1
|
Shevorykin A, Hyland BM, Robles D, Ji M, Vantucci D, Bensch L, Thorner H, Marion M, Liskiewicz A, Carl E, Ostroff JS, Sheffer CE. Tobacco use, trauma exposure and PTSD: a systematic review. Health Psychol Rev 2024:1-32. [PMID: 38711288 DOI: 10.1080/17437199.2024.2330896] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/13/2022] [Accepted: 03/11/2024] [Indexed: 05/08/2024]
Abstract
Tobacco use remains one of the most significant preventable public health problems globally and is increasingly concentrated among vulnerable groups, including those with trauma exposure or diagnosed with PTSD. The goal of this systematic review was to update and extend previous reviews. Of the 7224 publications that met the initial criteria, 267 were included in the review. Summary topic areas include conceptual frameworks for the relation between trauma or PTSD and tobacco use; associations between trauma exposure or PTSD and tobacco use; number and type of trauma exposures and tobacco use; PTSD symptoms and tobacco use; Treatment-related studies; and the examination of causal relations. Evidence continues to indicate that individuals exposed to trauma or diagnosed with PTSD are more likely to use tobacco products, more nicotine dependent and less likely to abstain from tobacco even when provided evidence-based treatments than individuals without trauma. The most commonly cited causal association proposed was use of tobacco for self-regulation of negative affect associated with trauma. A small proportion of the studies addressed causality and mechanisms of action. Future work should incorporate methodological approaches and measures from which we can draw causal conclusions and mechanisms to support the development of viable therapeutic targets.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alina Shevorykin
- Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Bridget M Hyland
- Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Daniel Robles
- Department of Psychology, Faculty of Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
| | - Mengjia Ji
- Department of Psychology, The City College of New York (CUNY), New York, NY, USA
| | - Darian Vantucci
- Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Lindsey Bensch
- Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Hannah Thorner
- Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Matthew Marion
- Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Amylynn Liskiewicz
- Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Ellen Carl
- Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Jamie S Ostroff
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Christine E Sheffer
- Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lee CM, Seo YB, Paek YJ, Lee ES, Kang HS, Kim SY, Roh S, Park DW, An YS, Jo SH. Evidence-Based Guideline for the Treatment of Smoking Cessation Provided by the National Health Insurance Service in Korea. Korean J Fam Med 2024; 45:69-81. [PMID: 38414371 DOI: 10.4082/kjfm.23.0142] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2023] [Accepted: 11/03/2023] [Indexed: 02/29/2024] Open
Abstract
Although major countries, such as South Korea, have developed and disseminated national smoking cessation guidelines, these efforts have been limited to developing individual societies or specialized institution-based recommendations. Therefore, evidence-based clinical guidelines are essential for developing smoking cessation interventions and promoting effective smoking cessation treatments. This guideline targets frontline clinical practitioners involved in a smoking cessation treatment support program implemented in 2015 with the support of the National Health Insurance Service. The Guideline Development Group of 10 multidisciplinary smoking cessation experts employed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT approach to review recent domestic and international research and guidelines and to determine evidence levels using the GRADE methodology. The guideline panel formulated six strong recommendations and one conditional recommendation regarding pharmacotherapy choices among general and special populations (mental disorders and chronic obstructive lung disease [COPD]). Strong recommendations favor varenicline rather than a nicotine patch or bupropion, using varenicline even if they are not ready to quit, using extended pharmacotherapy (>12 weeks) rather than standard treatment (8-12 weeks), or using pharmacotherapy for individuals with mental disorders or COPD. The conditional recommendation suggests combining varenicline with a nicotine patch instead of using varenicline alone. Aligned with the Korean Society of Medicine's clinical guideline development process, this is South Korea's first domestic smoking cessation treatment guideline that follows standardized guidelines. Primarily focusing on pharmacotherapy, it can serve as a foundation for comprehensive future smoking cessation clinical guidelines, encompassing broader treatment topics beyond medications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cheol Min Lee
- Department of Family Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul, Korea
- Department of Family Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Yoo-Bin Seo
- Department of Family Medicine, Wonkwang University Sanbon Hospital, Gunpo, Korea
| | - Yu-Jin Paek
- Department of Family Medicine and Health Promotion Center, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, Korea
| | - Eon Sook Lee
- Department of Family Medicine, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Goyang, Korea
| | - Hye Seon Kang
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, Bucheon, Korea
| | - Soo Young Kim
- Department of Family Medicine, Hallym University Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sungwon Roh
