Cost-effectiveness of bupropion, nortriptyline, and psychological intervention in smoking cessation

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost-effectiveness of Web-Based and Home-Based Postnatal Psychoeducational Interventions for First-time Mothers: Economic Evaluation Alongside Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of interventions has attracted increasing interest among researchers. Although web-based and home-based psychoeducational interventions have been developed to improve first-time mothers' postnatal health outcomes, very limited studies have reported their cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of web-based and home-based postnatal psychoeducational interventions for first-time mothers during the early postpartum period.

METHODS

A randomized controlled 3-group pretest and posttest design was adopted, and cost-effectiveness analysis from the health care's perspective was conducted. A total of 204 primiparas were recruited from a public tertiary hospital in Singapore from October 2016 to August 2017 who were randomly allocated to the web-based intervention (n=68), home-based intervention (n=68), or control (n=68) groups. Outcomes of maternal parental self-efficacy, social support, postnatal depression, anxiety, and health care resource utilization were measured using valid and reliable instruments at baseline and at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after childbirth. The generalized linear regression models on effectiveness and cost were used to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the web-based and home-based intervention programs compared to routine care. Projections of cumulative cost over 5 years incurred by the 3 programs at various coverage levels (ie, 10%, 50%, and 100%) were also estimated.

RESULTS

The web-based intervention program dominated the other 2 programs (home-based program and routine care) with the least cost (adjusted costs of SGD 376.50, SGD 457.60, and SGD 417.90 for web-based, home-based, and control group, respectively; SGD 1=USD 0.75) and the best improvements in self-efficacy, social support, and psychological well-being. When considering the implementation of study programs over the next 5 years by multiplying the average cost per first-time mother by the estimated average number of first-time mothers in Singapore during the 5-year projection period, the web-based program was the least costly program at all 3 coverage levels. Based on the 100% coverage, the reduced total cost reached nearly SGD 7.1 million and SGD 11.3 million when compared to control and home-based programs at the end of the fifth year, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The web-based approach was promisingly cost-effective to deliver the postnatal psychoeducational intervention to first-time mothers and could be adopted by hospitals as postnatal care support.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registry ISRCTN45202278; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN45202278.

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

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.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Whilst the pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco. Firstly, nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms and antidepressants may relieve these. Additionally, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, safety 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 Specialized Register, which includes reports of trials indexed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO, clinicaltrials.gov, the ICTRP, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in May 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited smokers, and compared antidepressant medications with placebo or no treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used in a different way. We excluded trials with less than six months follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length in safety analyses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months follow-up, expressed as a risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. Similarly, we presented incidence of safety 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 dropout due to drug, as RRs (95% CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 115 studies (33 new to this update) in this review; most recruited adult participants from the community or from smoking cessation clinics. We judged 28 of the studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk did not change clinical interpretation of the results. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased long-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.52 to 1.77; I2 = 15%; 45 studies, 17,866 participants). There was insufficient evidence to establish whether participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs compared to those taking placebo. Results were imprecise and CIs encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 21 studies, 10,625 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded one level due to imprecision). We found high-certainty evidence that use of bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to adverse events of the drug than placebo (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.56; I2 = 19%; 25 studies, 12,340 participants). Participants randomized to bupropion were also more likely to report psychiatric AEs compared with those randomized to placebo (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.37; I2 = 15%; 6 studies, 4439 participants). We also looked at the safety and efficacy of bupropion when combined with other non-antidepressant smoking cessation therapies. There was insufficient evidence to establish whether combination bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.51; I2 = 52%; 12 studies, 3487 participants), or whether combination bupropion and varenicline resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I2 = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). We judged the certainty of evidence to be low and moderate, respectively; in both cases due to imprecision, and also due to inconsistency in the former. Safety data were sparse for these comparisons, making it difficult to draw clear conclusions. A meta-analysis of six studies provided evidence that bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 6286 participants), whilst there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and NRT (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; I2 = 18%; 10 studies, 8230 participants). We also found some 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), whilst there was insufficient evidence to determine whether bupropion or nortriptyline were more effective when compared with one another (RR 1.30 (favouring bupropion), 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants). There was no evidence that any of the other antidepressants tested (including St John's Wort, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)) had a beneficial effect on smoking cessation. 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 also increases the number of adverse events, including psychiatric AEs, and there is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with placebo. However, there is no clear evidence to suggest whether people taking bupropion experience more or fewer SAEs than those taking placebo (moderate certainty). Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo. Evidence suggests that bupropion may be as successful as NRT and nortriptyline in helping people to quit smoking, but that it is less effective than varenicline. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the other antidepressants tested, such as SSRIs, aid smoking cessation, and when looking at safety and tolerance outcomes, in most cases, paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions. Due to the high-certainty evidence, 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 front-line smoking cessation aids already available. However, it is important that where studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation are carried out they measure and report safety and tolerability clearly.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation increase the likelihood of achieving abstinence in a quit attempt. It is plausible that providing support, or, if support is offered, offering more intensive support or support including particular components may increase abstinence further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of adding or increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition. We also looked at studies which directly compare behavioural interventions matched for contact time, where pharmacotherapy is provided to both groups (e.g. tests of different components or approaches to behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in June 2018 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline, that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount or type of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact (defined as face-to-face or telephone). The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, a different type of personal contact, written information, or no behavioural support at all. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women and trials which did not set out to assess smoking cessation at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates, if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-three studies, 36 of which were new to this update, met the inclusion criteria, representing 29,536 participants. Overall, we judged 16 studies to be at low risk of bias and 21 studies to be at high risk of bias. All other studies were judged to be at unclear risk of bias. Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of studies at high risk of bias. We pooled all studies comparing more versus less support in the main analysis. Findings demonstrated a benefit of behavioural support in addition to pharmacotherapy. When all studies of additional behavioural therapy were pooled, there was evidence of a statistically significant benefit from additional support (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.22, I² = 8%, 65 studies, n = 23,331) for abstinence at longest follow-up, and this effect was not different when we compared subgroups by type of pharmacotherapy or intensity of contact. This effect was similar in the subgroup of eight studies in which the control group received no behavioural support (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43, I² = 20%, n = 4,018). Seventeen studies compared interventions matched for contact time but that differed in terms of the behavioural components or approaches employed. Of the 15 comparisons, all had small numbers of participants and events. Only one detected a statistically significant effect, favouring a health education approach (which the authors described as standard counselling containing information and advice) over motivational interviewing approach (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.94, n = 378).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking increases quit rates. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 20%, based on a pooled estimate from 65 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of specific components that comprise behavioural support.

