Pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation: an overview and network meta-analysis

The genetic landscape of substance use disorders

Substance use disorders represent a significant public health concern with considerable socioeconomic implications worldwide. Twin and family-based studies have long established a heritable component underlying these disorders. In recent years, genome-wide association studies of large, broadly phenotyped samples have identified regions of the genome that harbour genetic risk variants associated with substance use disorders. These regions have enabled the discovery of putative causal genes and improved our understanding of genetic relationships among substance use disorders and other traits. Furthermore, the integration of these data with clinical information has yielded promising insights into how individuals respond to medications, allowing for the development of personalized treatment approaches based on an individual's genetic profile. This review article provides an overview of recent advances in the genetics of substance use disorders and demonstrates how genetic data may be used to reduce the burden of disease and improve public health outcomes.

Tobacco use disorder in patients with other mental disorders: a dual disorder perspective from clinical neuroscience

Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of disability and preventable deaths worldwide, but it should be differentiated from tobacco use disorder, which is, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a bona fide mental disorder. The rapid delivery of nicotine to the brain activates acetylcholine receptors and stimulates the release of dopamine, both systems implicated in other mental disorders. Rates of tobacco use disorder are much higher among people suffering from other mental disorders and these patients find it more difficult to quit. Dual disorders, from a transdiagnostic perspective, identify patients with substance use disorder, in this case tobacco use disorder, and other mental disorders. A dual disorder is a complex clinical condition that is often underdiagnosed, undertreated, and difficult to manage. Appropriate and integrated tobacco use disorder treatment programs for people also suffering from other mental disorders could improve outcomes. Bio-psycho-social approaches to tobacco use disorder include specific biological treatments (e.g., bupropion, varenicline, cytisine, nicotine replacement therapy or deep trans-magnetic stimulation). However, these treatments don't have the same outcomes in patients with dual disorders. Therefore, as in other dual disorders, harm reduction measures, such as vaping nicotine through electronic cigarettes or tobacco replacement therapies should be considered as alternative tools for dual tobacco use disorder management. These clinical considerations emerge from a narrative literature review and expert consensus and will specifically address considerations for changes in clinical practice to improve the treatment of tobacco use disorder and other mental disorders.

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.

Sex-specific predictive factors of smoking cessation in subjects at high cardiovascular risk

Smoking is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases (CVD), in particular in women, but smoking cessation (SC) reduces or even cancels the risk for both sexes. Using a nationwide SC services database, we aimed to determine the predictive factors of SC in men and women smokers with CV risk factors (CVRF) or CVD. A retrospective study from the French CDTnet database was conducted. Inclusion criteria were age ≥18years, and≥1 CVRF (Body Mass Index ≥25kg/m2, hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia) or CVD (myocardial infarction (MI) or angina pectoris, stroke, peripheral arterial disease [PAD]). Self-reported smoking abstinence (≥28 consecutive days) was confirmed by exhaled carbon monoxide<10ppm. Logistic regression analysis assessed the association between SC and sociodemographic, medical characteristics, and smoking profile. Among the 36,864 smokers at high CV risk, abstinence rate was slightly lower in women than in men, (52.6% [n=8,102] vs 55.0% [n=11,848], P<0.001). For both sexes, factors associated with the lowest abstinence rates were diabetes, respiratory and psychiatric diseases, anxiolytic/antidepressant use, and cannabis consumption. In women, the factors associated with smoking abstinence were suffering from MI or angina and taking contraceptive pill and the factors associated with persistent smoking were alcohol disorder and high cigarette consumption. In men, there was a positive relationship between overweight and abstinence while being dual users of cigarettes and electronic cigarettes at first visit, having tobacco-related diseases (cancer and PAD) and taking opioid substitution treatment were associated with persistent smoking. Finally, in both sexes, the factors associated with abstinence were: age≥65years, having a diploma, being employed, self-referred or encouraged by entourage, ≥1 previous quit attempt, ≤20 cigarettes per day consumption, benefiting from SC medication prescription and ≥4 follow-up visits. In conclusion, our results suggest the relevance of SC intensive management in smokers at high CV risk, based on sociodemographic, medical, and smoking behaviour characteristics, as well as a gender-specific SC approach.

Smoking Cessation Tool Utilization Among Individuals with and Without Cancer Across Smoking Status

Background: There are many tools to assist with cigarette smoking cessation (e.g., counseling, pharmacotherapy). However, tool use among cancer patients is understudied despite the consequences of continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis.

Objectives: Study aims included describing and comparing cessation tool use among individuals with and without cancer who were currently smoking and who quit to determine if there are different preferences among those with cancer.

Methods: Participants (N = 203) completed an online survey about demographics, cigarette use, and cessation tool use.

Results: Eighty-nine participants reported being diagnosed with cancer (45 quit after diagnosis, 44 currently smoking) and 114 reported not having cancer (57 quit, 57 currently smoking). Individuals with cancer who were smoking used more evidence-based resources than those with cancer who quit (B = 1.86, SE = 0.50, p < 0.0001). Individuals with cancer who were smoking used more total cessation resources than participants without cancer who were smoking (B = 2.00, SE = 0.58, p = 0.001), but there was no difference in use of evidence-based resources between these two groups (p > 0.05). Lastly, individuals with cancer who quit also used more total cessation tools (B = 1.23, SE = 0.41, p = 0.003) and evidence-based tools (B = 1.03, SE = 0.36, p = 0.005) than those without cancer who quit.

Conclusions: Individuals with cancer may be using more resources before successfully quitting. Cancer patients may need additional help to quit smoking, and further research is needed to better understand unique barriers that preclude quitting among this vulnerable population.

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.

A web-based scoping review assessing the influence of smoking and smoking cessation on antidiabetic drug meabolism: implications for medication efficacy

Currently 1.3 billion individuals globally engage in smoking, leading to significant morbidity and mortality, particularly among diabetic patients. There is urgent need for a better understanding of how smoking influences antidiabetic treatment efficacy. The review underscores the role of cigarette smoke, particularly polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), in modulating the metabolic pathways of antidiabetic drugs, primarily through the induction of cytochrome P450 (CYP450) enzymes and uridine diphosphate (UDP)-glucuronosyltransferases (UGTs), thus impacting drug pharmacokinetics and therapeutic outcomes. Furthermore, the review addresses the relatively uncharted territory of how smoking cessation influences diabetes treatment, noting that cessation can lead to significant changes in drug metabolism, necessitating dosage adjustments. Special attention is given to the interaction between smoking cessation aids and antidiabetic medications, a critical area for patient safety and effective diabetes management. This scoping review aims to provide healthcare professionals with the knowledge to better support diabetic patients who smoke or are attempting to quit, ensuring tailored and effective treatment strategies. It also identifies gaps in current research, advocating for more studies to fill these voids, thereby enhancing patient care and treatment outcomes for this at-risk population.

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.

PROTOCOL: Effectiveness of behavioral interventions for smoking cessation among homeless persons: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This is the protocol for an updated Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the effect of behavioral interventions on smoking cessation among homeless individuals.

