorised the intervention impact on health equality as: positive (evidence that the relative effect of the intervention on quit rates was greater in lower rather than higher SES groups), possibly positive, neutral, possibly neutral, possibly negative, negative, no reported statistically significant difference, or unclear. We evaluated certainty using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 77 studies (73 from high-income countries), representing 127,791 participants. We deemed 12 studies at low overall risk of bias, 13 at unclear risk, and the remaining 52 at high risk. Included studies investigated a range of pharmacological interventions, behavioural support, or combinations of these. Pharmacological interventions We found very low-certainty evidence for all the main pharmacological interventions compared to control. Evidence on cytisine (ROR 1.13, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.74; 1 study, 2472 participants) and nicotine electronic cigarettes (ROR 4.57, 95% CI 0.88 to 23.72; 1 study, 989 participants) compared to control indicated a greater relative effect of these interventions on quit rates in lower compared to higher SES groups, suggesting a possibly positive impact on health equality. CIs for both estimates included the possibility of no clinically important difference and of favouring higher SES groups. There was a lower relative effect of bupropion versus placebo on quit rates in lower compared to higher SES groups, indicating a possibly negative impact on health equality (ROR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.00; from 1 of 2 studies, 354 participants; 1 study reported no difference); however, the CI included the possibility of no clinically important difference. We could not determine the intervention impact of combination or single-form nicotine replacement therapy on relative quit rates by SES. No studies on varenicline versus control were included. Behavioural interventions We found low-certainty evidence of lower quit rates in lower compared to higher SES groups for print-based self-help (ROR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; 3 studies, 4440 participants) and text-messaging (ROR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23; from 3 of 4 studies, 5339 participants; 1 study reported no difference) versus control, indicating a possibly negative impact on health equality. CIs for both estimates included the possibility of no clinically important difference and of favouring lower SES groups. There was very low-certainty evidence of quit rates favouring higher SES groups for financial incentives compared to balanced intervention components. However, the CI included the possibility of no clinically important difference and of favouring lower SES groups (ROR 0.91, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.85; from 5 of 6 studies, 3018 participants; 1 study reported no difference). This indicates a possibly negative impact on health equality. There was very low-certainty evidence of no difference in quit rates by SES for face-to-face counselling compared to less intensive counselling, balanced components, or usual care. However, the CI included the possibility of favouring lower and higher SES groups (ROR 1.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 8.93; from 1 of 6 studies, 294 participants; 5 studies reported no difference), indicating a possibly neutral impact. We found very low-certainty evidence of a greater relative effect of telephone counselling (ROR 4.31, 95% CI 1.28 to 14.51; from 1 of 7 studies, 903 participants; 5 studies reported no difference, 1 unclear) and internet interventions (ROR 1.49, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.25; from 1 of 5 studies, 4613 participants; 4 studies reported no difference) versus control on quit rates in lower versus higher SES groups, suggesting a possibly positive impact on health equality. The CI for the internet intervention estimate included the possibility of no difference. Although the CI for the telephone counselling estimate only favoured lower SES groups, most studies narratively reported no clear evidence of interaction effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is no clear evidence to support the use of differential individual-level smoking cessation interventions for people from lower or higher SES groups, or that any one intervention would have an effect on health inequalities. This conclusion may change as further data become available. Many studies did not report sufficient data to be included in a meta-analysis, despite having tested the association of interest. Further RCTs should collect, analyse, and report quit rates by measures of SES, to inform intervention development and ensure recommended interventions do not exacerbate but help reduce health inequalities caused by smoking.

Smoking cessation pharmacotherapy; varenicline or bupropion?

OBJECTIVES

Tobacco smoking is a worldwide health problem and one of the leading causes of premature deaths in last years. As there are lots of researches focusing on cessation strategies with attention to pharmacotherapy and behavioral counseling, the aim of this study was to compare two of the first-line FDA-approved pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation; varenicline and bupropion.

EVIDENCE ACQUSITION

This writing is an overview of researches published in Pubmed database from 2012 to 2022 with "Varenicline" and "Bupropion" as key words. Among the researches that were found, 24 articles were selected which mainly focused on comparison of these two medicines.

RESULTS

Varenicline and bupropion are known as non-nicotinic pharmacotherapy and have been used in addition to nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Varenicline is partial agonist for α4β2 nicotinic acetyl choline receptors while bupropion, classified as an atypical antidepressant, is actually a norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor. Although these treatments can result in some adverse effects including nausea, insomnia, anxiety, irritability, fatigue and abnormal dreams, their efficacy in reduction of craving and also maintenance of abstinence is well been studied and approved by FDA. Moreover, adverse effects are usually mild to moderate clinical symptoms which can be tolerated and also easily managed and prevented in cases.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and tolerability of varenicline and bupropion as treatments for smoking cessation is well understood. However, studies have shown that varenicline seems to be more effective in maintaining of abstinence and also reducing craving than bupropion and NRT.

Brazilian Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery guidelines on peripheral artery disease

Patients with peripheral artery disease and generalized atherosclerosis are at high risk of cardiovascular and limb complications, affecting both quality of life and longevity. Lower limb atherosclerotic disease is associated with high cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and adequate management is founded on treatments involving patient-dependent factors, such as lifestyle changes, and physician-dependent factors, such as clinical treatment, endovascular treatment, or conventional surgery. Medical management of peripheral artery disease is multifaceted, and its most important elements are reduction of cholesterol level, antithrombotic therapy, control of arterial blood pressure, control of diabetes, and smoking cessation. Adhesion to this regime can reduce complications related to the limbs, such as chronic limb-threatening ischemia, that can result in amputation, and the systemic complications of atherosclerosis, such as stroke and myocardial infarction.

Systematic review and meta-analyses of cytisine to support tobacco cessation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cytisine (also known as cytisinicline) is a low-cost partial agonist of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors used to assist tobacco cessation. We aimed to review the effectiveness of cytisine for tobacco cessation and the effects of dose and co-use of behavioural or other pharmacological interventions on cessation outcomes.

METHODS

We searched seven databases, Google Scholar, and reference lists of included publications for randomised controlled trials investigating use of cytisine as a tobacco cessation aid. Studies were eligible if participants were ≥15 years old and used tobacco upon study enrolment. We conducted four random effects meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses with fixed effects models. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials version 2 to assess risk of bias in included studies, with adjustments recommended by the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group.

RESULTS

Participants using cytisine were significantly more likely to quit tobacco than participants who received placebo/no intervention/usual care (risk ratio [RR] = 2.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.50-4.67, 6 trials, 5194 participants) or nicotine replacement therapy (RR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.06-1.73, p = 0.0152, 2 trials, 1511 participants). The difference in cessation rates among participants receiving cytisine versus varenicline was not statistically significant (RR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.63-1.45, P = 0.8464, 3 trials, 2508 participants). Two trials examined longer versus shorter treatment duration, finding higher abstinence rates with longer treatment (RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.02-1.63, 2 trials, 1009 participants). The differences in the number of adverse events reported by participants who received cytisine versus placebo (RR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.99-1.41, P = 0.0624; 6 trials; 4578 participants) or cytisine versus varenicline (RR = 1.37, 95% CI = 0.57-3.33, P = 0.4835; 2 trials; 1345 participants) were not statistically significant. Most adverse events were mild (e.g. abnormal dreams, nausea, headaches).

CONCLUSIONS

Cytisine is an effective aid for tobacco cessation and appears to be more effective for tobacco cessation than placebo, no intervention, usual care and nicotine replacement therapy.

Interventions for smoking cessation in inpatient psychiatry settings

OBJECTIVES

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of smoking cessation interventions on tobacco smoking in adults receiving inpatient psychiatry treatment. To assess whether the effects of smoking cessation interventions differ according to psychiatric diagnosis or type of intervention or comparator condition.

Effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions among adults: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

This overview of reviews aims to identify evidence on the benefits (i.e. tobacco use abstinence and reduction in smoking frequency) and harms (i.e. possible adverse events/outcomes) of smoking cessation interventions among adults aged 18 years and older.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the CADTH Health Technology Assessment Database and several other websites for grey literature. Searches were conducted on November 12, 2018, updated on September 24, 2020, with publication years 2008 to 2020. Two reviewers independently performed title-abstract and full-text screening considering pre-determined inclusion criteria. Data extraction and quality assessments were initially completed by two reviewers independently (i.e. 73% of included studies (n = 22)) using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR 2), and the remainder done by one reviewer and verified by another due to resources and feasibility. The application of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was performed by one independent reviewer and verified by another.

RESULTS

A total of 22 Cochrane systematic reviews evaluating the impact of smoking cessation interventions on outcomes such as tobacco use abstinence, reduction in smoking frequency, quality of life and possible adverse events were included. Pharmaceutical (i.e. varenicline, cytisine, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion) and behavioural interventions (i.e. physician advice, non-tailored print-based self-help materials, stage-based individual counselling, etc.) showed to have increased smoking cessation; whereas, data for mobile phone-based interventions including text messaging, hypnotherapy, acupuncture, continuous auricular stimulation, laser therapy, electrostimulation, acupressure, St John's wort, S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe), interactive voice response systems and other combination treatments were unclear. Considering harms related to smoking cessation interventions, small/mild harms (i.e. increased palpitations, chest pain, nausea, insomnia, headache) were observed following NRT, varenicline and cytisine use. There were no data on harms related to behavioural therapies (i.e. individual or group counselling self-help materials, internet interventions), combination therapies or other therapies (i.e. laser therapy, electrostimulation, acupressure, St John's wort, SAMe).