Smiling Instead of Smoking: Development of a Positive Psychology Smoking Cessation Smartphone App for Non-daily Smokers

PURPOSE

The usefulness of mobile technology in supporting smoking cessation has been demonstrated, but little is known about how smartphone apps could best be leveraged. The purpose of this paper is to describe the program of research that led to the creation of a smoking cessation app for non-daily smokers, so as to stimulate further ideas to create "smart" smartphone apps to support health behavior change.

METHOD

Literature reviews to evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed app, content analyses of existing apps, and smoking cessation sessions with non-daily smokers (n = 38) to inform the design of the app.

RESULTS

The literature reviews showed that (1) smoking cessation apps are sought after by smokers, (2) positive affect plays an important role in smoking cessation, (3) short, self-administered exercises consistently bring about enduring positive affect enhancements, and (4) low treatment-seeking rates of non-daily smokers despite high motivation to quit indicate a need for novel smoking cessation support. Directed content analyses of existing apps indicated that tailoring, two-way interactions, and proactive features are under-utilized in existing apps, despite the popularity of such features. Conventional content analyses of audio-recorded session tapes suggested that difficulty in quitting was generally linked to specific, readily identifiable occasions, and that social support was considered important but not consistently sought out.

CONCLUSION

The "Smiling Instead of Smoking" (SIS) app is an Android app that is designed to act as a behavioral, in-the-pocket coach to enhance quitting success in non-daily smokers. It provides proactive, tailored behavioral coaching, interactive tools (e.g., enlisting social support), daily positive psychology exercises, and smoking self-monitoring.

Why are Antidepressant Drugs Effective Smoking Cessation Aids?

BACKGROUND

Before the advent of varenicline, antidepressant drugs were reported to exhibit better clinical efficacy than nicotine replacement therapy as smoking cessation aids. The most studied is bupropion, a clinically-effective antidepressant, the first to be marketed throughout Europe for smoking cessation. Since depression and tobacco smoking have a high incidence of cooccurrence, this would implicate an underlying link between these two conditions. If this correlation can be confirmed, then by treating one condition the related state would also be treated.

