A randomized controlled trial of 24 weeks of varenicline for tobacco use among cancer patients: Efficacy, safety, and adherence

Tobacco Cessation Interventions in Non-Respiratory Cancers: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Considering the high rates of persistent tobacco use, effective cessation interventions are needed for cancer patients and caregivers. Despite the need, there is a significant lack of research on tobacco cessation, especially for non-respiratory cancers (breast, prostate, colorectal, cervical, and bladder cancer).

PURPOSE

The objective was to evaluate tobacco use and tobacco cessation interventions among patients and caregivers for non-respiratory cancers.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions were identified. Five electronic databases were searched in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines through July 2023. Studies exclusive to lung, oral, thoracic, and head and neck cancers were excluded. Effect sizes were estimated; risk of bias was assessed.

RESULTS

Of 3,304 studies, 17 were included. Interventions included behavioral (n = 6), pharmacotherapy (n = 2), and a combination (n = 9) treatment. Eight studies included a health behavior model; mean behavioral change techniques were 5.57. Pooled magnitude of the odds of cessation was positive and significant (odds ratio = 1.24, 95% confidence interval [Lower Limit 1.02, Upper Limit 1.51]) relative to usual care/placebo. Cumulative meta-analysis examined the accumulation of results over-time and demonstrated that studies have been significant since 2020. Two studies included caregivers' who were involved in the provision of social support.

CONCLUSIONS

Current interventions have the potential to reduce tobacco use in non-respiratory cancers. Results may be beneficial for promoting tobacco cessation among non-respiratory cancers. There is a considerable lack of dyadic interventions for cancer survivors and caregivers; researchers are encouraged to explore dyadic approaches.

Scalable Telehealth Cancer Care: integrated healthy lifestyle program to live well after cancer treatment

Northwestern University's Center for Scalable Telehealth Cancer Care (STELLAR) is 1 of 4 Cancer Moonshot Telehealth Research Centers of Excellence programs funded by the National Cancer Institute to establish an evidence base for telehealth in cancer care. STELLAR is grounded in the Institute of Medicine's vision that quality cancer care includes not only disease treatment but also promotion of long-term health and quality of life (QOL). Cigarette smoking, insufficient physical activity, and overweight and obesity often co-occur and are associated with poorer treatment response, heightened recurrence risk, decreased longevity, diminished QOL, and increased treatment cost for many cancers. These risk behaviors are prevalent in cancer survivors, but their treatment is not routinely integrated into oncology care. STELLAR aims to foster patients' long-term health and QOL by designing, implementing, and sustaining a novel telehealth treatment program for multiple risk behaviors to be integrated into standard cancer care. Telehealth delivery is evidence-based for health behavior change treatment and is well suited to overcome access and workflow barriers that can otherwise impede treatment receipt. This paper describes STELLAR's 2-arm randomized parallel group pragmatic clinical trial comparing telehealth-delivered, coach-facilitated multiple risk behavior treatment vs self-guided usual care for the outcomes of reach, effectiveness, and cost among 3000 cancer survivors who have completed curative intent treatment. This paper also discusses several challenges encountered by the STELLAR investigative team and the adaptations developed to move the research forward.

Effect of early medication adherence on behavioral treatment utilization and smoking cessation among individuals with current or past major depressive disorder

SIGNIFICANCE

Little is known about the mechanisms by which medication adherence promotes smoking cessation among adults with MDD. We tested the hypothesis that early adherence promotes abstinence by increasing behavioral treatment (BT) utilization.

METHODS

Data for this post-hoc analysis were from a randomized trial of 149 adults with current or past MDD treated with BT and either varenicline (n = 81) or placebo (n = 68). Arms were matched on medication regimen. Early medication adherence was measured by the number of days in which medication was taken at the prescribed dose during the first six of 12 weeks of pharmacological treatment (weeks 2-7). BT consisted of eight 45-minute sessions (weeks 1-12). Bioverified abstinence was assessed at end-of-treatment (week 14). A regression-based approach was used to test whether the effect of early medication adherence on abstinence was mediated by BT utilization.