Comparative Effectiveness of Mobile Health-Based Comprehensive Smoking Cessation Modalities and Traditional Clinic-Delivered Treatments - Beijing Municipality, China, May 2022 to April 2024

What is already known about this topic?

Most Chinese smokers have not accessed professional help due to a lack of sufficient smoking cessation services. Mobile health (mHealth) can mitigate obstacles related to time and transportation, thereby providing effective support for smokers seeking to quit.

What is added by this report?

This study offers real-world evidence supporting the effectiveness of mHealth-based comprehensive smoking cessation interventions. The findings indicate that these modalities can significantly enhance abstinence rates, albeit to a lesser extent compared to traditional clinic-based treatments. Adherence to the intervention was identified as a critical factor influencing the effectiveness of smoking cessation strategies.

What are the implications for public health practice?

The mHealth-based comprehensive smoking cessation modalities, with or without mailing cessation medications, present a promising approach to enhancing access to and utilization of smoking cessation services. This strategy addresses the significant challenge of limited smoking cessation resources in China.

Real-World Treatment Adherence to Smoking Cessation Medications and Association with Treatment Outcome - 27 Centers, China, 2017-2022

What is already known about this topic?

Medication non-adherence significantly impedes smoking cessation efforts. While effective smoking cessation medications are accessible in China, real-world adherence and its correlation with treatment outcomes remain largely unexplored.

What is added by this report?

From December 2017 to January 2022, 1,120 participants were recruited from 27 centers in all seven geographical regions of China. Results revealed that only 38.2% of smokers adhered to the prescribed 12-week smoking cessation treatment and those with a higher education level were more likely to be adherent. In addition, smokers with good adherence were more likely to successfully quit smoking.

What are the implications for public health practice?

The data obtained could enhance our understanding of smoking cessation practices in China. Improving adherence is a crucial strategy to enhance the effectiveness of smoking cessation treatments and management provided to smokers.

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.

Efficacy of the QuitSure App for Smoking Cessation in Adult Smokers: Cross-Sectional Web Survey

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking remains one of the leading causes of preventable death worldwide. A worldwide study by the World Health Organization concluded that more than 8 million people die every year from smoking, tobacco consumption, and secondhand smoke. The most effective tobacco cessation programs require personalized human intervention combined with costly pharmaceutical supplementation, making them unaffordable or inaccessible to most tobacco users. Thus, digital interventions offer a promising alternative to these traditional methods. However, the leading smartphone apps available in the market today have either not been studied in a clinical setting or are unable to match the smoking cessation success rates of their expensive offline counterparts. We would like to understand whether QuitSure, a novel smoking cessation app built by Rapidkart Online Private Limited, is able to bridge this efficacy gap and deliver affordable and effective smoking cessation at scale.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to do an initial exploration into the engagement, efficacy, and safety of QuitSure based on the self-reported experiences of its users. Outcomes measured were program completion, the effect of program completion on smoking behavior, including self-reported cessation outcomes, and negative health events from using the app.

METHODS

All QuitSure registered users who created their accounts on the QuitSure app between April 1, 2021, and February 28, 2022, were sent an anonymized web-based survey. The survey results were added to their engagement data on the app to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of the app as a smoking cessation intervention. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages) and the χ2 test of independence.

RESULTS

In total, 1299 users who had completed the QuitSure program submitted the survey and satisfied the inclusion criteria of the study. Of these, 1286 participants had completed the program more than 30 days before filling out the survey, and 1040 (80.1%, 95% CI 79.1%-82.6%) of them had maintained prolonged abstinence for at least 30 days after program completion. A majority of participants (770/891, 86.4%) who were still maintaining abstinence at the time of submitting the survey did not experience any severe nicotine withdrawal symptoms, while 41.9% (373/891) experienced no mild withdrawal symptoms either. Smoking quantity prior to completing the program significantly affected quit rates (P<.001), with heavy smokers (>20 cigarettes per day) having a lower 30-day prolonged abstinence rate (relative risk=0.91; 95% CI 90.0%-96.2%) compared to lighter smokers. No additional adverse events outside of known nicotine withdrawal symptoms were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The nature of web-based surveys and cohort selection allows for extensive unknown biases. However, the efficacy rates of survey respondents who completed the program were high and provide a case for further investigation in the form of randomized controlled trials on the QuitSure tobacco cessation program.

The Effect of Varenicline on Smoking Cessation in Hospitalized Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Varenicline tartrate is a new and selective agonist of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine varenicline efficacy in smoking cessation among hospitalized patients.

Methods

We looked through worldwide databases such as Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus. Relevant pieces of research published on varenicline efficacy on smoking cessation among hospitalized patients were discovered using proper keywords. The data were analyzed using Stata software version 14 and a random-effects model meta-analysis.

Findings

Nine studies were eligible to be included in this study, with a total sample size of 2131. Generally, the point abstinence rate was significantly greater in the varenicline group than in the placebo group at weeks 12 (odds ratio [OR]=0.59; 95% CI: 053-0.65; P<0.001), 24 (OR=0.78; 95% CI: 0.72-0.84; P<0.001), and 52 (OR=0.86; 95% CI: 0.80-0.92; P<0.001). Furthermore, the continuous abstinence rate for weeks 4 (OR=0.70; 95% CI: 019-0.54; P=0.000), 12 (OR=0.26; 95% CI: 019-0.54; P<0.001), 24 (OR=0.32; 95% CI: 019-0.53; P<0.001), and 52 (OR=0.32; 95% CI: 019-0.54; P<0.001) was significantly greater in the varenicline group than in the placebo group.

Conclusion

According to the high efficacy of varenicline in both short- and long-term smoking settings and considering the importance of smoking cessation in high-risk hospitalized patients, varenicline consumption could be considered as a main smoking cessation strategy in these patients.

How a 5-Day Stay in the Tobacco-Free Environment of the Stoptober House Supports Individuals to Quit Smoking: A Mixed Methods Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

The Stoptober House is part of the annual national Stoptober smoking cessation campaign in the Netherlands. During the first week of October, 48 volunteers resided in the tobacco-free Stoptober House for 5 days and received smoking cessation counseling. This pilot study explored how the Stoptober House may have facilitated smoking cessation among participants.

METHODS

We included 48 individuals who were selected for the Stoptober House (intervention group) and 67 individuals who were not selected (control group). Surveys were conducted at baseline, immediately after 2 and 8 weeks of post-intervention. We compared self-reported abstinence, psychosocial mediators related to smoking cessation, and perceived active elements of the Stoptober House between the intervention and control groups using t/χ2 tests and linear mixed model (LMM) analysis. Sixteen semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted to explore participants' perspectives on the elements contributing to their success in quitting smoking.