OBJECTIVES

This review article will evaluate the various theories relating to the use of antidepressant drugs as smoking cessation aids and the underlying mechanisms link tobacco smoking and depression to explain the action of antidepressants in smoking cessation. One plausible theory of self-medication which proposes that people take nicotine to treat their own depressive symptoms and the affective withdrawal symptoms seen with abstinence from the drug. If the depression can instead be treated with antidepressants, then they may stop smoking altogether. Another theory is that the neurobiological pathways underlying smoking and depression may be similar. By targeting the pathways of depression in the brain, antidepressants would also treat the pathways affected by smoking and ease nicotine cravings and withdrawal. The role of genetic variation predisposing an individual to depression and initiation of tobacco smoking has also been discussed as a potential link between the two conditions. Such variation could either occur within the neurobiological pathways involved in both disorders or it could lead to an individual being depressed and selfmedicating with nicotine.

Evaluation of smoking cessation intervention in patients with chronic diseases in smoking cessation clinics

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of psychological intervention and psychological plus drug intervention on smoking cessation among male smokers with single chronic diseases.A total of 509 male smokers were divided into psychological group (n = 290) and psychological plus drugs (n = 219) groups according to their will. The physicians provided free individual counseling and follow-up interviews with brief counseling for all the subjects. In addition to mental intervention, patients in psychological plus drug group also received bupropion hydrochloride or varenicline tartrate to quit smoking. Outcomes were self-reported, regarding the 7-day point prevalence on abstinence rate and continuous abstinence rates at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-up period. Data analyses were performed using intention-to-treat analysis and per protocol analysis.With regards to the 3 follow-up time points, 7-day point-prevalence abstinence rate in psychological plus drugs group was all higher than that in the psychological intervention group. Additionally, the 3-month continuous abstinence rate (21.4%) of the 6-month follow-up in the psychological group was not significantly higher than that (26.9%) in the psychological plus drugs group (P >.05 for all). Fagerström test score, stage of quitting smoking, perceived confidence or difficulty in quitting, and chronic disease types were independently correlated with 3-month continuous abstinence in the 6-month follow up (P <.05 for all). The results were similar between intentional analysis and protocol analysis.The psychological intervention and psychological plus drugs intervention exerted good effects on smoking cessation in a short time (1 month). Nevertheless, the advantages did not appear during long-time (6 months) follow-up.

Group behaviour therapy programmes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Group therapy offers individuals the opportunity to learn behavioural techniques for smoking cessation, and to provide each other with mutual support.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of group-delivered behavioural interventions in achieving long-term smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, using the terms 'behavior therapy', 'cognitive therapy', 'psychotherapy' or 'group therapy', in May 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials that compared group therapy with self-help, individual counselling, another intervention or no intervention (including usual care or a waiting-list control). We also considered trials that compared more than one group programme. We included those trials with a minimum of two group meetings, and follow-up of smoking status at least six months after the start of the programme. We excluded trials in which group therapy was provided to both active therapy and placebo arms of trials of pharmacotherapies, unless they had a factorial design.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data in duplicate on the participants, the interventions provided to the groups and the controls, including programme length, intensity and main components, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in participants smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically-validated rates where available. We analysed participants lost to follow-up as continuing smokers. We expressed effects as a risk ratio for cessation. Where possible, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect (Mantel-Haenszel) model. We assessed the quality of evidence within each study and comparison, using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-six trials met our inclusion criteria for one or more of the comparisons in the review. Thirteen trials compared a group programme with a self-help programme; there was an increase in cessation with the use of a group programme (N = 4395, risk ratio (RR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52 to 2.33, I2 = 0%). We judged the GRADE quality of evidence to be moderate, downgraded due to there being few studies at low risk of bias. Fourteen trials compared a group programme with brief support from a health care provider. There was a small increase in cessation (N = 7286, RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.43, I2 = 59%). We judged the GRADE quality of evidence to be low, downgraded due to inconsistency in addition to risk of bias. There was also low quality evidence of benefit of a group programme compared to no-intervention controls, (9 trials, N = 1098, RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.80 to 3.76 I2 = 55%). We did not detect evidence that group therapy was more effective than a similar intensity of individual counselling (6 trials, N = 980, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.28, I2 = 9%). Programmes which included components for increasing cognitive and behavioural skills were not shown to be more effective than same-length or shorter programmes without these components.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Group therapy is better for helping people stop smoking than self-help, and other less intensive interventions. There is not enough evidence to evaluate whether groups are more effective, or cost-effective, than intensive individual counselling. There is not enough evidence to support the use of particular psychological components in a programme beyond the support and skills training normally included.