RESULTS

Among 141 participants who initiated the medication regimen, BT utilization mediated the effect of early medication adherence on abstinencea) an interquartile increase in early medication days from 20 to 42 predicted a 4.2 times increase in abstinence (Total Risk Ratio (RR) = 4.24, 95% CI = 2.32-13.37; p <.001); b) increases in BT sessions predicted by such an increase in early medication days were associated with a 2.7 times increase in abstinence (Indirect RR = 2.73, 95% CI = 1.54-7.58; p <.001); and c) early medication adherence effects on abstinence were attenuated, controlling for BT (Direct RR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.83-4.23, p =.17).

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of early medication adherence on abstinence in individuals with current or past MDD is mediated by intensive BT utilization.

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.

Evidence-Based Guideline for the Treatment of Smoking Cessation Provided by the National Health Insurance Service in Korea

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.

Efficacy and safety of combination behavioral activation for smoking cessation and varenicline for treating tobacco dependence among individuals with current or past major depressive disorder: A 2 × 2 factorial, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Treatment of depression-related psychological factors related to smoking behavior may improve rates of cessation among adults with major depressive disorder (MDD). This study measured the efficacy and safety of 12 weeks of behavioral activation for smoking cessation (BASC), varenicline and their combination.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

This study used a randomized, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial design comparing BASC versus standard behavioral treatment (ST) and varenicline versus placebo, taking place in research clinics at two urban universities in the United States. Participants comprised 300 hundred adult smokers with current or past MDD.

INTERVENTIONS

BASC integrated behavioral activation therapy and ST to increase engagement in rewarding activities by reducing avoidance, withdrawal and inactivity associated with depression. ST was based on the 2008 PHS Clinical Practice Guideline. Both treatments consisted of eight 45-min sessions delivered between weeks 1 and 12. Varenicline and placebo were administered for 12 weeks between weeks 2 and 14.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcomes were bioverified intent-to-treat (ITT) 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 27 weeks and adverse events (AEs).

FINDINGS

No significant interaction was detected between behavioral treatment and pharmacotherapy at 27 weeks (χ2 (1)  = 0.19, P = 0.67). BASC and ST did not differ (χ2 (1)  = 0.43, P = 0.51). Significant differences in ITT abstinence rates (χ2 (1)  = 4.84, P = 0.03) emerged among pharmacotherapy arms (16.2% for varenicline, 7.5% for placebo), with results favoring varenicline over placebo (rate ratio = 2.16, 95% confidence interval = 1.08, 4.30). All significant differences in AE rates after start of medication were higher for placebo than varenicline.

CONCLUSION

A randomized trial in smokers with major depressive disorder found that varenicline improved smoking abstinence versus placebo at 27 weeks without elevating rates of adverse events. Behavioral activation for smoking cessation did not outperform standard behavioral treatment, with or without adjunctive varenicline therapy.

Effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions among persons with cancer: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Continued smoking after cancer diagnosis is associated with worse outcomes, however, many persons diagnosed with cancer who smoke are unable to quit successfully. Effective interventions are needed to promote quitting in this population. The purpose of this systematic review is to understand the most effective interventions for smoking cessation among persons with cancer and to identify gaps in knowledge and methodology to suggest directions for future research.

METHODS

Three electronic databases (The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) were searched for studies of smoking cessation interventions among persons with cancer, published up to 1 July 2021. Title and abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction was completed by two independent reviewers, via Covalence software, with any discordance resolved by a third reviewer. A quality assessment was completed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool Version 2.