RESULTS

At 8 weeks of follow-up, a higher proportion of participants in the intervention group (24/48 [50%]) reported being abstinent compared to the control group (5/67 [7%]; p < 0.001). Among participants who reported making a quit attempt, 22/38 (57.9%) in the intervention group remained abstinent compared to 4/17 (23.5%) in the control group (p = 0.022). The intervention group also exhibited higher self-efficacy to quit smoking throughout the follow-up period and higher social support immediately after the Stoptober House. No significant differences were observed in other psychosocial factors. The interviews highlighted several perceived elements of the Stoptober House that contributed to smoking cessation success, including restricted smoking opportunities, access to smoking cessation counselors, and peer support.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study suggests that the Stoptober House provides support that can help people quit smoking. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and determine the cost-effectiveness of this intervention in promoting long-term abstinence among specific groups of smokers.

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.

Identifying determinants of varenicline adherence using the Theoretical Domains framework: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Adhering to varenicline has been shown to significantly improve the chances of successfully quitting smoking, with studies indicating a twofold increase in 6-month quit rates. However, despite its potential benefits, many individuals struggle with maintaining good adherence to varenicline; thus there is a need to develop scalable strategies to help people adhere. As a first step to inform the development of an intervention to improve adherence to varenicline, we conducted a rapid literature review to identify: 1) modifiable barriers and facilitators to varenicline adherence, and 2) behaviour change techniques associated with increased adherence to varenicline.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published between 2006 and 2022. Search terms included "varenicline," "smoking cessation," and "adherence," and their respective subject headings and synonyms. We screened and included studies reporting modifiable determinants of adherence to varenicline and then assessed quality, extracted modifiable determinants and mapped them to the Theoretical Domains Framework version 2 and the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy version 1.

RESULTS

A total of 1,221 titles were identified through the database searches; 61 met the eligibility criteria. Most of the studies were randomized controlled trials and predominantly focused on barriers to varenicline. Only nine studies explicitly mentioned behaviour change techniques used to help varenicline adherence. Eight domains were identified as barriers to varenicline adherence (behavioural regulation, memory, goals, intentions, beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences, optimism/pessimism, and environmental context) and five as facilitators (knowledge, behavioural regulation, beliefs about capabilities, social influences, and environmental context).

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies barriers and facilitators that should be addressed when developing a complex adherence intervention tailored to patients' needs based on modifiable determinants of medication adherence, some of which are under- used by existing adherence interventions. The findings from this review will inform the design of a theory-based healthbot planned to improve varenicline adherence in people undergoing smoking cessation treatment.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This study was registered with PROSPERO (# CRD42022321838).

The effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions after cancer diagnosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

patients with cancer who smoke have more side effects during and after treatment, and a lower survival rate than patients with cancer who quit smoking. Supporting patients with cancer to quit smoking should be standard care. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the most effective smoking cessation method for patients diagnosed with cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar were systematically searched. Included were randomized controlled trials and observational studies published after January 2000 with any smoking cessation intervention in patients with any type of cancer. Result of these studies were evaluated in a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 18,780 papers were retrieved. After duplicate removal and exclusion based on title and abstract, 72 publications were left. After full text screening, 19 (randomized) controlled trials and 20 observational studies were included. The overall methodological quality of the included studies, rated by GRADE criteria, was very low. Two out of 21 combined intervention trials showed a statistical significant effect. Meta-analysis of 18 RCTs and 3 observational studies showed a significant benefit of combined modality interventions (OR 1.67, 95% C.I.: 1.24-2.26, p = 0.0008) and behavioural interventions (OR 1.33, 95% C.I.: 1.02 - 1.74, p = 0.03), but not for single modality pharmacological interventions (OR 1.11; 95% C.I.: 0.69-1.78, p = 0.66).

CONCLUSION

A combination of pharmacological and behavioural interventions may be the most effective intervention for smoking cessation in patients with cancer.

Effects of interventions on smoking cessation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

A network meta-analysis (NMA) including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate the effects of different interventions on smoking cessation. Studies were collected from online databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eligible studies were further examined in the NMA to compare the effect of 14 interventions on smoking cessation. Thirty-four studies were examined in the NMA, including a total of 14 interventions and 28 733 participants. The results showed that health education (HE; odds ratio ([OR] = 200.29, 95% CI [1.62, 24 794.61])), other interventions (OI; OR = 29.79, 95% CI [1.07, 882.17]) and multimodal interventions (MUIs; OR = 100.16, 95% CI [2.06, 4867.24]) were better than self-help material (SHM). HE (OR = 243.31, 95% CI [1.39, 42531.33]), MUI (OR = 121.67, 95% CI [1.64, 9004.86]) and financial incentive (FI; OR = 14.09, 95% CI [1.21, 164.31]) had positive effects on smoking cessation rate than smoking cessation or quitting APP (QA). Ranking results showed that HE (83.6%) and motivation interviewing (MI; 69.6%) had better short-term effects on smoking cessation. HE and MUI provided more smoking cessation benefits than SHM and QA. FI was more effective at quitting smoking than QA. Also, HE and MI were more likely to be optimal smoking cessation interventions.

How and why do financial incentives contribute to helping people stop smoking? A realist review

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking remains a key cause of preventable illness and death globally. In response, many countries provide extensive services to help people to stop smoking by offering a variety of effective behavioural and pharmacological therapies. However, many people who wish to stop smoking do not have access to or use stop smoking supports, and new modes of support, including the use of financial incentives, are needed to address this issue. A realist review of published international literature was undertaken to understand how, why, for whom, and in which circumstances financial incentives contribute to success in stopping smoking for general population groups and among pregnant women.

METHODS

Systematic searches were undertaken from inception to February 2022 of five academic databases: MEDLINE (ovid), Embase.com, CIHAHL, Scopus and PsycINFO. Study selection was inclusive of all study designs. Twenty-two studies were included. Using Pawson and Tilley's iterative realist review approach, data collected were screened, selected, coded, analysed, and synthesised into a set of explanatory theoretical findings.

RESULTS

Data were synthesised into six Context-Mechanism-Outcome Configurations and one overarching programme theory after iterative rounds of analysis, team discussion, and expert panel feedback. Our programme theory shows that financial incentives are particularly useful to help people stop smoking if they have a financial need, are pregnant or recently post-partum, have a high threshold for behaviour change, and/or respond well to external rewards. The incentives work through a number of mechanisms including the role their direct monetary value can play in a person's life and through a process of reinforcement where they can help build confidence and self-esteem.

CONCLUSION

This is the first realist review to synthesise how, why, and for whom financial incentives work among those attempting to stop smoking, adding to the existing evidence demonstrating their efficacy. The findings will support the implementation of current knowledge into effective programmes which can enhance the impact of stop smoking care.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022298941.