New Pharmacological Agents to Aid Smoking Cessation and Tobacco Harm Reduction: What Has Been Investigated, and What Is in the Pipeline?

A wide range of support is available to help smokers to quit and to aid attempts at harm reduction, including three first-line smoking cessation medications: nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and bupropion. Despite the efficacy of these, there is a continual need to diversify the range of medications so that the needs of tobacco users are met. This paper compares the first-line smoking cessation medications with (1) two variants of these existing products: new galenic formulations of varenicline and novel nicotine delivery devices; and (2) 24 alternative products: cytisine (novel outside Central and Eastern Europe), nortriptyline, other tricyclic antidepressants, electronic cigarettes, clonidine (an anxiolytic), other anxiolytics (e.g. buspirone), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, supplements (e.g. St John's wort), silver acetate, Nicobrevin, modafinil, venlafaxine, monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), opioid antagonists, nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) antagonists, glucose tablets, selective cannabinoid type 1 receptor antagonists, nicotine vaccines, drugs that affect gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) transmission, drugs that affect N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, dopamine agonists (e.g. levodopa), pioglitazone (Actos; OMS405), noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors and the weight management drug lorcaserin. Six 'ESCUSE' criteria-relative efficacy, relative safety, relative cost, relative use (overall impact of effective medication use), relative scope (ability to serve new groups of patients) and relative ease of use-are used. Many of these products are in the early stages of clinical trials; however, cytisine looks most promising in having established efficacy and safety with low cost. Electronic cigarettes have become very popular, appear to be efficacious and are safer than smoking, but issues of continued dependence and possible harms need to be considered.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medication to aid smoking cessation, compared to a minimal intervention or usual care, and to identify whether there are different effects depending on characteristics of the treatment setting, intervention, population treated, or take-up of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support for smoking cessation, compared to a control receiving usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by two authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by another.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three studies with a total of more than 25,000 participants met the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of studies recruited people in healthcare settings or with specific health needs. Most studies provided NRT. Behavioural support was typically provided by specialists in cessation counselling, who offered between four and eight contact sessions. The planned maximum duration of contact was typically more than 30 minutes but less than 300 minutes. Overall, studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, and findings were not sensitive to the exclusion of any of the six studies rated at high risk of bias in one domain. One large study (the Lung Health Study) contributed heterogeneity due to a substantially larger treatment effect than seen in other studies (RR 3.88, 95% CI 3.35 to 4.50). Since this study used a particularly intensive intervention which included extended availability of nicotine gum, multiple group sessions and long term maintenance and recycling contacts, the results may not be comparable with the interventions used in other studies, and hence it was not pooled in other analyses. Based on the remaining 52 studies (19,488 participants) there was high quality evidence (using GRADE) for a benefit of combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care, brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.68 to 1.98) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 36%).The pooled estimate for 43 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.18) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Compared to the first version of the review, previous weak evidence of differences in other subgroup analyses has disappeared. We did not detect differences between subgroups defined by motivation to quit, treatment provider, number or duration of support sessions, or take-up of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Updating this review with an additional 12 studies (5,000 participants) did not materially change the effect estimate. Although trials differed in the details of their populations and interventions, we did not detect any factors that modified treatment effects apart from the recruitment setting. We did not find evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of clinical smoking cessation interventions in Thailand

AIMS

Clinical smoking cessation interventions have been found typically to be highly cost-effective in many high-income countries. There is a need to extend this to low- and middle-income countries and undertake comparative analyses. This study aimed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a range of clinical smoking cessation interventions available in Thailand.

METHODS

Using a Markov model, cost-effectiveness, in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained, from a range of interventions was estimated from a societal perspective for males and females aged 40 years who smoke at least 10 cigarettes per day. Interventions considered were: counselling in hospital, phone counselling (Quitline) and counselling plus nicotine gum, nicotine patch, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline. An annual discounting rate of 3% was used. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) plotted. Comparisons between interventions were conducted involving application of a 'decision rule' process.

RESULTS

Counselling with varenicline and counselling with nortriptyline were found to be cost-effective. Hospital counselling only, nicotine patch and bupropion were dominated by Quitline, nortriptyline and varenicline, respectively, according to the decision rule. When compared with unassisted cessation, probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that all interventions have very high probabilities (95%) of being cost-saving except for nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) patch (74%).