RESULTS

Thirty-six articles were included in the review, including 17 randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) and 19 non-RCT studies. Of the 36 studies, 28 (77.8%) utilized an intervention that included both counseling and medication, with 24 (85.7%) providing medication to participants at no cost. Abstinence rates in the RCT intervention groups (n = 17) ranged from 5.2% to 75%, while the non-RCTs found abstinence rates ranging from 15% to 46%. Overall, studies met a mean of 2.28 out of seven quality items, ranging from 0 to 6.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the importance of utilizing intensive combined behavioral and pharmacological interventions for persons with cancer. While combined therapy interventions seem to be the most effective, more research is needed, as current studies have several quality issues, including the lack of biochemical verification for abstinence.

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.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Systematic Review of Smoking Cessation Interventions for Smokers Diagnosed with Cancer

The detrimental impact of smoking on health and wellbeing are irrefutable. Additionally, smoking is associated with the development of cancer, a reduction treatment outcomes and poorer health outcomes. Nevertheless, a significant number of people continue to smoke following a cancer diagnosis. Little is understood of the smoking cessation services provided to smokers with cancer or their engagement with them. This systematic review aimed to identify existing smoking cessation interventions for this cohort diagnosed with breast, head and neck, lung and cervical cancers (linked to risk). Systematic searches of Pubmed, Embase, Psych Info and CINAHL from 1 January 2015 to 15 December 2020 were conducted. Included studies examined the characteristics of smoking cessation interventions and impact on referrals and quit attempts. The impact on healthcare professionals was included if reported. Included studies were restricted to adults with a cancer diagnosis and published in English. No restriction was placed on study designs, and narrative data synthesis was conducted due to heterogeneity. A review protocol was registered on PROSPERO CRD 42020214204, and reporting adheres to PRISMA reporting guidelines. Data were screened, extracted in duplicate and an assessment of the quality of evidence undertaken using Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. 23 studies met the inclusion criteria, representing USA, Canada, England, Lebanon, Australia and including randomized controlled trials (9), observational studies (10), quality improvement (3), and one qualitative study. Hospital and cancer clinics [including a dental clinic] were the settings for all studies. 43% (10/23) of studies reported interventions for smokers diagnosed with head and neck cancer, 13% (3/23) for smokers diagnosed with lung cancer, one study provides evidence for breast cancer, and the remaining nine studies (39%) report on multiple cancers including the ones specified in this review. Methodological quality was variable. There were limited data to identify one optimal intervention for this cohort. Key elements included the timing and frequency of quit conversations, use of electronic records, pharmacotherapy including extended use of varenicline, increased counselling sessions and a service embedded in oncology departments. More studies are required to ensure tailored smoking cessation pathways are co-developed for smokers with a diagnosis of cancer to support this population.

Characterising the use of varenicline: an analysis of the Australian dispensing claims data

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In Australia, patterns of use of smoking cessation medications and factors associated with their dispensing are currently not known. This study aimed to measure the demographic and clinical factors associated with varenicline dispensing compared with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and bupropion among first-time users of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) subsidised smoking cessation medicines in Australia and to characterise those who discontinued varenicline treatment prematurely.

DESIGN

Retrospective, population-based study. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with varenicline dispensing compared with NRT and bupropion. Sensitivity analyses estimated the proportion of individuals who completed the recommended 12 weeks of varenicline treatment.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

First-time users of PBS subsidised smoking cessation medicines in Australia. Individuals first dispensed a smoking cessation medicine between 2011 and 2019 were identified from a 10% random sample of the national dispensing claims data.

MEASUREMENTS

The outcome for the regression analysis was the dispensing of varenicline compared with NRT and bupropion. The dispensing of a smoking cessation medicine was identified using the World Health Organization Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System and PBS item codes. Independent variables included demographic and clinical characteristics such as sex, age, concessional status, year of treatment initiation and comorbidities identified using the Rx-Risk index. The proportion of people who discontinued varenicline treatment after the initiation pack was determined using prescription refill data.