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that pharmacological and behavioural interventions may help the general smoking population quit smoking with observed small/mild harms following NRT or varenicline. Consequently, evidence regarding ideal intervention strategies and the long-term impact of these interventions for preventing smoking was unclear.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018099691.

The potential of new nicotine and tobacco products as tools for people who smoke to quit combustible cigarettes - a systematic review of common practices and guidance towards a robust study protocol to measure cessation efficacy

New types of nicotine and tobacco products like electronic cigarettes (ECs), heated tobacco products or nicotine pouches have been discussed as less harmful alternatives to combustible cigarettes and other toxic forms of tobacco products. Their harm reduction potential lay in the efficient transition away from smoking to those new products. Numerous studies addressing the cessation efficacy of ECs have been published with contradictory outcomes. Yet, a comprehensive Cochrane review concluded with high certainty on the cessation efficacy of ECs. This prompted us to perform a review to identify weaknesses in common study designs and to summarize best practices for the study design on the potential of new nicotine products as cessation aids. 120 articles retrieved from Medline were found to be eligible. Most of the studies in the field were interventional trials while observational studies played a minor role in the evaluation of smoking cessation. Efficacy was predominantly assessed for ECs in 77% of the reports while heated tobacco (17%) and non-combustible products (11%) were less frequently investigated up to now. Measures to determine the efficacy were questionnaire-based assessments as well as use documentation/prevalence and abstinence rates. Studies varied largely in their duration and sample size with medians of 3 months and 156.5 participants, respectively.With the help of this review, we identified several weaknesses in the common study designs. One major limitation in longitudinal trials was the lack of compliance measures suited to verify the use status over longer time periods, relying solely on self-reports. Moreover, the motivation of the participants to quit was rarely defined and a profound familiarization period was not taken into account for the majority of the studies. To what extent such weaknesses influence the outcome of the studies was beyond the scope of this review. We encourage researchers to consider the recommendations which resulted from this review in order to determine the abuse liability and cessation efficacy of the products in a more robust manner. Finally, we like to call attention to the missing data for low- and middle-income countries which would require quitting strategies most urgently to combat the tobacco smoking epidemic.

Incremental net monetary benefit of using varenicline for smoking cessation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies

AIMS

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis and pool the incremental net benefits (INBs) of varenicline compared with behaviour support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), behaviour support alone and unaided cessation in adult smokers making a first-time attempt to quit.

METHODS

A search for economic evaluation studies was conducted from inception to 30 September 2022, on PubMed, Embase, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry by Tufts Medical Centre, EconLit and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). Eligible studies were included if they were (1) conducted among adults ages 18 years old and older who were smokers attempting to quit for the first time; (2) compared varenicline to behaviour support with bupropion or NRT, behaviour support alone and unaided cessation; and (3) performed a CEA or cost-utility analysis. The INBs were calculated and pooled across studies stratified by country income level and study perspective using the random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochrane Q statistic.

RESULTS

Of the 1433 identified studies, 18 studies were included in our review. Our findings from healthcare system/payer perspective suggested that the use of varenicline is statistically significantly cost-effective compared with bupropion (pooled INB, $830.75 [95% confidence interval, $208.23, $1453.28]), NRTs ($636.16 [$192.48, $1079.84]) and unaided cessation ($4212.35 [$1755.79, $6668.92]) in high-income countries. Similarly, varenicline is also found to be cost-effective compared to bupropion ($2706.27 [$1284.44, $4128.11]), NRTs ($3310.01 [$1781.53, $4838.50]) and behavioural support alone ($5438.22 [$4105.99, $6770.46]) in low- and middle-income countries.

CONCLUSION

Varenicline is cost-effective as a smoking cessation aid when compared with behavioural support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapies and behavioural support alone in both high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries, from the healthcare system/payer perspective in adult smokers who attempt to quit for the first time.

[Tobacco cessation - the underused potential in clinical routine]

Tobacco control, psychosocial and medical assistance regarding tobacco cessation is still a hidden potential within the German health care system. So far doctors rarely talk to their patients about their smoking status and physical and psychological benefits of quitting.This paper focusses on recommended current diagnostic and treatment standards, as well as evidence-based methods to address the topic on how to stop smoking and its association with certain diseases such as COPD, lung cancer and COVID-19 infection. The role of e-cigarettes as a cessation tool and its health related risks are critically examined. Consequences and advice how to implement smoking cessation procedures into daily practice are presented.

Varenicline and Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Smokers Admitted to Hospitals: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Varenicline is the most effective sole pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. If used in combination with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), cessation rates may be further improved, but the efficacy and safety of the combination need to be evaluated.

Objective

To examine whether hospitalized smokers treated with varenicline and NRT lozenges achieve higher prolonged smoking abstinence rates compared with those treated with varenicline alone.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in adult medical or surgical inpatients of 5 Australian public hospitals with a history of smoking 10 cigarettes or more per day, interested in quitting, and available for 12-month follow-up between May 1, 2019, and May 1, 2021 (final 12-month data collection in May 2022). Data analysis was performed from June 1 to August 30, 2023.

Interventions

A 12-week varenicline regimen was initiated during hospitalization at standard doses in all participants. Participants were randomized to additionally use NRT (2 mg) or placebo lozenges if there was an urge to smoke. Behavioral support (Quitline) was offered to all participants.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was biochemically verified sustained abstinence at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included self-reported prolonged abstinence, 7-day point prevalence abstinence (3, 6, and 12 months), and medicine-related adverse events.

Results

A total of 320 participants (mean [SD] age, 52.5 [12.1] years; 183 [57.2%] male) were randomized. The conduct of biochemical verification was affected by COVID-19 restrictions; consequently, the biochemically verified abstinence in the intervention vs control arms (18 [11.4%] vs 16 [10.1%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.56-2.33) did not support the combination therapy. The secondary outcomes in the intervention vs control arms of 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6 months (54 [34.2%] vs 37 [23.4%]; OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.04-2.80), prolonged abstinence at 12 months (47 [29.9%] vs 30 [19.1%]; OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.05-3.00), and 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12-months (48 [30.6%] vs 31 [19.7%]; OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.07-2.99) significantly improved with the combination therapy. The self-reported 6-month prolonged abstinence (61 [38.6%] vs 47 [29.7%]; OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.93-2.39) favored the combination therapy but was not statistically significant. Medicine-related adverse events were similar in the 2 groups (102 [74.5%] in the intervention group vs 86 [68.3%] in the control group).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of the combination of varenicline and NRT lozenges in hospitalized adult daily smokers, the combination treatment improved self-reported abstinence compared with varenicline alone, without compromising safety, but it did not improve biochemically validated abstinence.

Trial Registration

anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12618001792213.

Smoking Cessation After Initial Treatment Failure With Varenicline or Nicotine Replacement: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Most people who smoke do not quit on their initial attempt.

Objective

To determine the best subsequent strategy for nonabstinence following initial treatment with varenicline or combined nicotine replacement therapy (CNRT).

Design, Setting, and Participants

Using a double-blind, placebo-controlled, sequential multiple assignment randomized trial, 490 volunteers were randomized to receive 6 weeks of varenicline or CNRT. After 6 weeks, nonabstainers were rerandomized to continue, switch, or increase medication dosage for 6 additional weeks. The study was conducted from June 2015 through October 2019 in a Texas tobacco treatment clinic.

Interventions

The initial treatment was 2 mg/d of varenicline or the combined replacement therapy of a 21-mg patch plus 2-mg lozenge. The rerandomized participants either continued with their initial therapies, switched between varenicline and CNRT, or increased dosages either to 3-mg or more of varenicline or to a 42-mg patch and lozenges. All received weekly brief counseling.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence at the end of treatment at 12 weeks.

Results

The 490 randomized participants (210 female [43%], 287 non-Hispanic White [58%], mean age, 48.1 years) smoked an average of 20 cigarettes per day. After the first phase, 54 participants in the CNRT group were abstinent and continued their therapy; of the 191 who were not abstinent, 151 were rerandomized, and the 40 who did not return for rerandomization were assigned to continue their initial CNRT condition in phase 2. The end-of-treatment abstinence rate for the 191 phase 1 nonabstainers was 8% (95% credible interval [CrI], 6% to 10%) for the 90 (47%) who continued at the dosage condition, 14% (CrI, 10% to 18%) for the 50 (33%) who increased their dosage, and 14% (95% CrI, 10% to 18%) for the 51 (34%) who switched to varenicline (absolute risk difference [RD], 6%; 95% CrI, 6% to 11%) with more than 99% posterior probability that either strategy conferred benefit over continuing the initial dosage. After the first phase, 88 participants in the varenicline group were abstinent and continued their therapy; of the 157 who were not abstinent, 122 were rerandomized and 35 who did not return for rerandomization were assigned to continue with the varenicline condition. The end-of-treatment abstinence rate for the 157 phase 1 nonabstainers was 20% (95% CrI, 16% to 26%) for the 39 (32%) who increased their varenicline dosage, 0 (95% CrI, 0 to 0) for the 41 (34%) who switched CNRT, and 3% (95% CrI, 1% to 4%) for the 77 (49%) who were assigned to the continued varenicline condition (absolute RD, -3%; 95% CrI, -4% to -1%) with more than 99% posterior probability that continuing varenicline at the initial dosage was worse than switching to a higher dosage. Furthermore, increasing the varenicline dosage had an absolute RD of 18% (95% CrI, 13% to 24%) and a more than 99% posterior probability of conferring benefit. The secondary outcome of continuous abstinence at 6 months indicated that only increased dosages of the CNRT and varenicline provided benefit over continuation of the initial treatment dosages.