- Department of Psychiatry, Hanyang University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Dong Won Park
- Division of Pulmonary Medicine and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Yoo Suk An
- Department of Psychiatry, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sang-Ho Jo
- Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Castaldelli-Maia JM, Camargos de Oliveira V, Irber FM, Blaas IK, Angerville B, Sousa Martins-da-Silva A, Koch Gimenes G, Waisman Campos M, Torales J, Ventriglio A, Guillois C, El Ouazzani H, Gazaix L, Favré P, Dervaux A, Apter G. Psychopharmacology of smoking cessation medications: focus on patients with mental health disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry 2023; 35:397-417. [PMID: 38299651 DOI: 10.1080/09540261.2023.2249084] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2023] [Accepted: 08/14/2023] [Indexed: 02/02/2024]
Abstract
The adverse effects of smoking cessation in individuals with mental health disorders have been a point of concern, and progress in the development of treatment has been slow. The primary first-line treatments for smoking cessation are Nicotine Replacement Therapy, Bupropion, Varenicline, and behavioural support. Nortriptyline and Clonidine are second-line treatments used when the first-line treatments are not effective or are contraindicated. Smoking cessation medications have been shown to be effective in reducing nicotine cravings and withdrawal symptoms and promoting smoking cessation among patients living with mental disorders. However, these medications may have implications for patients' mental health and need to be monitored closely. The efficacy and side effects of these medications may vary depending on the patient's psychiatric condition, medication regimen, substance use, or medical comorbidities. The purpose of this review is to synthesise the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, therapeutic effects, adverse effects, and pharmacological interactions of first- and second-line smoking cessation drugs, with an emphasis on patients suffering from mental illnesses. Careful consideration of the risks and benefits of using smoking cessation medications is necessary, and treatment plans must be tailored to individual patients' needs. Monitoring symptoms and medication regimens is essential to ensure optimal treatment outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- João Mauricio Castaldelli-Maia
- Cellule de Recherche Clinique, Groupe Hospitalier du Havre, Le Havre, France
- Department of Psychiatry, Medical School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
| | | | | | - Israel K Blaas
- Perdizes Institute (IPer), Clinics Hospital (HCFMUSP), Medical School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
| | | | | | - Gislaine Koch Gimenes
- Perdizes Institute (IPer), Clinics Hospital (HCFMUSP), Medical School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Marcela Waisman Campos
- Department of Cognitive Neurology, Neuropsychiatry, and Neuropsychology, FLENI, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Julio Torales
- Department of Psychiatry, National University of Asuncion, San Lorenzo, Paraguay
- Regional Institute of Health Research, Universidad Nacional de Caaguazú, Coronel Oviedo, Paraguay
- School of Health Sciences, Universidad Sudamericana, Pedro Juan Caballero, Paraguay
| | - Antonio Ventriglio
- Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
| | - Carine Guillois
- Cellule de Recherche Clinique, Groupe Hospitalier du Havre, Le Havre, France
| | - Houria El Ouazzani
- Cellule de Recherche Clinique, Groupe Hospitalier du Havre, Le Havre, France
| | - Léna Gazaix
- Cellule de Recherche Clinique, Groupe Hospitalier du Havre, Le Havre, France
| | - Pascal Favré
- Établissement Public de Santé Mentale, Neuilly sur Marne, France
| | - Alain Dervaux
- Établissement Public de Santé Barthélémy Durand, Étampes, France
- Université Paris-Saclay, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France
| | - Gisèle Apter
- Cellule de Recherche Clinique, Groupe Hospitalier du Havre, Le Havre, France
- Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
- Établissement Public de Santé Mentale, Neuilly sur Marne, France
- Societé de l'Information Psychiatrique, Bron, France
- University of Rouen Normandy, Rouen, France
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
5
|
Hajizadeh A, Howes S, Theodoulou A, Klemperer E, Hartmann-Boyce J, Livingstone-Banks J, Lindson N. Antidepressants for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 5:CD000031. [PMID: 37230961 PMCID: PMC10207863 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd000031.pub6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/27/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anisa Hajizadeh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Seth Howes
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Elias Klemperer