FINDINGS

A total of 94 532 people had their first PBS subsidised smoking cessation medicine. Of these, 62 367 (66.0%) were dispensed varenicline, 29 949 (31.7%) NRT and 2216 (2.3%) bupropion. The odds of varenicline dispensing were higher in males (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.14-1.21), but lower in older adults (0.86 [0.82-0.90] in above 30 years to 0.49 [0.47-0.52] in 61 years and above), among concession beneficiaries (0.44; 0.43-0.46), and those with congestive heart failure (0.60; 0.53-0.68), depression (0.61; 0.54-0.69), anxiety (0.70; 0.66-0.73), psychotic illness (0.39; 0.37-0.42), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (0.87; 0.82-0.92). The majority (37 670; 60.4%) of those dispensed varenicline discontinued treatment after the initiation pack. Anxiety and psychotic illnesses were significantly more prevalent in those who discontinued treatment. Only 2804 (4.5%) of those dispensed varenicline completed 12 weeks of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Individuals dispensed varenicline in Australia appear to be healthier compared with those who are dispensed nicotine replacement therapy or bupropion.

Extended Duration Treatment of Tobacco Dependence: A Systematic Review

Rationale The American Thoracic Society (ATS) developed a clinical practice guideline on initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults. Controller pharmacotherapies treat tobacco dependence effectively when taken as prescribed. But relapse after pharmacologic discontinuation is common. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of initiating controller for an extended (>12 week) versus a standard duration (6 - 12 weeks) in tobacco-dependent adults. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL from database inception to December 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing extended versus standard duration of controllers for tobacco dependent adults. We conducted meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method with random effects model. Outcomes of interest include point prevalent abstinence at 1-year follow up or longer, relapse, adverse events, quality of life, and withdrawal symptoms. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to types of treatment, and duration of extended therapy when feasible. We assessed the certainty of the estimate following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results We included 13 randomized controlled trials including 8,695 participants that directly compared extended (>12 week) versus standard-duration controller therapy with varenicline, bupropion, or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Compared with standard-duration controller therapy, extended-duration controller therapy probably increased abstinence at 1-year follow-up, measured as 7-day point-prevalence abstinence, (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.33, moderate certainty). Extended-duration controller therapy probably reduced relapse compared to standard-duration controller therapy, assessed at 12 to 18 months after initiation of therapy (HR 0.43; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.64; moderate certainty). Moderate certainty evidence also suggested that extended-duration controller therapy probably did not increase risk of serious adverse events (RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.79 to 2.36). Conclusion This systematic review supported the recommendation for extended-duration therapy with controllers. Further studies on optimal extended duration are warranted.

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.

It Takes Two to Tango: Patients' and Providers' Perspectives in Tobacco Cessation and Head/Neck Cancer

BACKGROUND

Tobacco cessation among patients with head/neck cancer continues to be challenging despite evidence that cessation improves treatment outcomes. The purpose of this study was to understand barriers/facilitators to tobacco cessation among patients with head/neck cancer and health care providers and to obtain perspectives toward the development of a patient-centered tobacco cessation intervention.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In-depth qualitative interviews with 10 health care providers and 21 patients with head/neck cancer (12 inpatients and 9 outpatients) who were current or former smokers.

RESULTS

Health was a common motivator to quit among patients. Although most patients indicated that their health care provider asked and advised them to quit, they were unaware of cessation resources. Suggestions for a tobacco cessation program included involvement of former smokers, health care provider involvement/counseling, supporting written materials, and incorporating follow-up and family support. Health care providers identified patients' anger/frustration associated with the disease, social/demographic issues, and poor quality of life as the three most frequent challenges in treating patients. Although all providers reported asking about tobacco use, 70% emphasized a lack of formal training in tobacco cessation and lack of time. Their suggestions for a cessation program included having a "quarterback" responsible for this component with support from the entire health care team and continuity between outpatient and inpatient services to promote cessation, prevent relapse, and highlight the importance of follow-up and social support.

CONCLUSION

There is great interest and need, both from patients and providers, for tobacco cessation services in the oncology setting tailored for patients with head/neck cancer in the context of cancer care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Although the combination of pharmacotherapy and cognitive-behavioral intervention is the standard evidence-based treatment for tobacco dependence, it must be adapted to meet the needs and wants of patients and providers to be effective. This study provides an in-depth examination of such needs among patients with head and neck cancer and providers in the context of cancer care. Providers and patients emphasized the need of having a trained health care provider dedicated to providing tobacco cessation through seamless integration between outpatient and inpatient services as well as follow-up with an emphasis on family involvement throughout the process.