CONCLUSION

In middle-income countries such as Thailand, nortriptyline and varenicline appear to provide cost-effective clinical options for supporting smokers to quit.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Effective pharmacotherapies are available to help people who are trying to stop smoking, but quitting can still be difficult and providing higher levels of behavioural support may increase success rates further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in May 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact. The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, or just written information. We did not include studies that used a contact-matched control to evaluate differences between types or components of support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author prescreened search results and two authors agreed inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials. One author extracted data and another checked them.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria with over 18,000 participants in the relevant arms. There was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 18%) so we pooled all studies in the main analysis. There was evidence of a small but statistically significant benefit from more intensive support (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.24) for abstinence at longest follow-up. All but four of the included studies provided four or more sessions of support to the intervention group. Most trials used NRT. We did not detect significant effects for studies where the pharmacotherapy was nortriptyline (two trials) or varenicline (one trial), but this reflects the absence of evidence.In subgroup analyses, studies that provided at least four sessions of personal contact for the intervention and no personal contact for the control had slightly larger estimated effects (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45; 6 trials, 3762 participants), although a formal test for subgroup differences was not significant. Studies where all intervention counselling was via telephone (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41; 6 trials, 5311 participants) also had slightly larger effects, and the test for subgroup differences was significant, but this subgroup analysis was not prespecified. In this update, the benefit of providing additional behavioural support was similar for the subgroup of trials in which all participants, including controls, had at least 30 minutes of personal contact (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.32; 21 trials, 5166 participants); previously the evidence of benefit in this subgroup had been weaker. This subgroup was not prespecified and a test for subgroup differences was not significant. We judged the quality of the evidence to be high, using the GRADE approach. We judged a small number of trials to be at high risk of bias on one or more domains, but findings were not sensitive to their exclusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking has a small but important effect. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 25%, based on a pooled estimate from 47 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of smoking-cessation counseling training for physicians and pharmacists

BACKGROUND

Although smoking-cessation interventions typically focus directly on patients, this paper conducts an economic evaluation of a novel smoking-cessation intervention focused on training physicians and/or pharmacists to use counseling techniques that would decrease smoking rates at a reasonable cost.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions that train physicians and/or pharmacists to counsel their patients on smoking-cessation techniques.

METHODS

Using decision-analytic modeling, we compared four strategies for smoking-cessation counseling education: training only physicians, training only pharmacists, training both physicians and pharmacists (synergy strategy), and training neither physicians nor pharmacists (i.e., no specialized training, which is the usual practice). Short-term outcomes were based on results from a clinical trial conducted in 16 communities across the Houston area; long-term outcomes were calculated from epidemiological data. Short-term outcomes were measured using the cost per quit, and long-term outcomes were measured using the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Cost data were taken from institutional sources; both costs and QALYs were discounted at 3%.

RESULTS

Training both physicians and pharmacists added 0.09 QALY for 45-year-old men. However, for 45-year-old women, the discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy only increased by 0.01 QALY when comparing the synergy strategy to no intervention. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the synergy strategy with respect to the non-intervention strategy was US$868/QALY for 45-year-old men and US$8953/QALY for 45-year-old women. The results were highly sensitive to the quit rates and community size.

CONCLUSION

Synergistic educational training for physicians and pharmacists could be a cost-effective method for smoking cessation in the community.

Cost-Effectiveness of Injectable Extended-Release Naltrexone Compared With Methadone Maintenance and Buprenorphine Maintenance Treatment for Opioid Dependence

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of injectable extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) compared with methadone maintenance and buprenorphine maintenance treatment (MMT and BMT, respectively) for adult males enrolled in treatment for opioid dependence in the United States from the perspective of state-level addiction treatment payers.

METHODS

A Markov model with daily time cycles was used to estimate the incremental cost per opioid-free day in a simulated cohort of adult males aged 18-65 over a 6-month period from the state health program perspective.

RESULTS

XR-NTX is predicted to be more effective and more costly than methadone or buprenorphine in our target population, with an incremental cost per opioid-free day gained relative to the next-most effective treatment (MMT) of $72. The cost-effectiveness of XR-NTX relative to MMT was driven by its effectiveness in deterring opioid use while receiving treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

XR-NTX is a cost-effective medication for treating opioid dependence if state addiction treatment payers are willing to pay at least $72 per opioid-free day.

Relationship between momentary affect states and self-efficacy in adolescent smokers

OBJECTIVE

Relapse to smoking after making a quit attempt is both common and rapid in adolescent smokers. Momentary self-efficacy (SE)-that is, momentary shifts in one's confidence in the ability to abstain from smoking-predicts the occurrence and timing of relapse among adolescent smokers. Therefore, it is important to identify factors that are associated with changes in momentary SE early in a quit attempt. This study examined the relationship between affect states (including positive, negative, and nicotine withdrawal states) and momentary SE at various stages of a quit attempt.