Conclusions and Relevance

For individuals who smoked but did not achieve abstinence after treatment with varenicline, increasing the dosage enhanced abstinence vs continuing, whereas for nonabstainers initially treated with CNRT, a dosage increase or switch to varenicline enhanced abstinence and may be viable rescue strategies.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02271919.

Cytisine for smoking cessation: A 40-day treatment with an induction period

INTRODUCTION

Cytisine is a smoking cessation drug now used worldwide. Most of the data available in the literature predict a 25-day treatment, accepted on the basis of previous clinical experience in Eastern Europe. There are few studies on dosing, and only recently some researchers have tried a longer treatment period.

METHODS

This real-world retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed data collected consecutively from 2015 to 2021, in seven smoking cessation centers in north-central Italy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of a 40-day cytisine treatment with an induction phase and a slower reduction schedule. Data were collected from a group of 871 patients treated with cysteine, varenicline, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The sample was not randomized. Behavioral support (4-6 sessions, each lasting 20-30 min, plus the evaluation session) was delivered to all patients.

RESULTS

Subgroups taking cytisine (n=543 for 40 days), varenicline (n=281 for 12 weeks), and NRT (n=47 for eight weeks) showed biochemically confirmed smoking abstinence at 6 months of 50.5%, 55.9%, and 51.0%, respectively, with a statistically significant difference between cytisine versus varenicline (p<0.01) but not between cytisine versus NRT (p=0.5597). Adverse events were 4.4% with cytisine and 33.3% with varenicline. Behavioral support was an important factor in effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

This study produced preliminary evidence that the 40-day regimen of cytisine, appears to have less effectiveness in comparison to varenicline but the magnitude of the effect is comparable. The results and tolerability seem to be better than in most other studies.

Video consultation and treatment in the community smoking cessation therapy success rates in patients with mental illness: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Smoking is the single factor with the highest impact on reducing life expectancy of patients with mental illness. Patients experience difficulty in participating in smoking cessation programs but are concerned about the impact of tobacco on their health and finances. Smoking cessation advice via videoconferencing might be an alternative to an ordinary in-person consultation.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Randomized controlled trial with follow-up at 6 months. We included patients with diagnoses of schizophrenia and affective disorder from psychiatric outpatient clinics. Intervention 1 involved daily video consultations; intervention 2 was treatment as usual.

RESULTS

Seventy patients were included. For both/all groups/interventions, rates of smoking cessation were 45% and predictors for a 50% reduction in smoking were antipsychotic medication load [odds ratio (OR) 0.54; p = 0.045] and number of nicotine patches (OR 1.02; p = 0.06). Predictors for a reduction in the number of cigarettes to < 10 were antipsychotic medication load (OR 0.52; p = 0.04), number of nicotine patches (OR 1.01; p = 0.02) and number of cigarettes at baseline [OR 0.95 (p = 0.09); adjusted OR 0.94 (p = 0.02)]. Patients prevented weight gain during the cessation period.

CONCLUSION

The smoking cessation rate was high. One of the reasons for the high cessation rate was that the intervention was carried out by highly experienced and professionally qualified staff. In addition, we used free nicotine patches to increase the patients' motivation to quit smoking. It is very important that we introduce these results into our clinical work with the patients.

Effect of smoking cessation medications on intracranial aneurysm risk: A Mendelian randomization study

INTRODUCTION

We aim to assess the association between smoking behavior and intracranial aneurysms (IAs) and the effect of smoking cessation medications on IAs at the genetic level.

METHODS

Causal effects of four phenotypes: 1) age at initiation of regular smoking, 2) cigarettes smoked per day, 3) smoking cessation, and 4) smoking initiation on IAs, were analyzed using two-sample inverse-variance weighted Mendelian randomization analyses. The effects of genes interacting with the smoking cessation medications were analyzed using cis-expression quantitative trait loci genetic instruments on IAs using summary statistics-based Mendelian randomization analyses. Colocalization analyses were then used to test whether the genes shared causal variants with IAs. The role of confounding phenotypes as potential causative mechanisms of IAs at these gene loci was tested.

RESULTS

Cigarettes smoked per day (OR=2.89; 95% CI:1.85-4.51) and smoking initiation on IAs (OR=4.64; 95% CI: 2.64-8.15) were significantly associated with IA risk. However, age at initiation of regular smoking (OR=0.54; 95% CI: 0.10-2.8) and smoking cessation (OR=6.80; 95% CI: 0.01-4812) had no overall effect on IAs. Of 88 genes that interacted with smoking cessation medications, two had a causal effect on IA risk. Genetic variants affecting HYKK levels showed strong evidence of colocalization with IA risk. Higher HYKK levels in the blood were associated with a lower IA risk. Gene target analyses revealed that cigarettes/day could be a main mediator of HYKK's effect on IA risk.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence supporting that smoking initiation on IAs and cigarettes/day may increase IA risk. Increased HYKK gene expression may reduce IA risk. This can be explained by the increased number of cigarettes consumed daily. HYKK could also reduce IA risk due to the positive effect of continuous abstinence and varenicline therapy on smoking cessation.

Changes in distinct brain systems identified with fMRI during smoking cessation treatment with varenicline: a review

BACKGROUND

Varenicline is considered one of the most effective treatment options for smoking cessation. Nonetheless, it is only modestly effective. A deeper comprehension of the effects of varenicline by means of the in-depth review of relevant fMRI studies may assist in paving the development of more targeted and effective treatments.

METHODOLOGY

A search of PubMed and Google Scholar databases was conducted with the keywords "functional magnetic resonance imaging" or "fMRI", and "varenicline". All peer-reviewed articles regarding the assessment of smokers with fMRI while undergoing treatment with varenicline and meeting the predefined criteria were included.

RESULTS

Several studies utilizing different methodologies and targeting different aspects of brain function were identified. During nicotine withdrawal, decreased mesocorticolimbic activity and increased amygdala activity, as well as elevated amygdala-insula and insula-default-mode-network functional connectivity are alleviated by varenicline under specific testing conditions. However, other nicotine withdrawal-induced changes, including the decreased reward responsivity of the ventral striatum, the bilateral dorsal striatum and the anterior cingulate cortex are not influenced by varenicline suggesting a task-dependent divergence in neurocircuitry activation. Under satiety, varenicline treatment is associated with diminished cue-induced activation of the ventral striatum and medial orbitofrontal cortex concomitant with reduced cravings; during the resting state, varenicline induces activation of the lateral orbitofrontal cortex and suppression of the right amygdala.

CONCLUSIONS

The current review provides important clues with regard to the neurobiological mechanism of action of varenicline and highlights promising research opportunities regarding the development of more selective and effective treatments and predictive biomarkers for treatment efficacy.

Lung cancer screening in Brazil: recommendations from the Brazilian Society of Thoracic Surgery, Brazilian Thoracic Association, and Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging

Although lung cancer (LC) is one of the most common and lethal tumors, only 15% of patients are diagnosed at an early stage. Smoking is still responsible for more than 85% of cases. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) reduces LC-related mortality by 20%, and that reduction reaches 38% when LCS by LDCT is combined with smoking cessation. In the last decade, a number of countries have adopted population-based LCS as a public health recommendation. Albeit still incipient, discussion on this topic in Brazil is becoming increasingly broad and necessary. With the aim of increasing knowledge and stimulating debate on LCS, the Brazilian Society of Thoracic Surgery, the Brazilian Thoracic Association, and the Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging convened a panel of experts to prepare recommendations for LCS in Brazil. The recommendations presented here were based on a narrative review of the literature, with an emphasis on large population-based studies, systematic reviews, and the recommendations of international guidelines, and were developed after extensive discussion by the panel of experts. The following topics were reviewed: reasons for screening; general considerations about smoking; epidemiology of LC; eligibility criteria; incidental findings; granulomatous lesions; probabilistic models; minimum requirements for LDCT; volumetric acquisition; risks of screening; minimum structure and role of the multidisciplinary team; practice according to the Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System; costs versus benefits of screening; and future perspectives for LCS.

Unveiling the Impact of Electronic Cigarettes (EC) on Health: An Evidence-Based Review of EC as an Alternative to Combustible Cigarettes

Cigarette smoking has been considered a major public health concern due to its serious impact on health. However, smokers intending to quit may find long-term abstinence challenging. When smoking an electronic cigarette (EC), users can experience a sensation and taste similar to that of smoking a combustible cigarette. Therefore, manufacturers promote these products as a viable substitute for combustible cigarettes. However, several researchers report the serious health impacts experienced by EC users. Therefore, this review aims to examine the health impacts of EC use. Based on the findings of the research papers reported in the literature, the role of EC as a smoking cessation tool is unclear. Several researchers have also reported a significant association between EC usage among non-smokers at baseline and the future initiation of combustible cigarette smoking. EC use significantly impacts user health. The nicotine that is present in EC e-liquids can elevate blood pressure, resulting in blood vessel constriction and an increase in heart rate, ultimately leading the body to an ischemic condition, resulting in myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and increased arterial stiffness. Researchers report a higher likelihood of prediabetes among EC users; its usage was associated with higher OR of having asthma attacks and higher OR of reporting depression and has an impact on birth outcomes among pregnant women. Men using EC are more likely to report erectile dysfunction than non-users. EC also has a significant impact on oral health, which includes periodontal diseases, mucosal lesions, irritation in the mouth and throat, reduced salivary flow, and an increased risk of developing cancer. The physical injury resulting from exploding EC is another health concern. The frequently burned areas included the hands, face, genitalia, and thighs. Marketers promote EC as an alternative to combustible cigarettes and a tool for quitting smoking. However, the Food and Drug Administration has not approved them for smoking cessation. EC can have a serious impact on the health of their users; hence, the findings of this paper have several implications, including the need for regulation of the sales and marketing of these products and educating the users on the impact of these products on their health and safety.