Individual variations in motives for nicotine self-administration in male rats: evidence in support for a precision psychopharmacology

The significant heterogeneity in smoking behavior among smokers, coupled with the inconsistent efficacy of approved smoking cessation therapies, supports the presence of individual variations in the mechanisms underlying smoking. This emphasizes the need to shift from standardized to personalized smoking cessation therapies. However, informed precision medicine demands precision fundamental research. Tobacco smoking is influenced and sustained by diverse psychopharmacological interactions between nicotine and environmental stimuli. In the classical experimental rodent model for studying tobacco dependence, namely intravenous self-administration of nicotine, seeking behavior is reinforced by the combined delivery of nicotine and a discrete cue (nicotine+cue). Whether self-administration behavior is driven by the same psychopharmacological mechanisms across individual rats remains unknown and unexplored. To address this, we employed behavioral pharmacology and unbiased cluster analysis to investigate individual differences in the mechanisms supporting classical intravenous nicotine self-administration (0.04 mg/kg/infusion) in male outbred Sprague-Dawley rats. Our analysis identified two clusters: one subset of rats sought nicotine primarily for its reinforcing effects, while the second subset sought nicotine to enhance the reinforcing effects of the discrete cue. Varenicline (1 mg/kg i.p.) reduced seeking behavior in the former group, whereas it tended to increase in the latter group. Crucially, despite this fundamental qualitative difference revealed by behavioral manipulation, the two clusters exhibited quantitatively identical nicotine+cue self-administration behavior. The traditional application of rodent models to study the reinforcing and addictive effects of nicotine may mask individual variability in the underlying motivational mechanisms. Accounting for this variability could significantly enhance the predictive validity of translational research.

Process and effect evaluation of a referral aid for smoking cessation counselling in primary care: Findings of a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

This study explored the use and effects of a smoking cessation referral in: 1) practice nurses (PNs), and 2) smokers. The use of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions (EBSCIs) can double the likelihood of a successful smoking cessation attempt. A referral aid was developed to aid Dutch PNs in primary care in deciding which smokers are the most suitable for EBSCI.

METHODS

Two different studies were conducted: 1) a randomized controlled trial with a process evaluation (n=82) and effect evaluation (n=285) among smoking patients recruited by PNs (n=73), and 2) a process evaluation among a subgroup of PNs (n=40) from January 2019 to September 2020.

RESULTS

Overall, the response in both groups was low. PNs found the referral aid materials clear and understandable. Smokers had similar but (slightly) less-positive opinions. The smokers in both groups did not differ in the amount of discussion and use of EBSCIs, nor on smoking abstinence.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research should assess how to better involve PNs and smokers when recruiting for an RCT and how to foster effective counselling. Additional research should also look deeper into barriers to referral of both PNs and smokers, and how to stimulate referral to EBSCIs best and help smokers to make a decision; for example by implementing a simplified strategy both within the primary care setting and outside, by involving other healthcare professionals or options outside healthcare such as the workplace and social domain.

Trial registration

The study was registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NL7020, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7020).

Experiences with smoking habits and the need for cessation among habitual smokers in Japan: a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews

BACKGROUND

Although more than half of the habitual smokers recognize that they want to quit smoking cigarettes, approximately half have failed to quit and experienced distress relapse; therefore, there is an urgent need to focus on these populations. When chronic behavior occurs, it is necessary to view the behavior in the context of the entire life of the person involved, considering the history of the person. In this study, we aimed to describe experiences with smoking from the onset to the present and the need for smoking cessation among habitual smokers in Japan and to explore efforts to address them.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews that lasted for 55-90 min were conducted with the cooperation of 16 habitual smokers who smoked cigarettes daily. The content of the interviews included demographic characteristics, experiences with smoking from the onset to the present, whether they have attempted to quit and related experiences, and their thoughts on smoking. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed qualitatively. The Medical Research Ethics Review Committee of Jikei University approved this study (approval number: 33-384(11008)).

RESULTS

The participants were aged 26-59 years (mean ± SD: 40.8 ± 8.9 years) and included 10 men and 6 women. The participants started smoking between age 13 and 24 years. The highest number of cigarettes smoked in the participants' lives ranged from 10 to 80 daily, and 12 participants had attempted to quit smoking so far without success. Regarding experiences with smoking from the onset to the present, four themes of "expand one's world," "unconscious attachment," "attempts and failures," and "losing oneself" were extracted. Regarding the need for smoking cessation, four themes of "empowerment from experts," "peer interaction," "social commitment," and "recovery of confidence" were extracted.

CONCLUSION

To support smoking cessation from the perspective of habitual smokers, in addition to improvements through the existing approaches, it is important to recover their confidence using ongoing activities in peer groups according to the target background and support from experts incorporating visual assessments of lung function, along with multiple short-term goals. It is also necessary to raise awareness in communities through activities.

AI Conversational Agent to Improve Varenicline Adherence: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

Varenicline is a pharmacological intervention for tobacco dependence that is safe and effective in facilitating smoking cessation. Enhanced adherence to varenicline augments the probability of prolonged smoking abstinence. However, research has shown that one-third of people who use varenicline are nonadherent by the second week. There is evidence showing that behavioral support helps with medication adherence. We have designed an artificial intelligence (AI) conversational agent or health bot, called "ChatV," based on evidence of what works as well as what varenicline is, that can provide these supports. ChatV is an evidence-based, patient- and health care provider-informed health bot to improve adherence to varenicline. ChatV has been programmed to provide medication reminders, answer questions about varenicline and smoking cessation, and track medication intake and the number of cigarettes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to explore the feasibility of the ChatV health bot, to examine if it is used as intended, and to determine the appropriateness of proceeding with a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

We will conduct a mixed methods feasibility study where we will pilot-test ChatV with 40 participants. Participants will be provided with a standard 12-week varenicline regimen and access to ChatV. Passive data collection will include adoption measures (how often participants use the chatbot, what features they used, when did they use it, etc). In addition, participants will complete questionnaires (at 1, 4, 8, and 12 weeks) assessing self-reported smoking status and varenicline adherence, as well as questions regarding the acceptability, appropriateness, and usability of the chatbot, and participate in an interview assessing acceptability, appropriateness, fidelity, and adoption. We will use "stop, amend, and go" progression criteria for pilot studies to decide if a randomized controlled trial is a reasonable next step and what modifications are required. A health equity lens will be adopted during participant recruitment and data analysis to understand and address the differences in uptake and use of this digital health solution among diverse sociodemographic groups. The taxonomy of implementation outcomes will be used to assess feasibility, that is, acceptability, appropriateness, fidelity, adoption, and usability. In addition, medication adherence and smoking cessation will be measured to assess the preliminary treatment effect. Interview data will be analyzed using the framework analysis method.

RESULTS

Participant enrollment for the study will begin in January 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

By using predetermined progression criteria, the results of this preliminary study will inform the determination of whether to advance toward a larger randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of the health bot. Additionally, this study will explore the acceptability, appropriateness, fidelity, adoption, and usability of the health bot. These insights will be instrumental in refining the intervention and the health bot.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05997901; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05997901.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/53556.

Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Smoking Increase the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapy

Tobacco smoking has been a recognized risk factor for cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Smoking is a chronic relapsing disease and pharmacotherapy is a main component of smoking cessation. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and smoking both increase the risk of CVD and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There are few existing data examining how pharmacological treatment, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, and varenicline, affect smokers suffering with OSA and especially their cardiovascular effects. The aim of this review was to evaluate the effects of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy on OSA with a special emphasis on the cardiovascular system. Results: Only small studies have assessed the effect of NRTs on OSA. Nicotine gum administration showed an improvement in respiratory events but with no permanent results. No specific studies were found on the effect of bupropion on OSA, and a limited number evaluated varenicline's effects on sleep and specifically OSA. Varenicline administration in smokers suffering from OSA reduced the obstructive respiratory events, especially during REM. Studies on second-line medication (nortriptyline, clonidine, cytisine) are even more limited. There are still no studies evaluating the cardiovascular effects of smoking cessation medications on OSA patients. Conclusions: Sleep disturbances are common withdrawal effects during smoking cessation but could be also attributed to pharmacotherapy. Smokers should receive personalized treatment during their quitting attempts according to their individual needs and problems, including OSA. Future studies are needed in order to evaluate the efficacy and safety of smoking cessation medications in OSA patients.

The effect of cigarette and e-cigarette taxes on prescriptions for smoking cessation medications

OBJECTIVE

To test the effect of cigarette and e-cigarette taxes on prescriptions for smoking cessation medications.

DATA SOURCE

Symphony Health, IDV all-payer prescription claims data for the United States over the period 2009-2017. Prescription fills for smoking cessation products were provided at the patient's age, patient's sex, brand/generic, payment type, year, and quarter levels.

STUDY DESIGN

We study the effect of state-level cigarette and e-cigarette tax rates on prescriptions for smoking cessation medications using two-way fixed effect modified difference-in-differences regressions. We also use a multiperiod difference-in-differences estimator robust to bias from dynamic and heterogeneous treatment effects with a staggered policy rollout.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We use fills for Chantix, Zyban, and their generics, as well as Food and Drug Administration-approved nicotine replacement therapies that are paid for by insurance.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We observe no statistically significant change in prescription fills following an increase in the e-cigarette tax rate, though we are unable to rule out potentially large effects. However, following a $1.00 increase in the cigarette tax rate, we observe a 1052 increase in prescription fills per 100,000 adults (95% CI: 57, 2046; 4.2% increase). The effect of cigarette taxes on prescription fills was particularly large for 18-34 year-olds.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that, during a period when e-cigarettes are widely available, cigarette tax increases remain effective in increasing use of these medications, but e-cigarette taxes do not increase use of these medications.

A Brief Digital Screening and Intervention Tool for Parental and Adolescent Tobacco and Electronic Cigarette Use in Pediatric Medical Care in Canada: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Though rates of tobacco smoking have decreased consistently over the past 3 decades, cigarette use remains the top preventable cause of premature death in North America. The Clinical Effort Against Secondhand Smoke Exposure (CEASE) is a medical clinic-based intervention that systematically screens parents for tobacco use and offers them direct access to evidence-based smoking cessation services. While the effectiveness of CEASE for parents who smoke has already been demonstrated in the United States, the CEASE model has not yet been tested in Canada, among parents who use e-cigarettes, or among adolescents who use cigarettes and e-cigarettes.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to demonstrate the feasibility and evaluate the preliminary effectiveness of the CEASE program for parental smoking cessation and its adapted version for adolescent smoking cessation and adolescent and parental vaping cessation.

METHODS

We will approach parents or guardians of children aged between 0 and 17 years, as well as adolescent patients aged between 14 and 17 years, from a tertiary care pediatric hospital in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, for participation in this single-blinded, pilot randomized controlled trial. Eligible participants are those who report using tobacco cigarettes or e-cigarettes at least once in the last 7 days and present to an outpatient pediatric clinic for a scheduled appointment. Our recruitment target is 100 participants: 50 parents or guardians of children aged 17 years or younger, and 50 adolescents aged between 14 and 17 years. The feasibility of implementation of the CEASE model will be measured by recruitment and retention rates for all 4 participant groups (stratified as follows: parents who use cigarettes, parents who use e-cigarettes exclusively, adolescents who use cigarettes, and adolescents who use e-cigarettes exclusively). Parent and adolescent participants within each group are randomized to the intervention and control groups using a 1:1 ratio through a computer-generated randomization list. Preliminary effectiveness outcomes include self-reported smoking and e-cigarette cessation, use of cessation resources, changes in smoking and e-cigarette use, motivation to quit, and quit attempts among participants. Participants complete electronic questionnaires on a tablet in the clinic at baseline as well as electronic follow-up questionnaires at 1, 3, and 6 months. Individuals reporting successful quit attempts are invited to provide a urine sample for cotinine testing to biochemically confirm quit. Analyses include descriptive statistics as well as exploratory trajectory analyses of smoking, e-cigarette use, and motivation to quit.

RESULTS

Research activities began in June 2022. Participant enrollment and data collection began in February 2023 and are expected to be completed in 15 months.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a strong need for effective and cost-effective smoking and vaping cessation interventions for parents and adolescents. If successful, this study will help inform the preparation of a fully powered randomized controlled trial of CEASE in Canada in these populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05366790; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05366790.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/47978.

Age-Dependent Sex Differences in the Prevalence of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Treatment: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

Background: Antidepressants are among the most prescribed medications in the United States. The aim of this study was to explore the prevalence of antidepressant prescriptions and investigate sex differences and age-sex interactions in adults enrolled in the Right Drug, Right Dose, Right Time: Using Genomic Data to Individualize Treatment (RIGHT) study. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the RIGHT study. Using electronic prescriptions, we assessed 12-month prevalence of antidepressant treatment. Sex differences and age-sex interactions were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression and flexible recursive smoothing splines. Results: The sample consisted of 11,087 participants (60% women). Antidepressant prescription prevalence was 22.24% (27.96% women, 13.58% men). After adjusting for age and enrollment year, women had significantly greater odds of antidepressant prescription (odds ratio = 2.29; 95% confidence interval = 2.07, 2.54). Furthermore, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) had a significant age-sex interaction. While SSRI prescriptions in men showed a sustained decrease with age, there was no such decline for women until after reaching ∼50 years of age. There are important limitations to consider in this study. Electronic prescription data were cross-sectional; information on treatment duration or adherence was not collected; this cohort is not nationally representative; and enrollment occurred over a broad period, introducing confounding by changes in temporal prescribing practices. Conclusions: Underscored by the significant interaction between age and sex on odds of SSRI prescription, our results warrant age to be incorporated as a mediator when investigating sex differences in mental illness, especially mood disorders and their treatment.