METHOD

Adolescent daily smokers interested in making a quit attempt (n = 202) completed ecological momentary assessments (EMA) each day for 1 week leading up to and 2 weeks after a quit attempt. In each assessment, they reported current SE and affect state.

RESULTS

RESULTS of linear mixed models indicated that most of the examined affect states were related to momentary SE. Contrary to expectation, they were related to momentary SE both immediately before and after the quit attempt. Moderation effects were observed for select affect states, where higher baseline SE was related to lower momentary SE in the presence of increasing negative high activation, boredom, and difficulty concentrating.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that both positive and negative affect states are related to SE, and that thereby positive affect enhancement may be a promising, underutilized treatment target.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

There are at least three reasons to believe antidepressants might help in smoking cessation. Firstly, nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms or precipitate a major depressive episode and antidepressants may relieve these. Secondly, nicotine may have antidepressant effects that maintain smoking, and antidepressants may substitute for this effect. Finally, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways (e.g. inhibiting monoamine oxidase) or receptors (e.g. blockade of nicotinic-cholinergic receptors) underlying nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the effect and safety of antidepressant medications to aid long-term smoking cessation. The medications include bupropion; doxepin; fluoxetine; imipramine; lazabemide; moclobemide; nortriptyline; paroxetine; S-Adenosyl-L-Methionine (SAMe); selegiline; sertraline; St. John's wort; tryptophan; venlafaxine; and zimeledine.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register which includes reports of trials indexed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in July 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized trials comparing antidepressant medications to placebo or an alternative pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. We also included trials comparing different doses, using pharmacotherapy to prevent relapse or re-initiate smoking cessation or to help smokers reduce cigarette consumption. We excluded trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in patients smoking at baseline, expressed as a risk ratio (RR). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four new trials were identified since the 2009 update, bringing the total number of included trials to 90. There were 65 trials of bupropion and ten trials of nortriptyline, with the majority at low or unclear risk of bias. There was high quality evidence that, when used as the sole pharmacotherapy, bupropion significantly increased long-term cessation (44 trials, N = 13,728, risk ratio [RR] 1.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49 to 1.76). There was moderate quality evidence, limited by a relatively small number of trials and participants, that nortriptyline also significantly increased long-term cessation when used as the sole pharmacotherapy (six trials, N = 975, RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78). There is insufficient evidence that adding bupropion (12 trials, N = 3487, RR 1.9, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.51) or nortriptyline (4 trials, N = 1644, RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.55) to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) provides an additional long-term benefit. Based on a limited amount of data from direct comparisons, bupropion and nortriptyline appear to be equally effective and of similar efficacy to NRT (bupropion versus nortriptyline 3 trials, N = 417, RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; bupropion versus NRT 8 trials, N = 4096, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09; no direct comparisons between nortriptyline and NRT). Pooled results from four trials comparing bupropion to varenicline showed significantly lower quitting with bupropion than with varenicline (N = 1810, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.83). Meta-analyses did not detect a significant increase in the rate of serious adverse events amongst participants taking bupropion, though the confidence interval only narrowly missed statistical significance (33 trials, N = 9631, RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.69). There is a risk of about 1 in 1000 of seizures associated with bupropion use. Bupropion has been associated with suicide risk, but whether this is causal is unclear. Nortriptyline has the potential for serious side-effects, but none have been seen in the few small trials for smoking cessation.There was no evidence of a significant effect for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors on their own (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.22, N = 1594; 2 trials fluoxetine, 1 paroxetine, 1 sertraline) or as an adjunct to NRT (3 trials of fluoxetine, N = 466, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.82). Significant effects were also not detected for monoamine oxidase inhibitors (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.79, N = 827; 1 trial moclobemide, 5 selegiline), the atypical antidepressant venlafaxine (1 trial, N = 147, RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.32), the herbal therapy St John's wort (hypericum) (2 trials, N = 261, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.53), or the dietary supplement SAMe (1 trial, N = 120, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.07).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The antidepressants bupropion and nortriptyline aid long-term smoking cessation. Adverse events with either medication appear to rarely be serious or lead to stopping medication. Evidence suggests that the mode of action of bupropion and nortriptyline is independent of their antidepressant effect and that they are of similar efficacy to nicotine replacement. Evidence also suggests that bupropion is less effective than varenicline, but further research is needed to confirm this finding. Evidence suggests that neither selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (e.g. fluoxetine) nor monoamine oxidase inhibitors aid cessation.