Efficacy of Electronic Cigarettes vs Varenicline and Nicotine Chewing Gum as an Aid to Stop Smoking: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are often used by smokers as an aid to stopping smoking, but evidence is limited regarding their efficacy compared with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and no evidence is available on how their efficacy compares with that of varenicline.

Objective

To evaluate whether ECs are superior to NRT and noninferior to varenicline in helping smokers quit.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a randomized clinical trial conducted at 7 sites in China and including participants who were smoking at least 10 cigarettes per day and motivated to quit, not using stop-smoking medications or EC, and willing to use any of the study products. Participants were first recruited in May 2021, and data analysis was conducted in December 2022.

Interventions

A cartridge-based EC (30 mg/mL nicotine salt for 2 weeks and 50 mg/mL after that), varenicline (0.5 mg, once a day for 3 days; 0.5 mg, twice a day for 4 days; and 1 mg, twice a day, after that), and 2 mg (for smokers of ≤20 cigarettes per day) or 4 mg (>20 cigarettes per day) nicotine chewing gum, all provided for 12 weeks and accompanied by minimal behavioral support (an invitation to join a self-help internet forum).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was sustained abstinence from smoking at 6 months as validated by an expired-air carbon monoxide reading (<8 parts per million). Participants lost to follow-up were included as nonabstainers.

Results

Of 1068 participants, 357 (33.5%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 33.9 (3.1) years. A total of 409 (38.3%), 409 (38.3%), and 250 (23.4%) participants were randomized to the EC, varenicline, and NRT arms, respectively. The 6-month biochemically validated abstinence rates were 15.7% (n = 64), 14.2% (n = 58), and 8.8% (n = 22) in the EC, varenicline, and NRT study arms, respectively. The quit rate in the EC arm was noninferior to the varenicline arm (absolute risk reduction, 1.47%; 95% CI, -1.41% to 4.34%) and higher than in the NRT arm (odds ratio, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.15-3.21). Treatment adherence was similar in all study arms during the initial 3 months, but 257 participants (62.8%) in the EC arm were still using ECs at 6 months, with no further use in the 2 other study arms. The most common adverse reactions were throat irritation (32 [7.8%]) and mouth irritation (28 [6.9%]) in the EC arm, nausea (36 [8.8%]) in the varenicline arm, and throat irritation (20 [8.0%]) and mouth irritation (22 [8.8%]) in the NRT arm. No serious adverse events were recorded.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this randomized clinical trial found that when all treatments were provided with minimal behavior support, the efficacy of EC was noninferior to varenicline and superior to nicotine chewing gum.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2100048156.

Effect of an intensive tobacco cessation program on the smoker narrative: A content analysis and grounded theory

INTRODUCTION

The smoker's narrative during smoking quitting provides insight into aspects not fully explored in daily clinical practice. The aim of the study was to analyze the smoker narrative using two types of methodologies: content analysis and grounded theory, before and after smoking cessation intervention, provided to the smoker in a specialized Smoking Cessation Unit accredited by the Spanish Society of Pneumology and Thoracic Surgery.

METHODS

A prospective observational study of current smokers included in a tobacco cessation program between 2017 and 2020 was conducted at the Smoking Cessation Unit of Santiago de Compostela Health Area, Spain. Routine clinical variables and patient narrative data were collected. A descriptive analysis of the sample, the content of the textual corpus, and a grounded theory were performed in semi-structured interviews at baseline and at follow-up at 6 months.

RESULTS

A total of 116 patients were included (mean age 55.6 ± 10.6 years; 56.9% male; mean nicotine dependence score 5.7 ± 1.6). Quantitative analysis of the narrative shows that the most frequent phrases and words are associated with smoking, nicotine craving, and predisposition for smoking cessation. After the intervention, phrases related to the manifestation of abstinence, response to pharmacological treatment, and self-perception of smoking cessation were predominant. In the qualitative analysis, the most frequent categories in the smoker's textual corpus were dependence, motivation, and emotionality, which decreased after the intervention (11.4%, 21.4%, and 9.9%, respectively) accompanied by increased satisfaction (19.2%) and the manifestation of abstinence (21.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Motivation, nicotine dependence, and sensitivity to emotions are all closely intertwined in the current smoker narrative and can be modified as a consequence of treatment.

Recommandations pour des soins préventifs pour promouvoir l’équité en matière de santé

Contexte:

Malgré des investissements importants dans un système de soins de santé public qui comprend des services préventifs, on continue d’observer des disparités évitables en matière de santé au Canada. L’équipe avait pour objectif de formuler des recommandations pour des soins de santé préventifs qui puissent améliorer l’équité en matière de santé par la priorisation des interventions efficaces à l’intention des groupes défavorisés.

Méthodes:

La ligne directrice a été élaborée par un comité composé de spécialistes en soins primaires et de membres de la patientèle, avec la contribution d’un groupe de patientes-et patientspartenaires ayant vécu diverses expériences. Après avoir sélectionné les sujets à prioriser, nous avons recensé les revues systématiques, les essais randomisés et contrôlés récents sur les méthodes de dépistage et d’autres études pertinentes sur l’efficacité du dépistage et de la prise en charge. Nous avons utilisé l’approche GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) pour formuler les recommandations et avons suivi le guide AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) pour rédiger le rapport. Il en a été de même avec les principes du Guidelines International Network pour la gestion des intérêts concurrents. Les recommandations ont été passées en revue par un comité externe d’experts en contenu avant d’être distribuées à des intervenants à l’échelle nationale pour approbation.

Recommandations:

Nous avons formulé 15 recommandations concernant le dépistage et d’autres soins préventifs et 1 recommandation de nature politique visant à améliorer l’accès aux soins primaires. Ainsi, nous recommandons de prioriser une stratégie de communication pour le dépistage du cancer colorectal à partir de l’âge de 45 ans et pour l’évaluation du risque de maladie cardiovasculaire pour lutter contre les iniquités en matière de santé et promouvoir la santé. Les interventions particulières qui devraient être déployées pour lutter contre les iniquités comprennent l’autodépistage du virus du papillome humain (VPH) et du VIH, et le test de libération de l’interféron γ pour l’infection tuberculeuse. Le dépistage de la dépression, de la toxicomanie, de la violence conjugale et de la pauvreté devrait également permettre aux personnes touchées d’accéder plus facilement à des interventions éprouvées. Nous recommandons une prise de contact systématique avec des professionnels de la santé en soins primaires pour les personnes défavorisées.

Interprétation:

Les interventions préventives éprouvées peuvent aider à combattre les iniquités en matière de santé si la priorité est accordée aux personnes défavorisées. Les médecins, les organisations de santé et les gouvernements devraient adopter des mesures fondées sur des données probantes et en faire le suivi s’ils veulent promouvoir l’équité en matière de santé partout au Canada.

2023 TAMIS/TSOC/TACVPR Consensus Statement for Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Rehabilitation

Cardiac rehabilitation is a comprehensive intervention recommended in international and Taiwanese guidelines for patients with acute myocardial infarction. Evidence supports that cardiac rehabilitation improves the health-related quality of life, enhances exercise capacity, reduces readmission rates, and promotes survival in patients with cardiovascular disease. The cardiac rehabilitation team is comprehensive and multidisciplinary. The inpatient, outpatient, and maintenance phases are included in cardiac rehabilitation. All patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction should be referred to the rehabilitation department as soon as clinically feasible. Pre-exercise evaluation, including exercise testing, helps physicians identify the risks of cardiac rehabilitation and organize appropriate exercise prescriptions. Therefore, the Taiwan Myocardial Infarction Society (TAMIS), Taiwan Society of Cardiology (TSOC), and Taiwan Academy of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation (TACVPR) address this consensus statement to assist healthcare practitioners in performing cardiac rehabilitation in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

Preventive care recommendations to promote health equity

BACKGROUND

Avoidable disparities in health outcomes persist in Canada despite substantial investments in a publicly funded health care system that includes preventive services. Our objective was to provide preventive care recommendations that promote health equity by prioritizing effective interventions for people experiencing disadvantages.

METHODS

The guideline was developed by a primary care provider-patient panel, with input from a patient-partner panel with diverse lived experiences. After selecting priority topics, we searched for systematic reviews and recent randomized controlled trials of screening and other relevant studies of screening accuracy and management efficacy. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations and followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) reporting guidance. We managed competing interests using the Guideline International Network principles. The recommendations were externally reviewed by content experts and circulated for endorsement by national stakeholders.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We developed 15 screening and other preventive care recommendations and 1 policy recommendation on improving access to primary care. We recommend prioritized outreach for colorectal cancer screening starting at age 45 years and for cardiovascular disease risk assessment, to help address inequities and promote health. Specific interventions that should be rolled out in ways that address inequities include human papillomavirus (HPV) self-testing, HIV self-testing and interferon-γ release assays for tuberculosis infection. Screening for depression, substance use, intimate partner violence and poverty should help connect people experiencing specific disadvantages with proven interventions. We recommend automatic connection to primary care for people experiencing disadvantages.