- Departments of Psychological Sciences & Psychiatry, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Livingstone-Banks J, Fanshawe TR, Thomas KH, Theodoulou A, Hajizadeh A, Hartman L, Lindson N. Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 5:CD006103. [PMID: 37142273 PMCID: PMC10169257 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006103.pub8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e-cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from baseline. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs). MAIN RESULTS We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk. We found moderate-certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I2 = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low-certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I2 = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I2 = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low-certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I2 = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low-certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm. Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline showed that more people in the varenicline arm quit smoking (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I2 = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I2 = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I2 = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I2 = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual-form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low-certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual-form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be a benefit from varenicline for quitting smoking, however further evidence could strengthen this finding or demonstrate a benefit from cytisine. Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard-dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Kyla H Thomas
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Anisa Hajizadeh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Lilian Hartman
- University of Oxford Medical School, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Morar T, Robertson L. Smoking cessation among people with mental illness: A South African perspective. S Afr Fam Pract (2004) 2022; 64:e1-e9. [PMID: 36073100 PMCID: PMC9453116 DOI: 10.4102/safp.v64i1.5489] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2022] [Revised: 05/31/2022] [Accepted: 06/23/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Tobacco use is recognised as a serious, worldwide public health concern. Smoking cessation is of great interest across a wide range of medical specialities, including family medicine. However, smoking cessation among people with mental illness (PWMI) has attracted scant attention in South African literature. This is despite PWMI suffering disproportionately from the damages of tobacco. The harms of smoking are not limited to physical health but extend to mental health. This article discusses the need for multifaceted smoking cessation treatments for PWMI in the public health sector, taking into consideration the prevalence and unique drivers of smoking in this population. A brief overview of patterns of tobacco use, associated harms and smoking cessation interventions in South Africa is given; all within the context of mental illness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tejil Morar
- Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Clinical Medicine, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Néstor S, Carlos P, Cristina P, José MR, Ignacio B, Pilar S. TOBACCO USE DISORDER AND DUAL DISORDERS Joint statement by the Spanish Psychiatry Society and the Spanish Dual Disorders Society. ACTAS ESPANOLAS DE PSIQUIATRIA 2022; 50:77-138. [PMID: 35731182 PMCID: PMC11095114] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2022] [Accepted: 06/01/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
Tobacco Use Disorder (TUD) is a health problem of the first order in the world population, affecting a vulnerable population, such as people with other mental disorders, whose morbidity and mortality are increased as a result.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Szerman Néstor
- Instituto de Psiquiatría y Salud Mental, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, España. Miembro de la Sociedad Española de Patología Dual (SEPD)
| | - Parro Carlos
- Instituto de Psiquiatría y Salud Mental, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, España. Miembro de la Sociedad Española de Patología Dual (SEPD)
| | - Pinet Cristina
- Unidad Toxicomanías, Servicio de Psiquiatría, Hospital Sant Pau, Barcelona, España. Miembro de la Sociedad Española de Psiquiatría (SEP)
| | - Martínez-Raga José
- Departamento de Psiquiatría y Psicología Médica. Hospital Universitario Doctor Peset y Universitat de Valencia. Valencia, España. Miembro de la Sociedad Española de Patología Dual (SEPD)
| | - Basurte Ignacio
- Dirección médica de Psiquiatría y Salud Mental de la Clínica López Ibor. Madrid, España. Profesor vinculado de la Universidad Europea de Madrid. Madrid, España. Miembro de la Sociedad Española de Patología Dual (SEPD)
| | - Saiz Pilar
- Catedrática de Psiquiatría. Universidad de Oviedo, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental (CIBERSAM), Instituto Universitario de Neurociencias del Principado de Asturias (INEUROPA), Instituto de Investigación sanitaria del Principado de Asturias (ISPA), Servicio de Salud del Principado de Asturias (SESPA). Asturias, España. Miembro de la Sociedad Española de Psiquiatría (SEP)
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Hartmann-Boyce J, Theodoulou A, Farley A, Hajek P, Lycett D, Jones LL, Kudlek L, Heath L, Hajizadeh A, Schenkels M, Aveyard P. Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 10:CD006219. [PMID: 34611902 PMCID: PMC8493442 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006219.