Rationale and design of a randomized factorial clinical trial of pharmacogenetic and adherence optimization strategies to promote tobacco cessation among persons with HIV

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use is approximately three times more common in people living with HIV (PLWH) than the general population. Moreover, current behavioral and pharmacological smoking cessation interventions are less effective for PLWH, highlighting a need for novel ways to optimize tobacco cessation treatments in this group. Prior research indicates that personalized treatment based on the nicotine metabolite ratio (NMR), a biomarker of nicotine metabolism, and augmenting smoking cessation medication adherence may improve cessation treatment for PLWH.

METHODS

In this 2 × 2 factorial design trial, 488 smokers with HIV receive 12 weeks of smoking cessation medication along with randomization to 1) tailor the smoking cessation drug to their metabolism or not, and 2) provide additional counseling on smoking cessation medication adherence or not. Those randomized to the pharmacogenetic optimization arm receive varenicline or the nicotine patch based on their NMR (varenicline for fast metabolizers and the nicotine patch for slow metabolizers) and those in the control arm receive varenicline. Those randomized to the experimental adherence counseling arm receive Managed Problem Solving (MAPS) targeting their smoking cessation medication and those in the control arm receive standard counseling.

CONCLUSION

PLWH on suppressive antiretroviral therapy who smoke lose more life-years due to tobacco use than to their HIV infection, and have lower response rates to current evidence-based treatments for smoking cessation. Both the NMR tailoring and MAPS interventions have the potential to optimize treatments for tobacco use among this population. If effective, this trial may demonstrate ways to further improve long-term health outcomes for PLWH.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Update on pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

Cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of death, and smoking cessation is the only way to reduce the risk of developing and dying from smoking-related diseases. The binding of nicotine to <i>α</i>4<i>β</i>2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in the ventral tegmental area causes transmission of signals to nuclear accumbens, where neurotransmitters, such as dopamine, are released. Euphoric feelings and satisfaction acquired due to the released neurotransmitters make smokers reach for a cigarette once again after a short while, thereby completing a repeating cycle of addiction. Medications for smoking cessation, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, and varenicline, are designed to cope with nicotine addiction. NRT provides nicotine to ameliorate withdrawal symptoms, and all forms of NRT are equally effective in smoking cessation than placebo. Bupropion, originally developed as an antidepressant, decreases craving, leading to smoking cessation, which makes it one of the first-line drugs for smoking cessation. Many studies have shown that varenicline is the most effective agent for smoking cessation. No significant long-term adverse events have been reported for NRT, bupropion, or varenicline. However, bupropion should not be used in patients with an increased risk for seizure.

Change in Health-Related Quality of Life Among Individuals With Cancer Undergoing Smoking Cessation Treatment Involving Varenicline

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among individuals with cancer is undermined by smoking cessation treatment involving varenicline.

SAMPLE & SETTING

Participants (N = 103) were daily smokers with cancer (up to five years postdiagnosis) who completed a placebo-controlled trial of standard versus extended duration varenicline.

METHODS & VARIABLES

For this secondary study, participants were selected based on having completed the SF-12® at weeks 0, 1, 12, and 24. Using separate repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance, change in SF-12 scores was evaluated by time and by cancer treatment, varenicline duration, and quit status at week 24.

RESULTS

There was no change in any of the three HRQOL scores by time or by cancer treatment status, varenicline duration, or quit status. Average emotional HRQOL score across time was significantly higher for quitters versus smokers.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Varenicline, including long-term treatment, does not appear to adversely affect HRQOL, which is highly relevant to oncology nurses who are well positioned to assist with the pharmacologic treatment of tobacco dependence.