INTERPRETATION

Proven preventive care interventions can address health inequities if people experiencing disadvantages are prioritized. Clinicians, health care organizations and governments should take evidence-based actions and track progress in promoting health equity across Canada.

Pharmacological and electronic cigarette interventions for smoking cessation in adults: component network meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease worldwide. Stopping smoking can reduce this harm and many people would like to stop. There are a number of medicines licenced to help people quit globally, and e-cigarettes are used for this purpose in many countries. Typically treatments work by reducing cravings to smoke, thus aiding initial abstinence and preventing relapse. More information on comparative effects of these treatments is needed to inform treatment decisions and policies.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the comparative benefits, harms and tolerability of different smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and e-cigarettes, when used to help people stop smoking tobacco.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies from recent updates of Cochrane Reviews investigating our interventions of interest. We updated the searches for each review using the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group (TAG) specialised register to 29 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and factorial RCTs, which measured smoking cessation at six months or longer, recruited adults who smoked combustible cigarettes at enrolment (excluding pregnant people) and randomised them to approved pharmacotherapies and technologies used for smoking cessation worldwide (varenicline, cytisine, nortriptyline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and e-cigarettes) versus no pharmacological intervention, placebo (control) or another approved pharmacotherapy. Studies providing co-interventions (e.g. behavioural support) were eligible if the co-intervention was provided equally to study arms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening, data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment (using the RoB 1 tool). Primary outcome measures were smoking cessation at six months or longer, and the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs). We also measured withdrawals due to treatment. We used Bayesian component network meta-analyses (cNMA) to examine intervention type, delivery mode, dose, duration, timing in relation to quit day and tapering of nicotine dose, using odds ratios (OR) and 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). We calculated an effect estimate for combination NRT using an additive model. We evaluated the influence of population and study characteristics, provision of behavioural support and control arm rates using meta-regression. We evaluated certainty using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Of our 332 eligible RCTs, 319 (835 study arms, 157,179 participants) provided sufficient data to be included in our cNMA. Of these, we judged 51 to be at low risk of bias overall, 104 at high risk and 164 at unclear risk, and 118 reported pharmaceutical or e-cigarette/tobacco industry funding. Removing studies at high risk of bias did not change our interpretation of the results. Benefits We found high-certainty evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes (OR 2.37, 95% CrI 1.73 to 3.24; 16 RCTs, 3828 participants), varenicline (OR 2.33, 95% CrI 2.02 to 2.68; 67 RCTs, 16,430 participants) and cytisine (OR 2.21, 95% CrI 1.66 to 2.97; 7 RCTs, 3848 participants) were associated with higher quit rates than control. In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional eight (95% CrI 4 to 13), eight (95% CrI 6 to 10) and seven additional quitters per 100 (95% CrI 4 to 12), respectively. These interventions appeared to be more effective than the other interventions apart from combination NRT (patch and a fast-acting form of NRT), which had a lower point estimate (calculated additive effect) but overlapping 95% CrIs (OR 1.93, 95% CrI 1.61 to 2.34). There was also high-certainty evidence that nicotine patch alone (OR 1.37, 95% CrI 1.20 to 1.56; 105 RCTs, 37,319 participants), fast-acting NRT alone (OR 1.41, 95% CrI 1.29 to 1.55; 120 RCTs, 31,756 participants) and bupropion (OR 1.43, 95% CrI 1.26 to 1.62; 71 RCTs, 14,759 participants) were more effective than control, resulting in two (95% CrI 1 to 3), three (95% CrI 2 to 3) and three (95% CrI 2 to 4) additional quitters per 100 respectively. Nortriptyline is probably associated with higher quit rates than control (OR 1.35, 95% CrI 1.02 to 1.81; 10 RCTs, 1290 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), resulting in two (CrI 0 to 5) additional quitters per 100. Non-nicotine/placebo e-cigarettes (OR 1.16, 95% CrI 0.74 to 1.80; 8 RCTs, 1094 participants; low-certainty evidence), equating to one additional quitter (95% CrI -2 to 5), had point estimates favouring the intervention over control, but CrIs encompassed the potential for no difference and harm. There was low-certainty evidence that tapering the dose of NRT prior to stopping treatment may improve effectiveness; however, 95% CrIs also incorporated the null (OR 1.14, 95% CrI 1.00 to 1.29; 111 RCTs, 33,156 participants). This might lead to an additional one quitter per 100 (95% CrI 0 to 2). Harms There were insufficient data to include nortriptyline and non-nicotine EC in the final SAE model. Overall rates of SAEs for the remaining treatments were low (average 3%). Low-certainty evidence did not show a clear difference in the number of people reporting SAEs for nicotine e-cigarettes, varenicline, cytisine or NRT when compared to no pharmacotherapy/e-cigarettes or placebo. Bupropion may slightly increase rates of SAEs, although the CrI also incorporated no difference (moderate certainty). In absolute terms bupropion may cause one more person in 100 to experience an SAE (95% CrI 0 to 2).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The most effective interventions were nicotine e-cigarettes, varenicline and cytisine (all high certainty), as well as combination NRT (additive effect, certainty not rated). There was also high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of nicotine patch, fast-acting NRT and bupropion. Less certain evidence of benefit was present for nortriptyline (moderate certainty), non-nicotine e-cigarettes and tapering of nicotine dose (both low certainty). There was moderate-certainty evidence that bupropion may slightly increase the frequency of SAEs, although there was also the possibility of no increased risk. There was no clear evidence that any other tested interventions increased SAEs. Overall, SAE data were sparse with very low numbers of SAEs, and so further evidence may change our interpretation and certainty. Future studies should report SAEs to strengthen certainty in this outcome. More head-to-head comparisons of the most effective interventions are needed, as are tests of combinations of these. Future work should unify data from behavioural and pharmacological interventions to inform approaches to combined support for smoking cessation.

Effectiveness of nicotine salt vapes, cytisine, and a combination of these products, for smoking cessation in New Zealand: protocol for a three-arm, pragmatic, community-based randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Combining short-acting nicotine replacement therapy with varenicline increases smoking cessation rates compared with varenicline alone, but not all people tolerate these medications or find them helpful. We aim to investigate the therapeutic potential of an analogous combination, by evaluating the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of combining nicotine salt e-cigarettes with cytisine, compared to nicotine salt e-cigarettes or cytisine only, on smoking abstinence at six months.

METHODS

A pragmatic, community-based, investigator-blinded, randomised superiority trial design will be utilised. Eligible participants will be people who smoke daily (N = 800, 90% power) from throughout New Zealand, who are: aged ≥ 18 years, motivated to quit in the next two weeks, able to provide online consent, willing to use e-cigarettes and/or cytisine, and have daily access to a mobile phone. Recruitment will utilise multi-media advertising. Participants will be randomised (3:3:2 ratio) to 12 weeks of: 1) e-cigarettes (closed pod system, 3% nicotine salt, tobacco flavour) plus cytisine; 2) e-cigarettes alone, or 3) cytisine alone. All groups will receive a six-month, text-message-based behavioural support programme. The primary outcome is self-reported, biochemically verified, continuous abstinence at six months post-quit date. Secondary outcomes, measured at quit date, then one, three, six, and 12 months post-quit date, include self-reported continuous abstinence, 7-day point prevalence abstinence, cigarettes smoked per day, withdrawal and urge to smoke, time to (re)lapse, treatment use and compliance, treatment crossover, dual-use, use of other cessation products, change in e-cigarette products, continuation of product use, acceptability, change in health state, health-related quality of life, change in body mass index, adverse events, and cost per quitter.

DISCUSSION

Pragmatic trials are of particular value as they reflect the 'real world' impact of interventions. The trial will provide some of the first evidence on the effectiveness of combining nicotine salt e-cigarettes with cytisine for smoking cessation, in a country with strong tobacco control policy. Findings will be incorporated into relevant systematic reviews, informing practice and policy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05311085 ClinicalTrials.gov. Registered 5th April, 2022.

The Relationship Between Cigarette Dependence and Cessation Methods: Implications for Smoking Cessation Among People With HIV

OBJECTIVE

These analyses investigate how dependence may be related to cessation method choice and how this relationship may vary by subpopulation among people with HIV (PWH) who smoke cigarettes.

METHOD

PWH who smoke (N = 71) were recruited from clinics in Boston, MA. The Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) and Smoking History Questionnaire (SHQ) were completed to assess for cigarette dependence, past-week cigarettes per day (CPD), and past cessation method use. Logistic regression examined the association between dependence and previous cessation methods for the whole sample, and moderation analyses assessed this relationship by age and race.

RESULTS

Higher FTND was associated with less use of behavioral modification methods (odds ratio [OR] = 0.658, 95% CI [0.435, 0.994], p = .047). Higher past-week CPD was associated with use of the American Cancer Society/American Lung Association (ACS/ALA) programs (OR = 1.159, 95% CI [1.011, 1.328], p = .035) and telephone counselling (OR = 1.142, 95% CI [1.006, 1.295], p = .040]). Older participants with more past-week CPD were more likely to have used the ACS/ALA programs (B = 0.0169, 95% CI [0.0008, 0.0331], p = .0401), and White participants with more past-week CPD were less likely to have tried to quit "cold turkey" (B = 0.1676, 95% CI [0.0027, 0.3326], p = .0464).