Smoking cessation and relapse-prevention interventions tailored for expectant and new fathers: protocol of a systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Exposure of pregnant women and newborns to secondhand smoke (SHS) can lead to adverse maternal and neonatal health outcomes. Among expectant and new fathers, who are the main source of SHS exposure for pregnant women, new mothers and babies, smoking rates remain high. A partner's pregnancy potentially constitutes a critical period where expectant and new fathers are motivated to quit smoking. However, there is no consensus on the optimal form and delivery of smoking cessation and relapse-prevention interventions. We present a systematic review and network meta-analysis protocol that aims to synthesise and evaluate the effectiveness of smoking cessation and relapse-prevention interventions tailored for this population.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

To identify relevant studies, we will conduct a comprehensive search, in English and Chinese, of 10 electronic databases. The review will include randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compare behavioural interventions (tailored and non-tailored) with/without the addition of pharmacotherapy with usual care, a minimal or placebo control for assisting expectant and new fathers to quit smoking and prevent smoking relapse. The primary outcome of interest is the self-reported and/or biochemically verified smoking abstinence at ≥1-month follow-up. Two reviewers will independently screen, select and extract relevant studies, and perform a quality assessment. Disagreements will be resolved by a consensus or third-party adjudication. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool V.2 will be used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. We will obtain the results of the systematic review through pooled quantitative analyses using a network meta-analysis. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses will be performed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review of published data. The findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022340617.

Real-world tobacco cessation practice in China: findings from the prospective, nationwide multicenter China National Tobacco Cessation Cohort Study (CNTCCS)

Background

Tobacco cessation is proven to be the most effective and cost-effective strategy for smokers to reduce their risk of smoking-related disease and premature death. Providing effective, efficient, safe, and patient-centred tobacco cessation treatment to reach those who need them is a significant challenge. To date, only a few nationwide studies in China have assessed the overall clinical care practice and treatment outcome of tobacco cessation.

Methods

This a prospective, nationwide, multicenter, cohort study covering all Eastern China, Northwest China, Central China, North China, Southwest China, Northeast China, and South China. Participants who were current smokers aged 18-85 years attending clinic for smoking cessation were included. All the participants were treated with 3-month cessation treatment and followed up for 3 months. Data were collected prospectively using online system. The primary outcome was 7-day point abstinence rate at 24 weeks, validated biochemically by an expired carbon monoxide level of less than 10 ppm. The participants lost to follow-up or not providing validation were included as non-abstainers.

Findings

A representative sample of 3557 participants were recruited and 2943 participants were included into this analysis. These participants had mean age of 53.05 years, and 94.8% were males, with 75.8% showing symptoms of tobacco dependence. A total of 965 (32.8%) participants were treated with Bupropion + behavioural counselling, followed by 935 (31.8%) with behavioural counselling, 778 (26.4%) with Varenicline + behavioural counselling, 135 (4.6%) with alternative treatments + behavioural counselling, and 130 (4.4%) with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) + behavioural counselling. After 3-month treatment and 3-month follow-up, 21.74% of the participants quit smoking at 24 weeks. In the multivariable-adjusted analyses, quitting smoking was significantly associated with female, higher socioeconomic status, poor health condition, different treatment received, and less smoking intensity. The tobacco cessation treatment varied widely across different areas of China. In particular, the areas with higher usage of cessation medication were associated with better cessation treatment outcome.

Interpretation

The CNTCCS is the first large-scale nationwide cohort study of smoking cessation in China. Rich data collected from this prospective cohort study provided the opportunity to evaluate the clinical practice of tobacco cessation treatment in China.

Funding

Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) Initiative for Innovative Medicine (CAMS 2021-I2M-1-010), Heilongjiang Provincial Science and Technology Key Program (2022ZXJ03C02), and National Key R&D Program of China (grant no. 2017YFC1309400).

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.

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

Importance

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

Objective

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

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

Interventions

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

Main Outcome and Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02501265.

The Role of Rheumatologist in Smoking Cessation of Ankylosing Spondylitis Patients: A Single-Center Cross-Sectional Study

OBJECTIVES

Smoking has a well-established detrimental effect on the prognosis and treatment success in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. It is important to encourage and convince patients to quit smoking. We aimed to evaluate the contribution of rheumatologists to smoking cessation in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.

METHODS

This single-center cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary research hospital between March 2022 and June 2022. The data related to demographics, smoking status, duration of smoking, average number of cigarettes smoked per day, reasons for quitting smoking, and methods of quitting smoking were obtained through face-to-face interviews.

RESULTS

This study was carried out on 308 patients. A total of 102 ankylosing spondylitis patients quit smoking. Of the patients who quit smoking, 39 (38.3%) patients quit smoking with a recommendation of a rheumatologist and 29 (28.4%) patients quit because of their concerns related to ankylosing spondylitis disease. The most commonly used methods for quitting smoking were herbal supplements in 40 (39.2%) patients and medication for smoking cessation in 40 (39.2%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

It has been shown that about one-fifth of ankylosing spondylitis patients are not questioned by a rheumatologist about smoking. On the other hand, it was seen that the factor with the greatest effect on those who quit smoking was the rheumatologist. Therefore, rheumatologists should question all ankylosing spondylitis patients about smoking and encourage smokers to quit in order to achieve better outcomes in the long term.

Short-term effects of national smoking cessation service on smoking-related disease prevalence and healthcare costs: Experience from the National Health Insurance Service Smoking Cessation Intervention Program in Korea

INTRODUCTION

We measured the short-term clinical and economic impacts of the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) smoking cessation program, which subsidizes the cost of pharmacotherapy and medical consultations, by comparing the changes in prevalence and healthcare costs of smoking-related diseases among cessation service users, non-users, and never smokers.

METHODS

Smokers who used the cessation service from 2015 to 2017 were included (n=779315). We used claims data from the NHIS, a mandatory, single-payer insurance covering the entire Korean population, to determine the number of patients with selected diseases, their healthcare utilization, and medical costs, and compared these amounts in the one year before and after enrollment. For further comparison, we also estimated disease prevalence and medical costs in matched controls by age, sex, income, and residential area, including never smokers and smokers who never used the cessation program.

RESULTS

Across all 15 selected diseases, the number of patients, days spent in the hospital, and medical costs for 1 year were consistently higher after service enrollment than before. This pattern was observed for both men and women. Notably, decreased prevalence and medical costs for pneumonia were observed among individuals aged <50 years. Healthcare utilization for any kind of disease for 1 year was 97.7%, 91.1%, and 88.8% among cessation service users, never smokers, and smokers who did not use the cessation service, respectively. The disease-specific prevalence was also highest and increased more in the cessation service users compared with the control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Cessation service users were more likely to seek healthcare. Increased healthcare utilization in the first year after cessation service use may have resulted from smoking-related conditions that led individuals to attempt smoking cessation.

A Web-Based Application for Risk Stratification and Optimization in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease: Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

In addition to aspirin, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, statins, and lifestyle modification interventions, novel pharmacological agents have been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease patients, including new antithrombotics, antihyperglycemics, and lipid-modulating therapies. Despite their benefits, the uptake of these guideline-directed therapies remains a challenge. There is a need to develop strategies to support knowledge translation for the uptake of secondary prevention therapies.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to test the feasibility and usability of Stratification and Optimization in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease (STOP-CVD), a point-of-care application that was designed to facilitate knowledge translation by providing individualized risk stratification and optimization guidance.