Behavioural interventions as adjuncts to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Effective pharmacotherapies are available to help people who are trying to stop smoking, but quitting can still be difficult and providing higher levels of behavioural support may increase success rates further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2012 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount of behavioural support. Controls could receive less intensive personal contact, or just written information. We did not include studies that used a contact matched control to evaluate differences between types or components of support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by both authors. Data were extracted by one author and checked by the other.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria with over 15,000 participants in the relevant arms. There was very little evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 3%) so all studies were pooled in the main analysis. There was evidence of a small but statistically significant benefit from more intensive support (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.24) for abstinence at longest follow-up. All but two of the included studies provided four or more sessions of support. Most trials used nicotine replacement therapy. Significant effects were not detected for studies where the pharmacotherapy was nortriptyline (two trials) or varenicline (one trial), but this reflects the absence of evidence. In subgroup analyses, studies that provided at least four sessions of personal contact for the intervention and no personal contact for the control had slightly larger effects (six trials, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45), as did studies where all intervention counselling was via telephone (six trials, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41). Weaker evidence for a benefit of providing additional behavioural support was seen in the trials where all participants, including those in the control condition, had at least 30 minutes of personal contact (18 trials, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.25). None of the differences between subgroups were significant, and the last two subgroup analyses were not prespecified. No trials were judged at high risk of bias on any domain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking has a small but important effect. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10 to 25%, based on a pooled estimate from 38 trials. A subgroup analysis of a small number of trials suggests the benefit could be a little greater when the contrast is between a no contact control and a behavioural intervention that provides at least four sessions of contact. Subgroup analysis also suggests that there may be a smaller incremental benefit from providing even more intensive support via more or longer sessions over and above some personal contact.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medication to aid smoking cessation, compared to a minimal intervention or usual care, and to identify whether there are different effects depending on characteristics of the treatment setting, intervention, population treated, or take-up of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2012 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support for smoking cessation, compared to a control receiving usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by both authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by the other.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one studies with a total of more than 20,000 participants met the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of studies recruited people in healthcare settings or with specific health needs. Most studies provided NRT. Behavioural support was typically provided by specialists in cessation counselling, who offered between four and eight contact sessions. The planned maximum duration of contact was typically more than 30 minutes but less than 300 minutes. Overall, studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, and findings were not sensitive to the exclusion of any of the three studies rated at high risk of bias in one domain. One large study (the Lung Health Study) contributed heterogeneity due to a substantially larger treatment effect than seen in other studies (RR 3.88, 95% CI 3.35 to 4.50). Since this study used a particularly intensive intervention which included extended availability of nicotine gum, multiple group sessions and long term maintenance and recycling contacts, the results may not be comparable with the interventions used in other studies, and hence it was not pooled in other analyses. Based on the remaining 40 studies (15,021 participants) there was good evidence for a benefit of combination pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.00) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 40%). The pooled estimate for 31 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.81 to 2.34) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Pooled estimates were lower in a subgroup of trials where the behavioural intervention was provided by specialist counsellors versus trials where counselling was linked to usual care (specialist: RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.55 to 1.93, 28 trials; usual provider: RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.91 to 3.02, 8 trials) but this was largely attributable to the small effect size in two trials using specialist counsellors where the take-up of the planned intervention was low, and one usual provider trial with alarge effect. There was little indirect evidence that the relative effect of an intervention differed according to whether participants in a trial were required to be motivated to make a quit attempt or not. There was only weak evidence that studies offering more sessions had larger effects and there was not clear evidence that increasing the duration of contact increased the effect, but there was more evidence of a dose-response relationship when analyses were limited to trials where the take-up of treatment was high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Further trials would be unlikely to change this conclusion. We did not find strong evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects but this could be because intensive interventions are less likely to be delivered in full.

Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

The use of smoking cessation medications can considerably enhance the long-term abstinence rate at a reasonable cost, but only a small proportion of quitters seek medical assistance. The objective of this study was to evaluate the factors that influence the decision to use such treatments and the willingness-to-pay of smokers for improved cessation drugs.

METHOD

A discrete choice experiment was conducted amongst smokers in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. Choice sets consisted of two hypothetical medications described via five attributes (price, efficacy, possibility of minor side effects, attenuation of weight gain and availability) and an opt-out option. Various discrete choice models were estimated to analyse both the factors that influence treatment choice and those that influence the overall propensity to use a smoking cessation medication.