CONCLUSIONS

These preliminary results suggest that there is likely not a "one-size-fits-all" approach to cessation for PWH who smoke, especially within subpopulations (i.e., age and race). Implications include ensuring access to multiple cessation methods, identifying methods that could be culturally appropriate outside of the clinical intervention setting, and providing education and support on cessation methods offered.

Psychopharmacology of smoking cessation medications: focus on patients with mental health disorders

The adverse effects of smoking cessation in individuals with mental health disorders have been a point of concern, and progress in the development of treatment has been slow. The primary first-line treatments for smoking cessation are Nicotine Replacement Therapy, Bupropion, Varenicline, and behavioural support. Nortriptyline and Clonidine are second-line treatments used when the first-line treatments are not effective or are contraindicated. Smoking cessation medications have been shown to be effective in reducing nicotine cravings and withdrawal symptoms and promoting smoking cessation among patients living with mental disorders. However, these medications may have implications for patients' mental health and need to be monitored closely. The efficacy and side effects of these medications may vary depending on the patient's psychiatric condition, medication regimen, substance use, or medical comorbidities. The purpose of this review is to synthesise the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, therapeutic effects, adverse effects, and pharmacological interactions of first- and second-line smoking cessation drugs, with an emphasis on patients suffering from mental illnesses. Careful consideration of the risks and benefits of using smoking cessation medications is necessary, and treatment plans must be tailored to individual patients' needs. Monitoring symptoms and medication regimens is essential to ensure optimal treatment outcomes.

Short-term smoking cessation leads to a universal decrease in whole blood genomic DNA methylation in patients with a smoking history

BACKGROUND

Epigenetics is involved in various human diseases. Smoking is one of the most common environmental factors causing epigenetic changes. The DNA methylation changes and mechanisms after quitting smoking have yet to be defined. The present study examined the changes in DNA methylation levels before and after short-term smoking cessation and explored the potential mechanism.

METHODS

Whole blood and clinical data were collected from 8 patients before and after short-term smoking cessation, DNA methylation was assessed, and differentially methylated sites were analyzed, followed by a comprehensive analysis of the differentially methylated sites with clinical data. GO/KEGG enrichment and protein-protein interaction (PPI) network analyses identified the hub genes. The differentially methylated sites between former and current smokers in GSE50660 from the GEO database were detected by GEO2R. Then, a Venn analysis was carried out using the differentially methylated sites. GO/KEGG enrichment analysis was performed on the genes corresponding to the common DNA methylation sites, the PPI network was constructed, and hub genes were predicted. The enriched genes associated with the cell cycle were selected, and the pan-cancer gene expression and clinical significance in lung cancer were analyzed based on the TCGA database.

RESULTS

Most genes showed decreased DNA methylation levels after short-term smoking cessation; 694 upregulated methylation CpG sites and 3184 downregulated methylation CpG sites were identified. The DNA methylation levels were altered according to the clinical data (body weight, expiratory, and tobacco dependence score). Enrichment analysis, construction of the PPI network, and pan-cancer analysis suggested that smoking cessation may affect various biological processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking cessation leads to epigenetic changes, mainly decreased in the decline of most DNA methylation levels. Bioinformatics further identified the biologically relevant changes after short-term smoking cessation.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for smoking cessation: Next steps for translation and implementation into clinical practice

Tobacco smoking is a significant determinant of preventable morbidity and mortality worldwide. It is now possible to modulate the activity of the neurocircuitry associated with nicotine dependence using repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS), a non-invasive neurostimulation approach, which has recently demonstrated efficacy in clinical trials and received regulatory approval in the US and Canada. However there remains a paucity of replication studies and real-world patient effectiveness data as access to this intervention is extremely limited. There are a number of unique challenges related to the delivery of rTMS that need to be addressed prior to widespread adoption and implementation of this treatment modality for smoking cessation. In this paper, we review the accessibility, scientific, technological, economical, and social challenges that remain before this treatment can be translated into clinical practice. By addressing these remaining barriers and scientific challenges with rTMS for smoking cessation and delineating implementation strategies, we can greatly reduce the burden of tobacco-related disease worldwide.

Clinical challenges facing patient participation in cardiac rehabilitation: cigarette smoking

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is highly effective at reducing morbidity and mortality. However, CR is underutilized, and adherence remains challenging. In no group is CR attendance more challenging than among patients who smoke. Despite being more likely to be referred to CR, they are less likely to enroll, and much more likely to drop out. CR programs generally do not optimally engage and treat those who smoke, but this population is critical to engage given the high-risk nature of continued smoking in those with cardiovascular disease.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers four areas relating to CR in those who smoke. First, we review the evidence of the association between smoking and lack of participation in CR. Second, we examine how smoking has historically been identified in this population and propose objective screening measures for all patients. Third, we discuss the optimal treatment of smoking within CR. Fourth, we review select populations within those who smoke (those with lower-socioeconomic status, females) that require additional research and attention.

EXPERT OPINION

Smoking poses a challenge on multiple fronts, being a significant predictor of future morbidity and mortality, as well as being strongly associated with not completing the secondary prevention program (CR) that could benefit those who smoke the most.

Bupropion Mediated Effects on Depression, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and Smoking Cessation

Bupropion had been in use since the late 1980s as an unconventional treatment for depression. Unlike other antidepressants, bupropion has no serotonergic activity and inhibits the reuptake of norepinephrine and dopamine. The drug has been used to treat depression, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and smoking cessation. This investigation reviews the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of bupropion and its mechanisms of action and interactions with other drugs. We evaluated the efficacy of major on and off-label uses of bupropion, focusing on the indications, benefits, and adverse effects. Our review demonstrates that bupropion is superior to placebo and non-inferior to SSRIs such as escitalopram in treating major depressive disorder. More research is needed to determine positive patient-centered outcomes such as increases in quality of life. In the case of ADHD, the evidence for efficacy is mixed with poorly conducted randomized clinical trials, small sample sizes, and a lack of long-term assessments. The same is true in the case of bipolar disorder in which there is still limited and controversial data available on bupropion's safety and efficacy. In the case of smoking cessation, bupropion is found to be an effective anti-smoking drug with synergistic benefits when used as a combination therapy. We conclude that bupropion has the potential to provide benefit for a subset of patients who do not tolerate other typical antidepressants or anti-smoking therapies or for those whose treatment goals align with bupropion's unique side effect profile, such as smokers who wish to quit and lose weight. Additional research is needed to determine the drug's full clinical potential, particularly in the areas of adolescent depression and combination therapy with varenicline or dextromethorphan. Clinicians should use this review to understand the varied uses of the drug and identify the situations and patient populations in which bupropion can lend its greatest benefit.

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.

Comparative effect of varenicline and nicotine patches on preventing repeat cardiovascular events

OBJECTIVE

To determine the comparative effectiveness of postdischarge use of varenicline versus prescription nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) patches for the prevention of recurrent cardiovascular events and mortality and whether this association differs by sex.

METHODS

Our cohort study used routinely collected hospital, pharmaceutical dispensing and mortality data for residents of New South Wales, Australia. We included patients hospitalised for a major cardiovascular event or procedure 2011-2017, who were dispensed varenicline or prescription NRT patches within 90day postdischarge. Exposure was defined using an approach analogous to intention to treat. Using inverse probability of treatment weighting with propensity scores to account for confounding, we estimated adjusted HRs for major cardiovascular events (MACEs), overall and by sex. We fitted an additional model with a sex-treatment interaction term to determine if treatment effects differed between males and females.

RESULTS

Our cohort of 844 varenicline users (72% male, 75% <65 years) and 2446 prescription NRT patch users (67% male, 65% <65 years) were followed for a median of 2.93 years and 2.34 years, respectively. After weighting, there was no difference in risk of MACE for varenicline relative to prescription NRT patches (aHR 0.99, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.19). We found no difference (interaction p=0.098) between males (aHR 0.92, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.16) and females (aHR 1.30, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.84), although the effect among females deviated from the null.

CONCLUSION

We found no difference between varenicline and prescription NRT patches in the risk of recurrent MACE. These results should be considered when determining the most appropriate choice of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy.

Effects of varenicline on the serum levels of olanzapine in male patients with Schizophrenia: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Smoking in patients with Schizophrenia is more common than in the general population. Varenicline, a partial agonist at α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, is an effective smoking cessation pharmacotherapy in patients with Schizophrenia. However, its effects on the serum levels of antipsychotics in Schizophrenia are understudied. This study investigated the impact of smoking cessation with varenicline on the serum concentration of olanzapine in patients with Schizophrenia.

Methods

Adult smokers with Schizophrenia were enrolled in a 12-week course of varenicline and placebo for smoking cessation. The serum concentration of olanzapine was measured at baseline and weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12. Data were analyzed with the generalized additive mixed model.

Results

During the 12-week study, the results indicated that olanzapine concentrations increased nonlinearly in the varenicline and placebo groups. Threshold effect analysis suggested that the olanzapine concentrations increased over time until the turning point (week 4). However, there was no significant difference between the two treatment groups.

Conclusion

Varenicline showed safety and efficacy in smoking cessation in people with Schizophrenia.

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.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues: a new way to quit smoking? (SKIP)-a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of premature death. Despite dedicated programmes, quit rates remain low due to barriers such as nicotine withdrawal syndrome or post-cessation weight gain. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues reduce energy intake and body weight and seem to modulate addictive behaviour. These GLP-1 properties are of major interest in the context of smoking cessation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the GLP-1 analogue dulaglutide as a new therapy for smoking cessation.