METHODS

Using the REACH (Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health) Registry trial and predictive modeling (which included 67,888 patients), we designed a free web-based secondary risk calculator. Based on demographic and comorbidity profiles, the application was used to predict an individual's 20-month risk of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality and provides a comparison to an age-matched control with an optimized cardiovascular risk profile to illustrate the modifiable residual risk. Additionally, the application used the patient's risk profile to provide specific guidance for possible therapeutic interventions based on a novel algorithm. During an initial 3-month adoption phase, 1-time invitations were sent through email and telephone to 240 physicians that refer to a regional cardiovascular clinic. After 3 months, a survey of user experience was sent to all users. Following this, no further marketing of the application was performed. Google Analytics was collected postimplementation from January 2021 to December 2021. These were used to tabulate the total number of distinct users and the total number of monthly uses of the application.

RESULTS

During the 1-year pilot, 47 of the 240 invited clinicians used the application 1573 times, an average of 131 times per month, with sustained usage over time. All 24 postimplementation survey respondents confirmed that the application was functional, easy to use, and useful.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot suggests that the STOP-CVD application is feasible and usable, with high clinician satisfaction. This tool can be easily scaled to support the uptake of guideline-directed medical therapy, which could improve clinical outcomes. Future research will be focused on evaluating the impact of this tool on clinician management and patient outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of antidepressants for smoking cessation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

To evaluate the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of antidepressants in helping smokers quit tobacco dependence, five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTS ) on different antidepressant interventions involving smoking cessation in populations (September 2022). The STATA 15.1 software was used to perform network meta-analysis. The Cochrane bias risk tool was used to assess the risk of bias, and CINeMA was used to evaluate the evidence credibility for the effect of different interventions on smoking cessation. In all, 107 RCTs involving 42 744 patients were included. Seven studies were rated as having a low risk of bias. All trials reported 18 interventions and 153 pairwise comparisons were generated. The network meta-analysis showed that compared with placebo, varenicline + bupropion (OR = 3.53, 95% CI [2.34, 5.34]), selegiline + nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (OR = 3.78, 95% CI [1.20, 11.92]), nortriptyline + NRT (OR = 2.33, 95% CI [1.21, 4.47), nortriptyline (OR = 1.58, 95% CI [1.11,2.26]), naltrexone + bupropion (OR = 3.84, 95% CI [1.39, 10.61]), bupropion + NRT (OR = 2.29, 95% CI [1.87, 2.81]) and bupropion (OR = 1.70, 95% CI [1.53, 1.89]) showed benefits with respect to smoking cessation. In addition, bupropion + NRT showed better effects than bupropion (OR = 1.35, 95% CI [1.12, 1.64]) and NRT (OR = 1.38, 95% CI [1.13, 1.69]) alone. The final cumulative ranking curve showed that varenicline + bupropion was the most likely to be the best intervention. There was moderate- to very-low-certainty evidence that most interventions showed benefits for smoking cessation compared with placebo, including monotherapy and combination therapies. Varenicline + bupropion had a higher probability of being the best intervention for smoking cessation.

A Systematic Review of Pharmacological Treatments for Internet Gaming Disorder

OBJECTIVE

Internet gaming disorder (IGD) is an increasingly common behavioral addiction, with an estimated global prevalence of 3%. A variety of pharmacological treatments have been used to treat IGD, yet no review to date has synthesized clinical trials evaluating their efficacy. This systematic review therefore synthesized the literature reporting on clinical trials of pharmacological treatments for IGD.

METHODS

We reviewed articles from MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed Central, CINAHL, and PsycINFO that were published as of March of 2022. A total of 828 articles were retrieved for review and 12 articles were included, reporting on a total of 724 participants.

RESULTS

Most participants were male (98.6%), and all were currently living in South Korea. The most common drugs used to treat IGD were bupropion, methylphenidate, and a range of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The Young Internet Addiction Scale was the most frequently used to measure gaming-related outcomes. All studies reported reduced symptoms of IGD from pre- to post-treatment. Across all clinical trials, IGD symptom reductions following the administration of pharmacological treatments ranged from 15.4% to 51.4%. A risk of bias assessment indicated that only four studies had a low risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Preliminary results suggest that a wide array of pharmacological interventions may be efficacious in the treatment of IGD. Future studies using double-blind randomized controlled trial designs, recruiting larger and more representative samples, and controlling for psychiatric comorbidities are needed to better inform understanding of pharmacological treatments for IGD.

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.

The Effects of Scheduled Smoking Reduction and Precessation Nicotine Replacement Therapy on Smoking Cessation: Randomized Controlled Trial With Compliance

BACKGROUND

Smoking remains a major public health problem, and it is important to provide a variety of efficacious and appealing options to encourage smokers to quit smoking. Scheduled smoking is a method of gradual reduction, preparing smokers to quit by systematically reducing cigarette consumption according to a predetermined schedule that increases the time between cigarette consumption. Gradual reduction may be preferred to abrupt quitting, but the efficacy of this cessation approach is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims, first, to evaluate the overall effectiveness of scheduled smoking alone, or in combination with precessation nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), versus standard NRT starting on the quit date with no prior smoking reduction and, second, to evaluate the impact of schedule compliance on the effectiveness of the intervention.

METHODS

A total of 916 participants recruited from the Houston metropolitan area were randomly assigned to 1 of the following 3 groups: scheduled smoking plus a precessation nicotine patch (n=306, 33.4%), scheduled smoking only with no precessation patch (n=309, 33.7%), and enhanced usual care (n=301, 32.9%) control. The primary abstinence outcomes were carbon monoxide-verified, self-reported, 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 2 and 4 weeks after the quit date. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the intervention effect. Scheduled smoking was implemented using a handheld device for 3 weeks before quitting. This trial was not registered because data collection began before July 1, 2005.

RESULTS

Results for the first aim showed no overall differences in abstinence among the 3 groups in both the unadjusted and adjusted models. However, the results for the second aim showed a clear effect on abstinence by schedule compliance at 2 and 4 weeks and 6 months after quitting (odds ratio [OR] 2.01, 95% CI 1.31-3.07), 4 weeks (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.05-2.38), and 6 months (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.04-2.64), with the differences at 2 and 4 weeks after quitting being the most robust. We also found that scheduled smoking was related to a reduction in nicotine withdrawal, negative affect, and craving when compared with the controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Scheduled smoking, when combined with precessation use of NRT, can result in significantly higher abstinence rates than usual care (abrupt quitting with NRT), particularly in the early postquit phase (2 and 4 weeks after cessation) when smokers are compliant with the procedure. Scheduled smoking also produced a better overall quitting experience by reducing symptoms of nicotine withdrawal and craving, in comparison with usual care, which could encourage future quit attempts. Studies in this area should focus on the use of counseling or other methods to improve adherence.