Effect of Sustained Smoking Cessation Counseling and Provision of Medication vs Shorter-term Counseling and Medication Advice on Smoking Abstinence in Patients Recently Diagnosed With Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Persistent smoking may cause adverse outcomes among patients with cancer. Many cancer centers have not fully implemented evidence-based tobacco treatment into routine care.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of sustained telephone counseling and medication (intensive treatment) compared with shorter-term telephone counseling and medication advice (standard treatment) to assist patients recently diagnosed with cancer to quit smoking.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This unblinded randomized clinical trial was conducted at Massachusetts General Hospital/Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Adults who had smoked 1 cigarette or more within 30 days, spoke English or Spanish, and had recently diagnosed breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecological, head and neck, lung, lymphoma, or melanoma cancers were eligible. Enrollment occurred between November 2013 and July 2017; assessments were completed by the end of February 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants randomized to the intensive treatment (n = 153) and the standard treatment (n = 150) received 4 weekly telephone counseling sessions and medication advice. The intensive treatment group also received 4 biweekly and 3 monthly telephone counseling sessions and choice of Food and Drug Administration-approved cessation medication (nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, or varenicline).

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was biochemically confirmed 7-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were treatment utilization rates.

RESULTS

Among 303 patients who were randomized (mean age, 58.3 years; 170 women [56.1%]), 221 (78.1%) completed the trial. Six-month biochemically confirmed quit rates were 34.5% (n = 51 in the intensive treatment group) vs 21.5% (n = 29 in the standard treatment group) (difference, 13.0% [95% CI, 3.0%-23.3%]; odds ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.13-3.27]; P < .02). The median number of counseling sessions completed was 8 (interquartile range, 4-11) in the intensive treatment group. A total of 97 intensive treatment participants (77.0%) vs 68 standard treatment participants (59.1%) reported cessation medication use (difference, 17.9% [95% CI, 6.3%-29.5%]; odds ratio, 2.31 [95% CI, 1.32-4.04]; P = .003). The most common adverse events in the intensive treatment and standard treatment groups, respectively, were nausea (n = 13 and n = 6), rash (n = 4 and n = 1), hiccups (n = 4 and n = 1), mouth irritation (n = 4 and n = 0), difficulty sleeping (n = 3 and n = 2), and vivid dreams (n = 3 and n = 2).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among smokers recently diagnosed with cancer in 2 National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers, sustained counseling and provision of free cessation medication compared with 4-week counseling and medication advice resulted in higher 6-month biochemically confirmed quit rates. However, the generalizability of the study findings is uncertain and requires further research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01871506.

Initiating Pharmacologic Treatment in Tobacco-Dependent Adults. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Background: Current tobacco treatment guidelines have established the efficacy of available interventions, but they do not provide detailed guidance for common implementation questions frequently faced in the clinic. An evidence-based guideline was created that addresses several pharmacotherapy-initiation questions that routinely confront treatment teams.Methods: Individuals with diverse expertise related to smoking cessation were empaneled to prioritize questions and outcomes important to clinicians. An evidence-synthesis team conducted systematic reviews, which informed recommendations to answer the questions. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to rate the certainty in the estimated effects and the strength of recommendations.Results: The guideline panel formulated five strong recommendations and two conditional recommendations regarding pharmacotherapy choices. Strong recommendations include using varenicline rather than a nicotine patch, using varenicline rather than bupropion, using varenicline rather than a nicotine patch in adults with a comorbid psychiatric condition, initiating varenicline in adults even if they are unready to quit, and using controller therapy for an extended treatment duration greater than 12 weeks. Conditional recommendations include combining a nicotine patch with varenicline rather than using varenicline alone and using varenicline rather than electronic cigarettes.Conclusions: Seven recommendations are provided, which represent simple practice changes that are likely to increase the effectiveness of tobacco-dependence pharmacotherapy.