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Most people who stop smoking gain weight. This can discourage some people from making a quit attempt and risks offsetting some, but not all, of the health advantages of quitting. Interventions to prevent weight gain could improve health outcomes, but there is a concern that they may undermine quitting. OBJECTIVES To systematically review the effects of: (1) interventions targeting post-cessation weight gain on weight change and smoking cessation (referred to as 'Part 1') and (2) interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that plausibly affect post-cessation weight gain (referred to as 'Part 2'). SEARCH METHODS Part 1 - We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; latest search 16 October 2020. Part 2 - We searched included studies in the following 'parent' Cochrane reviews: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, e-cigarettes, and exercise interventions for smoking cessation published in Issue 10, 2020 of the Cochrane Library. We updated register searches for the review of nicotine receptor partial agonists. SELECTION CRITERIA Part 1 - trials of interventions that targeted post-cessation weight gain and had measured weight at any follow-up point or smoking cessation, or both, six or more months after quit day. Part 2 - trials included in the selected parent Cochrane reviews reporting weight change at any time point. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. Change in weight was expressed as difference in weight change from baseline to follow-up between trial arms and was reported only in people abstinent from smoking. Abstinence from smoking was expressed as a risk ratio (RR). Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the inverse variance method for weight, and Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking. MAIN RESULTS Part 1: We include 37 completed studies; 21 are new to this update. We judged five studies to be at low risk of bias, 17 to be at unclear risk and the remainder at high risk. An intermittent very low calorie diet (VLCD) comprising full meal replacement provided free of charge and accompanied by intensive dietitian support significantly reduced weight gain at end of treatment compared with education on how to avoid weight gain (mean difference (MD) -3.70 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.82 to -2.58; 1 study, 121 participants), but there was no evidence of benefit at 12 months (MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI -3.49 to 0.89; 1 study, 62 participants). The VLCD increased the chances of abstinence at 12 months (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73; 1 study, 287 participants). However, a second study found that no-one completed the VLCD intervention or achieved abstinence. Interventions aimed at increasing acceptance of weight gain reported mixed effects at end of treatment, 6 months and 12 months with confidence intervals including both increases and decreases in weight gain compared with no advice or health education. Due to high heterogeneity, we did not combine the data. These interventions increased quit rates at 6 months (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.96; 4 studies, 619 participants; I2 = 21%), but there was no evidence at 12 months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.06; 2 studies, 496 participants; I2 = 26%). Some pharmacological interventions tested for limiting post-cessation weight gain (PCWG) reduced weight gain at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine, phenylpropanolamine, naltrexone). The effects of ephedrine and caffeine combined, lorcaserin, and chromium were too imprecise to give useful estimates of treatment effects. There was very low-certainty evidence that personalized weight management support reduced weight gain at end of treatment (MD -1.11 kg, 95% CI -1.93 to -0.29; 3 studies, 121 participants; I2 = 0%), but no evidence in the longer-term 12 months (MD -0.44 kg, 95% CI -2.34 to 1.46; 4 studies, 530 participants; I2 = 41%). There was low to very low-certainty evidence that detailed weight management education without personalized assessment, planning and feedback did not reduce weight gain and may have reduced smoking cessation rates (12 months: MD -0.21 kg, 95% CI -2.28 to 1.86; 2 studies, 61 participants; I2 = 0%; RR for smoking cessation 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90; 2 studies, 522 participants; I2 = 0%). Part 2: We include 83 completed studies, 27 of which are new to this update. There was low certainty that exercise interventions led to minimal or no weight reduction compared with standard care at end of treatment (MD -0.25 kg, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.29; 4 studies, 404 participants; I2 = 0%). However, weight was reduced at 12 months (MD -2.07 kg, 95% CI -3.78 to -0.36; 3 studies, 182 participants; I2 = 0%). Both bupropion and fluoxetine limited weight gain at end of treatment (bupropion MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.67; 10 studies, 1098 participants; I2 = 3%); (fluoxetine MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.53; 2 studies, 144 participants; I2 = 38%; low- and very low-certainty evidence, respectively). There was no evidence of benefit at 12 months for bupropion, but estimates were imprecise (bupropion MD -0.26 kg, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.78; 7 studies, 471 participants; I2 = 0%). No studies of fluoxetine provided data at 12 months. There was moderate-certainty that NRT reduced weight at end of treatment (MD -0.52 kg, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.05; 21 studies, 2784 participants; I2 = 81%) and moderate-certainty that the effect may be similar at 12 months (MD -0.37 kg, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.11; 17 studies, 1463 participants; I2 = 0%), although the estimates are too imprecise to assess long-term benefit. There was mixed evidence of the effect of varenicline on weight, with high-certainty evidence that weight change was very modestly lower at the end of treatment (MD -0.23 kg, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.06; 14 studies, 2566 participants; I2 = 32%); a low-certainty estimate gave an imprecise estimate of higher weight at 12 months (MD 1.05 kg, 95% CI -0.58 to 2.69; 3 studies, 237 participants; I2 = 0%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Overall, there is no intervention for which there is moderate certainty of a clinically useful effect on long-term weight gain. There is also no moderate- or high-certainty evidence that interventions designed to limit weight gain reduce the chances of people achieving abstinence from smoking.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Amanda Farley
- Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Peter Hajek
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Deborah Lycett
- Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Coventry, UK
| | - Laura L Jones
- Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Laura Kudlek
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Laura Heath
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Anisa Hajizadeh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Paul Aveyard
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Wang Y, Bos JH, Schuiling-Veninga CCM, Boezen HM, van Boven JFM, Wilffert B, Hak E. Neuropsychiatric safety of varenicline in the general and COPD population with and without psychiatric disorders: a retrospective cohort study in a real-world setting. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e042417. [PMID: 34035088 PMCID: PMC8154988 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042417] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate the real-world association between varenicline and neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPAEs) in general and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) population with and without psychiatric disorders compared with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to strengthen the knowledge of varenicline safety. DESIGN A retrospective cohort study. SETTING Prescription database IADB.nl, the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS New users of varenicline or NRT among general (≥18 years) and COPD (≥40 years) population. Psychiatric subcohort was defined as people prescribed psychotropic medications (≥2) within 6 months before the index date. OUTCOME MEASURES The incidence of NPAEs including depression, anxiety and insomnia, defined by new or naive prescriptions of related medications in IADB.nl within 24 weeks after the first treatment initiation of varenicline or NRT. RESULTS For the general population in non-psychiatric cohort, the incidence of total NPAEs in varenicline (4480) and NRT (1970) groups was 10.5% and 12.6%, respectively (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.00). For the general population in psychiatric cohort, the incidence of total NPAEs was much higher, 75.3% and 78.5% for varenicline (1427) and NRT (1200) groups, respectively (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.99). For the COPD population (1598), there were no differences in the incidence of NPAEs between comparison groups in both the psychiatric cohort (aOR 0.97, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.44) and non-psychiatric cohort (aOR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.20). Results from subgroup or sensitivity analyses also did not reveal increased risks of NPAEs but showed decreased risk of some subgroup NPAEs associated with varenicline. CONCLUSIONS In contrast to the concerns of a possible increased risk of NPAEs among varenicline users, we found a relative decreased risk of total NPAEs in varenicline users of the general population in psychiatric or non-psychiatric cohorts compared with NRT and no difference for NPAEs between varenicline and NRT users in smaller population with COPD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuanyuan Wang
- Department of PharmacoTherapy, -Epidemiology & -Economics, Groningen Research Institutte of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Jens H Bos
- Department of PharmacoTherapy, -Epidemiology & -Economics, Groningen Research Institutte of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Catharina C M Schuiling-Veninga
- Department of PharmacoTherapy, -Epidemiology & -Economics, Groningen Research Institutte of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - H Marike Boezen
- Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
- Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD (GRIAC), University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Job F M van Boven
- Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD (GRIAC), University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy & Pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Bob Wilffert
- Department of PharmacoTherapy, -Epidemiology & -Economics, Groningen Research Institutte of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy & Pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Eelko Hak
- Department of PharmacoTherapy, -Epidemiology & -Economics, Groningen Research Institutte of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
- Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Correa JB, Lawrence D, McKenna BS, Gaznick N, Saccone PA, Dubrava S, Doran N, Anthenelli RM. Psychiatric Comorbidity and Multimorbidity in the EAGLES Trial: Descriptive Correlates and Associations With Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events, Treatment Adherence, and Smoking Cessation. Nicotine Tob Res 2021; 23:1646-1655. [PMID: 33788933 DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntab056] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2020] [Accepted: 03/30/2021] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Psychiatric and substance use disorders represent barriers to smoking cessation. We sought to identify correlates of psychiatric comorbidity (CM; 2 diagnoses) and multimorbidity (MM; 3+ diagnoses) among smokers attempting to quit and to evaluate whether these conditions predicted neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs), treatment adherence, or