Use of Contrave, Naltrexone with Bupropion, Bupropion, or Naltrexone and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events: A Systematic Literature Review

Naltrexone/Bupropion extended release (ER; Contrave) is an extended-release, fixed-dose combination medication of naltrexone (8 mg) and bupropion (90 mg) for patients with obesity or overweight with at least one weight-related comorbidity. Obese and overweight patients with or without comorbidities are at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk. Due to the increased CV risk profile in this patient population, this systematic literature review was conducted to assess human studies reporting major adverse CV events (MACE) and other CV events. A priori eligibility criteria included clinical studies (randomized and observational) published from January 1, 2012, to September 30, 2021, with data comparing users of naltrexone/bupropion ER, naltrexone with bupropion, bupropion without naltrexone, or naltrexone without bupropion versus comparator groups (placebo or other treatments), and with sufficient information to determine the frequency of MACE or other CV adverse events by treatment group. Among 2539 English-language articles identified, 70 articles met the eligibility criteria: seven studies of naltrexone/bupropion ER or naltrexone with bupropion, 32 studies of bupropion, and 31 studies of naltrexone. No studies reported an increased risk of MACE among users of naltrexone/bupropion ER, naltrexone with bupropion, or bupropion or naltrexone individually compared with nonusers. One-half of the available studies (n = 35) reported no (zero) CV events and the other half (n = 35) reported that a non-zero frequency of CV events occurred. Four studies reported data on MACE, including three studies of bupropion and one study of naltrexone/bupropion ER. For composite MACE and its components, the difference in proportions between naltrexone/bupropion ER-, bupropion-, or naltrexone-treated patients compared with active comparators or placebo-treated patients did not exceed 2.5%. In conclusion, the available human evidence does not indicate an increased risk of CV events or MACE following use of naltrexone/bupropion ER, naltrexone with bupropion, or the individual components.

Comparison of Cardiovascular Safety for Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapies in a Population-Based Cohort in Australia

IMPORTANCE

Although concerns exist regarding a potential increased risk of cardiovascular events for smoking cessation pharmacotherapies, there is general consensus that any increased risk associated with their use would be outweighed by the benefits of smoking cessation; thus, clinical guidelines recommend that such pharmacotherapies be offered to everyone who wants to quit smoking. In the interest of minimizing risk to patients, prescribers need evidence indicating how these pharmacotherapies compare with one another in terms of cardiovascular safety.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among individuals initiating varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) patches, or bupropion.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective, population-based cohort study using linked pharmaceutical dispensing, hospital admissions, and death data was conducted in New South Wales, Australia. Participants included adults who were dispensed a prescription smoking cessation pharmacotherapy between 2008 and 2015 or between 2011 and 2015, depending on the availability of the pharmacotherapies being compared. Pairwise comparisons were conducted for risk of MACE among 122 932 varenicline vs 92 148 NRT initiators; 342 064 varenicline vs 10 457 bupropion initiators; and 102 817 NRT vs 6056 bupropion initiators.

EXPOSURE

First course of the smoking cessation pharmacotherapy of interest.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was MACE, defined as a composite of acute coronary syndrome, stroke, and cardiovascular death. Secondary outcomes were the individual components of MACE. Inverse probability of treatment weighting with high-dimensional propensity scores was used to account for potential confounding. Cox proportional hazards regression models with robust variance were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. Data were analyzed January 24, 2019, to September 1, 2021.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) age of included individuals ranged from 41.9 (14.2) to 49.8 (14.9) years, and the proportion of women ranged from 42.8% (52 702 of 123 128) to 52.2% (53 693 of 102 913). The comparison of 122 932 varenicline initiators and 92 148 NRT patch initiators showed no difference in the risk of MACE (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72-1.07) nor in the risk of the secondary outcomes of acute coronary syndrome (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76-1.21) and stroke (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.45-1.14). However, decreased risk of cardiovascular death was found among varenicline initiators (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.79). The results of comparisons involving bupropion were inconclusive owing to wide confidence intervals (eg, risk of MACE: 342 064 varenicline vs 10 457 bupropion initiators, HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.53-1.41]; 102 817 NRT patch vs 6056 bupropion initiators, HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.39-1.62]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The finding of this cohort study that varenicline and NRT patch use have similar risk of MACE suggests that varenicline, the most efficacious smoking cessation pharmacotherapy, may be prescribed instead of NRT patches without increasing risk of major cardiovascular events. Further large-scale studies of the cardiovascular safety of varenicline and NRT relative to bupropion are needed.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

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

PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTIONS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

DATA SOURCES

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

REVIEW METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

FUTURE WORK

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

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

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

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

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

Evidence in Guidelines for Treatment of Coronary Artery Disease

In this chapter, we focus on evidences in current guidelines for treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). In Part 1, diet and lifestyle management is discussed, which plays an important role in CAD risk control, including forming healthy dietary pattern, maintaining proper body weight, physical exercise, smoking cessation, and so on. Part 2 elaborated on revascularization strategies and medical treatments in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), including specific AHA and ESC guidelines on ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). Part 3 discussed chronic stable coronary artery disease (SCAD), the treatment objective of which is a combination of both symptomatic and prognostic improvement. Yet many of the recommendations for SCAD are expert-based rather than evidence-based. Initial medical treatment is safe and beneficial for most patients. While cumulating studies have focused on optimizing pharmacological therapy (referring to nitrates, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, antiplatelet agents, ACEI/ARB, statins, etc.), education, habitual modification, and social support matters a lot for reducing cardiac morbidity and mortality. Patients with moderate-to-severe symptoms and complex lesions should be considered for revascularization. But practical management of revascularization shall take individual characteristics, preference, and compliance into consideration as well.