Design and Pilot Implementation of an Electronic Health Record-Based System to Automatically Refer Cancer Patients to Tobacco Use Treatment

Continued tobacco use after cancer diagnosis is detrimental to treatment and survivorship. The current reach of evidence-based tobacco treatments in cancer patients is low. As a part of the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Cessation Initiative, the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center designed an electronic health record (EHR, Epic^©)-based process to automatically refer ambulatory oncology patients to tobacco use treatment, regardless of intent to cease tobacco use(“opt out”). The referral and patient scheduling, accomplished through a best practice advisory (BPA) directed to staff who room patients, does not require a co-signature from clinicians. This process was piloted for a six-week period starting in July of 2019 at the Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. All oncology patients who were tobacco users were referred for tobacco treatment by the rooming staff (n = 210). Of these, 150 (71%) had a tobacco treatment appointment scheduled, and 25 (17%) completed their appointment. We conclude that an EHR-based “opt-out” approach to refer patients to tobacco dependence treatment that does not require active involvement by clinicians is feasible within the oncology clinical practice. Further work is needed to increase the proportion of scheduled patients who attend their appointments.

Effect of acupuncture and auricular acupressure on smoking cessation: Protocol of a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Tobacco epidemic remains a major challenge to public health, with >7 million deaths attributable to tobacco smoking p.a. Quitting smoking is a proven way of reducing the harm of smoking. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), auricular acupressure and acupuncture are used for quit smoking, but it remains to be explored which is relatively more effective. Furthermore, a Bayesian network meta-analysis will be applied to determine the relative effects and/or safety of different smoking cessation treatments.

METHODS/DESIGN

A literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be performed in five electronic databases from inception to December 2019, including PubMed, the Cochrane library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Chinese Biomedical Database (SinoMed). Cochrane Collaboration quality assessment tool will be used for the risk of bias assessment. A Bayesian network meta-analysis will be performed using WinBUGS 1.4.3, and Stata 14 will be applied to draw the network diagram, while RevMan 5.3.5 will be used to produce funnel plot for assessing the risk of publication bias. Recommended rating, development and grade methodology will also be utilized to assess the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

We will evaluate the effect of different smoking cessation treatments (e.g., acupuncture, auricular acupressure, and NRT) by directly traditional meta-analysis and indirectly Bayesian network meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Our study will provide smokers with the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of quitting regimens.

A Smartphone App Designed to Help Cancer Patients Stop Smoking: Results From a Pilot Randomized Trial on Feasibility, Acceptability, and Effectiveness

Background

Persistent smoking after a cancer diagnosis predicts worse treatment outcomes and mortality, but access to effective smoking cessation interventions is limited. Smartphone apps can address this problem by providing a highly accessible, low-cost smoking cessation intervention designed for patients with a recent cancer diagnosis.

Objective

This study aimed to summarize our development process and report the trial design, feasibility, participant acceptability, preliminary effectiveness, and impact on processes of change (eg, cancer stigma) of the first-known smoking cessation smartphone app targeted for cancer patients.

Methods

We used an agile, user-centered design framework to develop a fully automated smartphone app called Quit2Heal that provided skills training and stories from cancer survivors focusing on coping with internalized shame, cancer stigma, depression, and anxiety as core triggers of smoking. Quit2Heal was compared with the National Cancer Institute’s QuitGuide, a widely used stop smoking app for the general population, in a pilot double-blinded randomized trial with a 2-month follow-up period. Participants were 59 adult smokers diagnosed with cancer within the past 12 months and recruited through 2 cancer center care networks and social media over a 12-month period. The most common types of cancer diagnosed were lung (21/59, 36%) and breast (10/59, 17%) cancers. The 2-month follow-up survey retention rate was 92% (54/59) and did not differ by study arm (P=.15).