METHODS

This is a placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group, superiority, single-centre randomized study including 255 patients. The intervention consists of a 12-week dulaglutide treatment phase with 1.5 mg once weekly or placebo subcutaneously, in addition to standard of care (behavioural counselling and pharmacotherapy with varenicline). A 40-week non-treatment phase follows. The primary outcome is the point prevalence abstinence rate at week 12. Smoking status is self-reported and biochemically confirmed by end-expiratory exhaled carbon monoxide measurement. Further endpoints include post-cessational weight gain, nicotine craving analysis, glucose homeostasis and long-term nicotine abstinence. Two separate substudies assess behavioural, functional and structural changes by functional magnetic resonance imaging and measures of energy metabolism (i.e. resting energy expenditure, body composition).

DISCUSSION

Combining behavioural counselling and medical therapy, e.g. with varenicline, improves abstinence rates and is considered the standard of care. We expect a further increase in quit rates by adding a second component of medical therapy and assume a dual effect of dulaglutide treatment (blunting nicotine withdrawal symptoms and reducing post-cessational weight gain). This project is of high relevance as it explores novel treatment options aimed at preventing the disastrous consequences of nicotine consumption and obesity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03204396 . Registered on June 26, 2017.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to induce attempts to quit tobacco among adults not ready to quit

The prevalence of past-year smoking cessation remains below 10% in the U.S. Most who smoke are not ready to quit in the near future. Cessation requires both (a) initiating a quit attempt (QA) and (b) maintaining abstinence. Most research has focused on abstinence among people already motivated to quit. We systematically reviewed interventions to promote QAs among people not motivated to quit tobacco. We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Embase, and our personal libraries for randomized trials of tobacco interventions that reported QAs as an outcome among adults not ready to quit. We screened studies and extracted data in duplicate. We pooled findings of the 25 included studies using Mantel-Haenszel random effects meta-analyses when ≥ 2 studies tested the same intervention. Most (24) trials addressed cigarettes and one addressed smokeless tobacco. Substantial heterogeneity among trials resulted in a series of small meta-analyses. Findings indicate varenicline may increase QAs more than no varenicline, n = 320; RR = 1.4, 95% CI [1.1, 1.7]; I² = 0%, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) may increase QAs more than no NRT, n = 2,568; RR = 1.1, 95% CI [1.02, 1.3]; I² = 0%. Pooled effects for motivational counseling, reduction counseling, and very low nicotine content cigarettes showed no clear evidence of benefit or harm. The evidence was judged to be of medium to very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias, suggesting that further research is likely to change interpretation of our results. Findings demonstrate the need for more high-quality research on interventions to induce QAs among adults not ready to quit tobacco. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Nicotine Dependence among College Students Uninterested in Smoking Cessation during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Survey

This study investigated nicotine dependence among Japanese university students who had reached the smoking age (20 years or older) by the time of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and examined factors that encourage early smoking cessation. Social dependence on nicotine was evaluated using the Kano Total Social Nicotine Dependence Level (KTSND), and physiological dependence was evaluated using the Fagerström Nicotine Dependence Index (FTND). Of the 356 college students who smoked (4.4% of the total), 182 (51.1%) stated that they were not interested in quitting. Furthermore, 124 (68.1%) of those with no interest in quitting smoking were aware that smoking is a high-risk factor for COVID-19, and 58 (31.9%) were unaware. The group not aware of this risk had significantly higher KTSND scores than the group aware of it. The examination of cigarette type that indicated the users of non-conventional cigarette products and dual-user groups scored significantly higher than the cigarette group on FTND items. Overall, the smokers scored above the normal range for social nicotine dependence, suggesting the need to reduce nicotine dependence to encourage college students who continue to smoke to quit smoking.

Smoking Cessation and Benefits to Cardiovascular Health: A Review of Literature

Tobacco smoking is a chief cause of preventable deaths worldwide, accounting for various cancers, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Tobacco smoking accounts for more than seven million deaths every year. Worldwide statistics show that about 1.1 billion active smokers exist; 80% live in low- and middle-income countries. Nicotine is the addictive ingredient with the least harm compared to other active ingredients in tobacco, albeit not completely benign. Nicotine acts on the nicotinic cholinergic receptors (nAChRs) and produces the release of neurotransmitters. The mechanism by which it affects the cardiovascular system involves endothelial dysfunction by reducing nitrogen monoxide production, pro-thrombotic conditions, and activating inflammatory routes. These factors, along with the increased amounts of coronary atherosclerosis, have addictive adverse effects. Smoking has been shown to cause increased amounts of coronary atherosclerosis which may be responsible for the increased risk of hypertension, coronary heart disease, and atrial fibrillation, potentially contributing to the association of current smokers with a higher incidence of heart failure. This has led to worsened burdens and outcomes of cardiovascular disease among smokers. Smoking cessation has been associated with a reduction in cardiovascular mortality. This ranges from the reduction in the incidence of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and heart failure. As regards behavioral and mental health, smoking cessation reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease in people experiencing mental illness. The prevalence of smoking continues to trend downward over the past couple of decades. Despite this downtrend, cigarette smoking is responsible for approximately half a million deaths per year in the United States and billions of dollars spent in healthcare. This buttresses the need to explore the various effects of smoking cessation on cardiovascular health and suggest ways to curb the disease burden.

[Questions and Answers in Tobacco Smoking]

Smoking is an addictive, chronic and relapsing disease that, due to its high prevalence, morbidity and mortality, has become one of the main public health problems worldwide, affecting both smokers and rest of population involuntarily exposed to smoke tobacco.To overcome this pandemic, it is essential that all health professionals intervene on the problem in a manner adapted to their level of care, from giving brief advice for stop smoking to proposing intensive cognitive-behavioral and pharmacological treatment.Smoking cessation treatments have proven to be safe and effective, but unfortunately, the personal and economic resources dedicated to smoker care are not proportional to the magnitude of the problem, with few specialized consultations and lack of funding for pharmacological treatments.In addition, we must confront the arguments of the tobacco industry that interferes in the fight against smoking with new products that they pretend to offer as «harm reduction strategies» when really it is their way of attracting new addicts to tobacco products.

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.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, although some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2022, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants, or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 completed studies, representing 22,052 participants, of which 40 were RCTs. Seventeen of the 78 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 50 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was high certainty that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.04; I2 = 10%; 6 studies, 2378 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6). There was moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1702 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.52; I2 = 34%; 5 studies, 2411 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1272 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.65; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 3126 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional two quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 3). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; I2 = 38%; 9 studies, 1993 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Automated Digital Interventions and Smoking Cessation: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Relating Efficiency to a Psychological Theory of Intervention Perspective

BACKGROUND

Smoking remains a highly significant preventable global public health problem. In this context, digital interventions offer great advantages in terms of a lack of biological side effects, possibility of automatic delivery, and consequent human resource savings relative to traditional interventions. Such interventions have been studied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but have not been systematically reviewed with the inclusion of text-based and multiplatform-based interventions. In addition, this area has not been evaluated from the perspective of the psychological theoretical basis of intervention.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to assess the efficiency of digital interventions in RCT studies of smoking cessation and to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies used for digital interventions.

METHODS

An electronic search of RCTs was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library by June 30, 2021. Eligible studies had to compare automated digital intervention (ADI) to the use of a self-help guideline or no intervention. Participants were current smokers (aged 16 years or older). As the main outcome, abstinence after endpoint was extracted from the studies. Systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the efficiency of ADIs. Metaregressions were conducted to assess the relationship between intervention theory and effectiveness.

RESULTS

A total of 19 trials (15,472 participants) were included in the analysis. The overall abstinence rate (95% CI) at the endpoint was 17.8% (17.0-18.7). The overall risk ratio of the intervention group compared to the controls at the endpoint was 17.8% (17.0-18.7). Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (ROB 2) suggested that most of the studies had a low risk of bias (56.3%). Psychological theory-related constructs or predictors, which refer to other theory-based concepts (rather than only behavioral theory) such as craving or anxiety, are associated with effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that ADI had a clear positive effect compared to self-help guidelines or to no intervention, and effectiveness was associated with theory-related constructs or predictors. ADIs should be promoted by policy makers and clinical practitioners to address the huge gap between the need for smoking cessation and availability of traditional treatment resources. Possible increases in ADI efficiency may be achieved by optimally integrating psychotherapeutic theories and techniques.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021256593; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=256593.

Spirometry and Smoking Cessation in Primary Care: The ESPIROTAB STUDY, A Randomized Clinical Trial

This study aims to evaluate the effect of regularly reporting spirometry results during smoking cessation counseling from a primary care physician on the quit rate in adult smokers.

METHODS

A randomized, two-arm intervention study was conducted at six primary care centers. A total of 350 smokers, ≥18 years of age, who consulted their primary care physician, participated in the study. At the selection visit, smokers who gave their consent to participate underwent spirometry. Subsequently, an appointment (visit 0) was scheduled to complete a nicotine dependence test, a smoking cessation motivation questionnaire, and a sociodemographic questionnaire. Participants were also offered brief, structured advice on how to quit smoking, as well as detailed information on spirometry results. Patients were then randomized and scheduled for follow-up visits at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Both arms received brief, structured advice and detailed information on spirometry results at visit 0. At consecutive follow-up visits, the control group only received brief, structured smoking cessation advice, while the intervention group also received information on initial spirometry results at visits 3 and 6, and a spirometry retest at visit 12. Exhaled carbon monoxide testing was used to check smoking cessation.