Treatment With Bupropion and Varenicline for Smoking Cessation and the Risk of Acute Cardiovascular Events and Injuries: a Swedish Case-Crossover Study

Introduction

Bupropion and varenicline are non-nicotine medications used for smoking cessation that mitigate craving and withdrawal symptoms. We aim to investigate whether these drugs increase the risk of selected acute adverse outcomes when used in medical practice.

Methods

Population-based case-crossover design using data from Swedish health and administrative registers. Adult individuals diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction, stroke, suicide, suicide attempt, fall injury, or that suffered a road traffic crash from 01.10.2006 for bupropion, or from 01.03.2008 for varenicline, until 31.12.2013 were included. Different lengths of exposure periods were analyzed within the 12-week hazard period prior to the adverse outcome (1-14, 15-28, and 29-84 days). The control period was matched using the interval preceding the hazard period (85-168 days), and breaking it up into equivalent periods (85-98, 99-112, and 113-168 days). Conditional logistic regression with each case considered as one stratum was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Neither medication was associated with consistent higher risks for any of the adverse outcomes. For bupropion and varenicline, respectively, in the 1-14 days hazard period, OR (95% CI) were: myocardial infarction 1.14 (0.55 to 2.34) and 1.06 (0.70 to 1.62); stroke 1.16 (0.39 to 3.47) and 1.26 (0.72 to 2.17), and traffic crashes 0.85 (0.39 to 1.85) and 1.48 (0.90 to 2.41). In the other periods, ORs were similar or even lower. For falls and suicidal events ORs were generally below one for both drugs.

Conclusion

The available evidence suggests that if prescription guidelines are properly followed regarding potential contraindications both of these medications could be considered relatively safe.

Implications

The reliable exposure and diagnosis assessment used in this nationwide register-based study, along with the number of cases gathered makes this sample one of the largest of its type to assess potential side effects associated with the use of these drugs. Neither medication was associated with consistent higher risks for any of the adverse outcomes studied.

Smoking resumption after heart or lung transplantation: a systematic review and suggestions for screening and management

Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the developed world and kills half of all long-term users. Smoking resumption after heart or lung transplantation is associated with allograft dysfunction, higher incidence of cancer, and reduced overall survival. Although self-reporting is considered an unreliable method for tobacco use detection, implementing systematic cotinine-based screening has proven challenging. This review examines the prevalence of smoking resumption in thoracic transplant patients, explores the risk factors associated with a post-transplant smoking resumption and discusses the currently available smoking cessation interventions for transplant patients.

Trends in Use of Medications for Smoking Cessation in Medicare, 2007-2012

INTRODUCTION

Smoking-related disease accounts for 10% of Medicare expenditures. Although clinical guidelines recommend smoking-cessation medications, they are subject to safety warnings from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This study investigated trends in utilization of smoking-cessation medications in Medicare from 2007 to 2012.

METHODS

Data on medical claims and prescription drugs for a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries were used to study trends from 2007 to 2012 in use of smoking-cessation medications (bupropion, nicotine-replacement therapy, varenicline), among beneficiaries who used tobacco (N=205,675). Analyses were conducted in 2015. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine differences in use of bupropion, nicotine-replacement therapy, varenicline, or more than one medication, relative to none, by beneficiaries' health and demographic characteristics. Binary logistic regression calculated average predicted probabilities of cardiovascular disease or depression among medication users before and after FDA safety warnings related to those conditions.

RESULTS

Sixteen percent of tobacco users ever filled a prescription for a smoking-cessation medication. The proportion of beneficiaries who filled prescriptions for varenicline increased in 2007 but sharply declined corresponding to public warnings about adverse effects, although the same trends did not occur for bupropion or nicotine-replacement therapy. After FDA safety concerns were published, the average predicted probability of beneficiaries filling varenicline prescriptions with cardiovascular disease declined by 31%, although the average predicted probability of depression did not decline.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of smoking-cessation medications among Medicare beneficiaries remains low. Health effects of Medicare policies that increase coverage for medical support for smoking cessation may be limited by low utilization of effective medications.

Predictors of prevalent statin use among older adults identified as statin initiators based on Medicare claims data

PURPOSE

Few studies have evaluated the degree to which prescription drug initiators are correctly identified using claims data. We examine the prevalence and predictors of recent statin possession in statin initiators identified using claims data.

METHODS

Among Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) respondents, we used Medicare Part D claims from 2006 to 2011 to identify statin initiators using a 12-month baseline period of no prior statin claims. Using MCBS interview data, we identified those with self-reported statins obtained during the baseline period. We used log-binomial regression to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios (adjPR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for predictors of recent statin possession.

RESULTS

Among 766 statin initiators identified in prescription claims, 155 (20%) reported recent statin possession during baseline. Beneficiaries with no Part D claims in the past 30 days (adjPR = 1.49, 95%CI: 1.13, 1.96), those with no inpatient, outpatient or physician visits in the past 30 days (adjPR = 1.50, 95%CI: 1.11, 2.03), those with a brand name statin index claim (adjPR = 1.55, 95%CI: 1.19, 2.02), and those with an index claim in January or February (adjPR = 1.50, 95%CI: 1.00, 2.26) had an increased probability of recent statin possession.

CONCLUSIONS

In a cohort of statin initiators identified using prescription claims, 20% had evidence of statin possession during the baseline period. Pharmacoepidemiologic new user studies may benefit from including sensitivity analyses within subgroups less likely to include prevalent users to assess the robustness of key findings to misidentification of the time of treatment initiation. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.