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This helps to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and ease the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. Although there is high-certainty evidence that NRT is effective for achieving long-term smoking abstinence, it is unclear whether different forms, doses, durations of treatment or timing of use impacts its effects.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords, most recently in April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded studies that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of fewer than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Separate reviews cover studies comparing NRT to control, or to other pharmacotherapies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking abstinence after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and study withdrawals due to treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 68 completed studies with 43,327 participants, five of which are new to this update. Most completed studies recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. We judged 28 of the 68 studies to be at high risk of bias. Restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results for any comparisons apart from the preloading comparison, which tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day whilst still smoking.  There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form plus patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.37; I2 = 12%; 16 studies, 12,169 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg patches are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; I2 = 38%; 5 studies, 1655 participants), and that 21 mg patches are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08; 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3446 participants). Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4395 participants). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 3319 participants). We found no clear evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); or fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence). Cardiac AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no clear evidence of an effect on these outcomes, and rates were low overall. More withdrawals due to treatment were reported in people using nasal spray compared to patches in one study (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46; 1 study, 922 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in people using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two studies (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 544 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum can result in an increase in the chances of successfully stopping smoking. Due to imprecision, evidence was of moderate certainty for patch dose comparisons. There is some indication that the lower-dose nicotine patches and gum may be less effective than higher-dose products. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT before quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is limited. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are reported.

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.

Interventions for waterpipe smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

While cigarette smoking has declined globally, waterpipe smoking is rising, especially among youth. The impact of this rise is amplified by mounting evidence of its addictive and harmful nature. Waterpipe smoking is influenced by multiple factors, including appealing flavors, marketing, use in social settings, and misperceptions that waterpipe is less harmful or addictive than cigarettes. People who use waterpipes are interested in quitting, but are often unsuccessful at doing so on their own. Therefore, developing and testing waterpipe cessation interventions to help people quit was identified as a priority for global tobacco control efforts.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of tobacco cessation interventions for people who smoke waterpipes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group Specialized Register from database inception to 29 July 2022, using variant terms and spellings ('waterpipe' or 'narghile' or 'arghile' or 'shisha' or 'goza' or 'narkeela' or 'hookah' or 'hubble bubble'). We searched for trials, published or unpublished, in any language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, or cluster-RCTs of any smoking cessation interventions for people who use waterpipes, of any age or gender. In order to be included, studies had to measure waterpipe abstinence at a three-month follow-up or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from waterpipe use at least three months after baseline. We also collected data on adverse events. Individual study effects and pooled effects were summarized as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models to combine studies, where appropriate. We assessed statistical heterogeneity with the I2 statistic. We summarized secondary outcomes narratively. We used the five GRADE considerations (risk of bias, inconsistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for our primary outcome in four categories high, moderate, low, or very low.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included nine studies, involving 2841 participants. All studies were conducted in adults, and were carried out in Iran, Vietnam, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Pakistan, and the USA. Studies were conducted in several settings, including colleges/universities, community healthcare centers, tuberculosis hospitals, and cancer treatment centers, while two studies tested e-health interventions (online web-based educational intervention, text message intervention). Overall, we judged three studies to be at low risk of bias, and six studies at high risk of bias. We pooled data from five studies (1030 participants) that tested intensive face-to-face behavioral interventions compared with brief behavioral intervention (e.g. one behavioral counseling session), usual care (e.g. self-help materials), or no intervention. In our meta-analysis, we included people who used waterpipe exclusively, or with another form of tobacco. Overall, we found low-certainty evidence of a benefit of behavioral support for waterpipe abstinence (RR 3.19 95% CI 2.17 to 4.69; I2 = 41%; 5 studies, N = 1030). We downgraded the evidence because of imprecision and risk of bias. We pooled data from two studies (N = 662 participants) that tested varenicline combined with behavioral intervention compared with placebo combined with behavioral intervention. Although the point estimate favored varenicline, 95% CIs were imprecise, and incorporated the potential for no difference and lower quit rates in the varenicline groups, as well as a benefit as large as that found in cigarette smoking cessation (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.24; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, N = 662; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the evidence because of imprecision. We found no clear evidence of a difference in the number of participants experiencing adverse events (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.44; I2 = 31%; 2 studies, N = 662). The studies did not report serious adverse events.   One study tested the efficacy of seven weeks of bupropion therapy combined with behavioral intervention. There was no clear evidence of benefit for waterpipe cessation when compared with behavioral support alone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.41; 1 study, N = 121; very low-certainty evidence), or with self-help (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.94 to 4.00; 1 study, N = 86; very low-certainty evidence).  Two studies tested e-health interventions. One study reported higher waterpipe quit rates among participants randomized to either a tailored mobile phone or untailored mobile phone intervention compared with those randomized to no intervention (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.05; 2 studies, N = 319; very low-certainty evidence). Another study reported higher waterpipe abstinence rates following an intensive online educational intervention compared with a brief online educational intervention (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.21; 1 study, N = 70; very low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-certainty evidence that behavioral waterpipe cessation interventions can increase waterpipe quit rates among waterpipe smokers. We found insufficient evidence to assess whether varenicline or bupropion increased waterpipe abstinence; available evidence is compatible with effect sizes similar to those seen for cigarette smoking cessation.  Given e-health interventions' potential reach and effectiveness for waterpipe cessation, trials with large samples and long follow-up periods are needed. Future studies should use biochemical validation of abstinence to prevent the risk of detection bias. Finally, there has been limited attention given to high-risk groups for waterpipe smoking, such as youth, young adults, pregnant women, and dual or poly tobacco users. These groups would benefit from targeted studies.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Implementation of ask-advise-connect for smoking cessation in Dutch general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods evaluation using the CFIR framework

BACKGROUND

The Ask-Advise-Connect (AAC) approach can help primary care providers to increase the number of people who attempt to quit smoking and enrol into cessation counselling. We implemented AAC in Dutch general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study we describe how AAC was received in Dutch general practice and assess which factors played a role in the implementation.

METHODS

A mixed-methods approach was used to evaluate the implementation of AAC. Implementation took place between late 2020 and early 2022 among 106 Dutch primary care providers (general practitioners (GPs), practice nurses and doctor's assistants). Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through four online questionnaires. A descriptive analysis was conducted on the quantitative data. The qualitative data (consisting of answers to open-ended questions) were inductively analysed using axial codes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to structure and interpret findings.

RESULTS

During the study, most participants felt motivated (84-92%) and able (80-94%) to apply AAC. At the end of the study, most participants reported that the AAC approach is easy to apply (89%) and provides advantages (74%). Routine implementation of the approach was, however, experienced to be difficult. More GPs (30-48%) experienced barriers in the implementation compared to practice nurses and doctor's assistants (7-9%). The qualitative analysis showed that especially external factors, such as a lack of time or priority to discuss smoking due to the COVID-19 pandemic, negatively influenced implementation of AAC.

CONCLUSIONS

Although AAC was mostly positively received in Dutch general practice, implementation turned out to be challenging, especially for GPs. Lack of time to discuss smoking was a major barrier in the implementation. Future efforts should focus on providing additional implementation support to GPs, for example with the use of e-health.