RESULTS

The study included 350 smokers; 179 were assigned to the control group and 171 to the intervention group. Smoking cessation at one year was 24.0% in the intervention group compared to 16.2% in the control group. At two years, it was 25.2% in the intervention group and 18.4% in the control group. Overall, the adjusted odds of quitting smoking in the intervention group were 42% higher than in the control group (p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Regular and detailed feedback of spirometry results with smokers increases smoking cessation. Specifically, the likelihood of quitting smoking in the intervention group is 1.42 times higher than in the control group (p = 0.018).

The Nicotinic Agonist Cytisine: The Role of the NH···N Interaction

We report a detailed structural study of cytisine, an alkaloid used to help with smoking cessation, looking forward to unveiling its role as a nicotinic agonist. High-resolution rotational spectroscopy has allowed us to characterize two different conformers exhibiting axial and equatorial arrangements of the piperidinic NH group. Unexpectedly, the axial form has been found as the predominant configuration, in contrast to that observed for related molecules, such as piperidine. This anomalous behavior has been justified in terms of an intramolecular NH···N hydrogen bond. Moreover, this interaction justifies the overstabilization of the axial conformer over the equatorial one and is crucial for the mechanism of action of cytisine over the nicotinic receptor, further rationalizing its behavior as a nicotinic agonist.

Insula deep rTMS and varenicline for smoking cessation: A randomized control trial study protocol

Background: Current approved therapies for smoking cessation have modest long-term effects for abstinence. The insular cortex has been identified by preclinical and clinical studies as a critical target for addiction treatment. Insula functions can be modulated non-invasively using brain stimulation. It is unknown if deep repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the insula can improve smoking cessation of smokers trying to quit using varenicline.

Methods: This will be a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial with 50 nicotine dependent smokers looking to quit. They will be randomly assigned to receive either active (10 Hz) or sham insula deep rTMS. Deep rTMS will be administered for 4 weeks (5 days/week). All participants will receive open label varenicline for 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure will be the 7-day point prevalence abstinence at the end of 12 weeks. The secondary outcomes will be Fagerström Test of Nicotine Dependence, Minnesota Nicotine Withdrawal Scale, Tiffany Questionnaire of Smoking Urges, expired carbon monoxide measurements, cigarettes smoked per day, point prevalence abstinence at end of 4 weeks, prolonged and continuous abstinence at 6 months. The measures will be collected throughout the 3-month treatment period as well as at the 6-month follow up.

Discussion: This trial will test for the first time the impact of deep insula rTMS on smoking cessation in smokers treated with varenicline. This trial will use an H-coil specific to the insula, while previous studies have targeted both the insula and prefrontal cortex. This trial will inform on the utility to combine insula deep rTMS with varenicline to improve smoking abstinence rates.

Clinical Trial Registration: Trial registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04083144 (Identifier: NCT04083144).

Consensus statement on smoking cessation in patients with pain

Smoking is closely associated with the development of various cancers and tobacco-related illnesses such as cardiovascular and respiratory disorders. However, data are scarce on the relationship between smoking and both acute and chronic pain. In addition to nicotine, tobacco smoke contains more than 4000 different compounds. Although nicotine is not the sole cause of smoking-induced diseases, it plays a critical role in pain-related pathophysiology. Despite the acute analgesic effects of nicotine, long-term exposure leads to tolerance and increased pain sensitivity due to nicotinic acetylcholine receptor desensitization and neuronal plastic changes. The purpose of smoking cessation interventions in smoking patients with pain is primarily not only to reduce their pain and associated limitations in activities of daily living, but also to improve the outcomes of underlying pain-causing conditions and reduce the risks of tobacco-related disorders. This statement aims to summarize the available evidence on the impact of smoking on pain and to inform medical professionals of the significance of smoking cessation in patients with pain.

FEASIBILITY OF THE MULTIMODAL SMOKING CESSATION INTERVENTION DURING HOSPITALIZATION WITH SIX-MONTH FOLLOW-UP POST-DISCHARGE: A PILOT STUDY

The main aim of this pilot project was to introduce multimodal smoking cessation intervention in the hospital setting and to analyze users' satisfaction and efficacy of the intervention within six months post-discharge. Multimodal intervention for smoking cessation was used and it consisted of the "5 A's" model (Ask, Advice, Assess, Assist, Arrange) for behavior change, printed self-help materials for smoking cessation, and telephone counseling (one, three and six months after discharge from the hospital). The main outcome of the study was smoking status at six months. A total of 103 participants were included in this pilot project. At six-month follow-up, 49% of participants self-reported continuous non-smoking. Among the remaining participants, 20 reported smoking reduction, 19 were still smoking, and 16 participants were unable to make contact with. In the logistic regression, among all analyzed variables, only two of them were positively associated with smoking cessation after six months: participants' response that they would like to quit smoking within the next six months (B=4.688; p=0.018) and answering that they did not smoke when they were ill and bed-ridden due to illness (B=3.253; p=0.020). Satisfaction with the intervention was very high; 70% of participants rated the intervention as 'excellent'. Therefore, multimodal smoking cessation intervention can be successfully introduced at hospital setting yielding high smoking abstinence rates at six months post-discharge and high level of user satisfaction. Healthcare workers who work in hospitals should be educated so they can provide such intervention on a regular basis.

Psychological Effects of Aromatherapy on Smokers With Depressive Tendencies During Smoking Cessation Treatment: Protocol for a Pre-Post Single-Arm Clinical Trial

Background

Cessation of smoking can markedly reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease, improve health economics, and benefit society. Aromatherapy has the potential to be a novel option as an adjuvant therapy for smoking cessation that may alleviate depressive symptoms. However, research on the efficacy of aromatherapy as an adjuvant therapy for smoking cessation is scarce.

Objective

The aim of this study was to examine the potential effects of aromatherapy on psychological states in smokers with depressive tendencies and to determine if it is reasonable to proceed to the next step (ie, a phase III trial).

Methods

This is a pre-post single-arm clinical trial. Smokers with depression will be subjected to aromatherapy during smoking cessation treatment for 12 weeks. We will evaluate changes in scores on the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale and the Profile of Mood States from pretreatment screening to 4 weeks and 12 weeks after the start of aromatherapy. Moreover, we will compare the group treated with aromatherapy with the group that received standard treatment in our previous randomized controlled trial (ie, the control group in that study). Furthermore, we will compare successful smoking cessation rates after 12 weeks. In addition, we will conduct an exploratory analysis of the efficacy of aromatherapy. The target sample size is 100, which is the number of subjects expected to be enrolled in this study during the 2-year study period.

Results

This study was approved by the Kyoto Medical Center Institutional Review Board (IRB approval No. 19-016). Enrollment started on July 1, 2019. As of May 2022, 76 patients have been recruited. In the original plan, recruitment should have been finished on June 30, 2021. However, the number of subjects decreased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the study inclusion period was extended by 1 year (ie, until the end of June 2022) with the approval of the IRB on May 17, 2021. Analyses of the results will be completed subsequently.

Conclusions

This study has some limitations. This is not a rigorous validation study because it compares the same subjects who received standard treatment in a previous study. Moreover, the sample size and methods of statistical analysis were not fully set with prior consideration of statistical rigor. To address these limitations, we plan to conduct a phase III trial that will reflect the exploratory findings of this study. This is the first study to evaluate the psychological effects of aromatherapy during a smoking cessation program, and it may help improve the quality of treatment for smoking cessation in the future.

Trial Registration

UMIN Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000043102; https://tinyurl.com/tn3hvt9w

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/38626

Abstinence Rate, Adverse Events and Withdrawal Symptoms after Varenicline Use and Predicting Factors of Smoking Abstinence: A Multicentre Single-State Study in Malaysia

(1) Background: Varenicline is a widely prescribed agent in smoking cessation. However, the abstinence rate, the incidence of adverse events and withdrawal symptoms, have not been widely studied locally. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of smoking abstinence, adverse events and withdrawal symptoms associated with varenicline use, as well as possible factors contributing to successful smoking abstinence. (2) Methods: This was a retrospective, cohort study conducted in twenty-two government-operated smoking cessation clinics across the state of Perak, Malaysia. The medical records of adult smokers (age ≥ 18 years old) who were prescribed with varenicline between January 2017 and June 2018 were traced. The medical records of smokers who used pharmacotherapy other than varenicline, those who received less than four weeks of varenicline treatment, and with missing data were excluded. (3) Results: Sixty-eight out of 114 subjects (59.6%) successfully achieved smoking abstinence. Probable varenicline-induced chest pain was documented in three subjects. Altered behaviour (n = 2) and auditory hallucinations (n = 1) were also reported. Varenicline treatment duration is a significant predictive factor for successful smoking abstinence (odds ratio (OR) = 2.45; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.74−3.45; p < 0.001), followed by age (OR = 1.25; 95% CI 1.005−1.564; p = 0.045), the presence of adverse events (OR = 0.096; 95% CI 0.014−0.644; p = 0.016) and withdrawal symptoms (OR = 0.032; 95% CI 0.016−0.835; p = 0.032). (4) Conclusion: Almost two-thirds of the subjects achieved smoking abstinence with varenicline. The duration of the treatment, as well as the patients’ ages had a significant influence on successful smoking abstinence. Rare cases of cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric-related adverse events were reported, warranting continuous surveillance and adverse drug reaction reporting.