cessation efficacy (CE). AIMS AND METHODS Data were collected from November 2011 to January 2015 across sixteen countries and reflect the psychiatric cohort of the EAGLES trial. Participants were randomly assigned to receive varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy, or placebo for 12 weeks and were followed for an additional 12 weeks posttreatment. NPSAE outcomes reflected 16 moderate-to-severe neuropsychiatric symptom categories, and CE outcomes included continuous abstinence at weeks 9-12 and 9-24. RESULTS Of the 4103 participants included, 36.2% were diagnosed with multiple psychiatric conditions (20.9% CM, 15.3% MM). Psychiatric CM and MM were associated with several baseline factors, including male gender, nonwhite race or ethnicity, more previous quit attempts, and more severe mental health symptoms. The incidence of moderate-to-severe NPSAEs was significantly higher (p < .01) in participants with MM (11.9%) than those with CM (5.1%) or primary diagnosis only (4.6%). There were no significant (ps > .05) main effects or interactions with treatment condition for diagnostic grouping on treatment adherence or CE outcomes. CONCLUSIONS While having multiple psychiatric diagnoses increased risk of developing moderate-to-severe NPSAEs during a quit attempt, neither CM nor MM were associated with treatment adherence or odds of quitting. These findings reassure providers to advise smokers with multiple stable psychiatric conditions to consider using Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medications when trying to quit. IMPLICATIONS Psychiatric MM may be associated with development of NPSAEs when smokers make a medication-assisted quit attempt, but it does not appear to be differentially associated with medication compliance or efficacy. Prescribing healthcare professionals are encouraged to not only promote use of FDA-approved pharmacotherapies by smokers with complex psychiatric presentations, but also to closely monitor such smokers for neuropsychiatric side effects that may be related to their mental health conditions. NCT # NCT01456936.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John B Correa
- Mental Health Service, VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA, USA.,Department of Psychiatry, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | | | - Benjamin S McKenna
- Mental Health Service, VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA, USA.,Department of Psychiatry, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Natassia Gaznick
- Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | | | | | - Neal Doran
- Mental Health Service, VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA, USA.,Department of Psychiatry, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Robert M Anthenelli
- Department of Psychiatry, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Ayers CR, Heffner JL, Russ C, Lawrence D, McRae T, Evins AE, Anthenelli RM. Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation in anxiety disorders: Subgroup analysis of the randomized, active- and placebo-controlled EAGLES trial. Depress Anxiety 2020; 37:247-260. [PMID: 31850603 PMCID: PMC7064930 DOI: 10.1002/da.22982] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/06/2019] [Revised: 11/07/2019] [Accepted: 11/28/2019] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Smoking rates are high in adults with anxiety disorders (ADs), yet little is known about the safety and efficacy of smoking-cessation pharmacotherapies in this group. METHODS Post hoc analyses in 712 smokers with AD (posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD], n = 192; generalized anxiety disorder [GAD], n = 243; panic disorder [PD], n = 277) and in a nonpsychiatric cohort (NPC; n = 4,028). Participants were randomly assigned to varenicline, bupropion, nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT), or placebo plus weekly smoking-cessation counseling for 12 weeks, with 12 weeks follow-up. General linear models were used to test the effects of treatment group, cohort, and their interaction on neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs), and continuous abstinence weeks 9-12 (treatment) and 9-24 (follow-up). RESULTS NPSAE incidence for PTSD (6.9%), GAD (5.4%), and PD (6.2%) was higher versus NPC (2.1%), regardless of treatment. Across all treatments, smokers with PTSD (odds ratio [OR] = 0.58), GAD (OR = 0.72), and PD (OR = 0.53) had lower continuous abstinence rates weeks 9-12 (CAR9-12) versus NPC. Varenicline demonstrated superior efficacy to placebo in smokers with GAD and PD, respectively (OR = 4.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.20-17.10; and OR = 8.49; 95% CI = 1.57-45.78); NRT was superior to placebo in smokers with PD (OR = 7.42; 95% CI = 1.37-40.35). While there was no statistically significant effect of any treatment on CAR9-12 for smokers with PTSD, varenicline improved 7-day point prevalence abstinence at end of treatment in this subcohort. CONCLUSION Individuals with ADs were more likely than those without psychiatric illness to experience moderate to severe NPSAEs during smoking-cessation attempts, regardless of treatment. While the study was not powered to evaluate abstinence outcomes with these subgroups of smokers with ADs, varenicline provided significant benefit for cessation in those with GAD and PD, while NRT provided significant benefit for those with PD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jaimee L. Heffner
- Public Health Sciences DivisionFred Hutchinson Cancer Research CenterSeattleWashington
| | | | | | - Thomas McRae
- Global Product DevelopmentPfizerNew YorkNew York
| | - A. Eden Evins
- Center for Addiction MedicineMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonMassachusetts
| | | |
Collapse
|