Results

Compared with QuitGuide participants, Quit2Heal participants were more satisfied with their assigned app (90% [19/21] for Quit2Heal vs 65% [17/26] for QuitGuide; P=.047) and were more likely to report that the app assigned to them was made for someone like them (86% [18/21] for Quit2Heal vs 62% [16/26] for QuitGuide; P=.04). Quit2Heal participants opened their app a greater number of times during the 2-month trial period, although this difference was not statistically significant (mean 10.0, SD 14.40 for Quit2Heal vs mean 6.1, SD 5.3 for QuitGuide; P=.33). Self-reported 30-day point prevalence quit rates at the 2-month follow-up were 20% (5/25) for Quit2Heal versus 7% (2/29) for QuitGuide (odds ratio 5.16, 95% CI 0.71-37.29; P=.10). Quit2Heal participants also showed greater improvement in internalized shame, cancer stigma, depression, and anxiety, although these were not statistically significant (all P>.05).

Conclusions

In a pilot randomized trial with a high short-term retention rate, Quit2Heal showed promising acceptability and effectiveness for helping cancer patients stop smoking. Testing in a full-scale randomized controlled trial with a longer follow-up period and a larger sample size is required to test the effectiveness, mediators, and moderators of this promising digital cessation intervention.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03600038; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03600038

Longitudinal associations between smoking and affect among cancer patients using varenicline to quit smoking

During a quit attempt, high negative affect predicts relapse to smoking. In this study, we evaluated bidirectional longitudinal associations between smoking and negative affect among cancer patients treated with varenicline. Participants (N = 119, 50% female, Mage = 59 years) were smokers (≥5 cigarettes/week) who were diagnosed with cancer and were recruited for a 24-week trial of extended duration varenicline plus behavioral counseling; data for this secondary analyses were drawn from the 12-week open-label phase of the trial. Smoking was assessed via self-reported number of cigarettes in the past 24 h. Negative affect was assessed using the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS). Data were collected at pre-quit (week 0), target quit day (week 1), week 4, and week 12. We evaluated cross-lagged panel models for negative affect and smoking using PROC CALIS in SAS. Models were run separately for participants who were adherent (≥80% of medication taken) or nonadherent to varenicline. Among adherent participants (n = 96), smoking accounted for up to 22% of variance in subsequent negative affect throughout treatment. Cross-lagged associations were not observed between smoking and negative affect among non-adherent participants (n = 23). Negative affect did not predict subsequent smoking among either adherent or nonadherent participants. These results suggest that varenicline may attenuate abstinence-induced negative affect among cancer patients treated for nicotine dependence.

Placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial testing the efficacy and safety of varenicline for smokers with HIV

BACKGROUND

People living with HIV/AIDS (PLWH) smoke tobacco at higher rates and have more difficulty quitting than the general population, which contributes to significant life-years lost. The effectiveness of varenicline, one of the most effective tobacco dependence treatments, is understudied in HIV. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of varenicline for smoking cessation among PLWH.

METHODS

This was a single-site randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial (NCT01710137). PLWH on antiretroviral therapy (ART) who were treatment-seeking daily smokers were randomized (1:1) to 12 weeks of varenicline (n = 89) or placebo (n = 90). All participants were offered six smoking cessation behavioral counseling sessions. The primary outcome was 7-day point prevalence abstinence, confirmed with breath carbon monoxide, at Weeks 12 and 24. Continuous abstinence and time to relapse were secondary outcomes. Safety measures were treatment-related side effects, adverse events, blood pressure, viral load, and ART adherence.

RESULTS

Of the 179 smokers, 81% were African American, and 68% were male. Varenicline increased cessation at Week 12 (28.1% vs. 12.1%; OR = 4.54, 95% CI:1.83-11.25, P = .001). Continuous abstinence from Week 9 to 12 was higher for varenicline vs. placebo (23.6% vs. 10%; OR = 4.65, 95% CI:1.71-12.67, P = .003); at Week 24, there was no effect of varenicline for point prevalence (14.6% vs. 10%), continuous abstinence (10.1% vs. 6.7%), or time to relapse (Ps > .05). There were no differences between varenicline and placebo on safety measures (Ps > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline is safe and efficacious for short-term smoking cessation among PLWH and should be used to reduce tobacco-related life-years lost in this population.