RESULTS

Our results indicate that smokers are willing to pay for higher efficacy, less-frequent side effects and prevention of weight gain. Whether the drug is available over-the-counter or on medical prescription is of secondary importance. In addition, we show that there are several individual-specific factors influencing the decision to use such medications, including education level. Results also indicate substantial preference heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that there is a potential demand for improved cessation medications. Broader usage could be reached through lower out-of-pocket price and greater efficacy. Secondary aspects such as side effects and weight gain should also be taken into consideration.

From online randomized controlled trials to participant preference studies: morphing the San Francisco Stop Smoking site into a worldwide smoking cessation resource

Background

Internet interventions have the potential to address many of the health problems that produce the greatest global burden of disease. We present a study illustrating this potential. The Spanish/English San Francisco Stop Smoking Internet site, which yielded quit rates of 20% or more at 12 months in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs), was modified to make it accessible to Spanish- and English-speaking smokers 18 years of age or older anywhere in the world.

Objective

To illustrate that Internet interventions designed to conduct RCTs can be adapted to serve as universal health care resources. We also examine quit rates obtained in the current participant preference study (in which users could choose from all elements tested in previous RCTs) to determine whether they differ from the quit rates found in the RCTs.

Methods

We modified the San Francisco Stop Smoking Internet site so that, instead of being randomly assigned to a specific intervention, participants could personalize the site by choosing among nine site elements (eg, stop smoking guide, reminder emails, journal, mood management intervention, or virtual group). Participants completed a baseline assessment, and reported smoking and mood data at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. We assessed the modified website’s reach and outcomes (quit rates), and compared the quit rates of the current participant preference study with those of the previous RCTs.

Results

In the first year of recruitment, 94,158 individuals from 152 countries and territories visited the site; 13,488 participants left some data; 9173 signed consent; 7763 completed the baseline survey; and 1955, 1362, 1106, and 1096 left 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month data, respectively. Observed quit rates were 38.1% (n = 668), 44.9% (n = 546), 43.6% (n = 431), and 45.4% (n = 449), respectively. The current participant preference study yielded higher observed quit rates (odds ratio 1.30) than the previous RCT when controlling for individuals’ demographic and smoking characteristics.

Conclusions

After strict RCTs are completed, Internet intervention sites can be made into worldwide health intervention resources without reducing their effectiveness.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00721786; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00721786 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/66npiZF4y)

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Most people who stop smoking gain weight. There are some interventions that have been designed to reduce weight gain when stopping smoking. Some smoking cessation interventions may also limit weight gain although their effect on weight has not been reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effect of: (1) Interventions targeting post-cessation weight gain on weight change and smoking cessation.(2) Interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that may also plausibly affect weight on post-cessation weight change.

SEARCH METHODS

Part 1 - We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register and CENTRAL in September 2011.Part 2 - In addition we searched the included studies in the following "parent" Cochrane reviews: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, cannabinoid type 1 receptor antagonists and exercise interventions for smoking cessation published in Issue 9, 2011 of the Cochrane Library.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Part 1 - We included trials of interventions that were targeted at post-cessation weight gain and had measured weight at any follow up point and/or smoking cessation six or more months after quit day.Part 2 - We included trials that had been included in the selected parent Cochrane reviews if they had reported weight gain at any time point.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on baseline characteristics of the study population, intervention, outcome and study quality. Change in weight was expressed as difference in weight change from baseline to follow up between trial arms and was reported in abstinent smokers only. Abstinence from smoking was expressed as a risk ratio (RR). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the inverse variance method for weight and Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Part 1: Some pharmacological interventions tested for limiting post cessation weight gain (PCWG) resulted in a significant reduction in WG at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine (Mean difference (MD) -2.50 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.98 to -2.02, 1 study), phenylpropanolamine (MD -0.50 kg, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.20, N=3), naltrexone (MD -0.78 kg, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.05, N=2). There was no evidence that treatment reduced weight at 6 or 12 months (m). No pharmacological intervention significantly affected smoking cessation rates.Weight management education only was associated with no reduction in PCWG at end of treatment (6 or 12m). However these interventions significantly reduced abstinence at 12m (Risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90, N=2). Personalised weight management support reduced PCWG at 12m (MD -2.58 kg, 95% CI -5.11 to -0.05, N=2) and was not associated with a significant reduction of abstinence at 12m (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.43, N=2). A very low calorie diet (VLCD) significantly reduced PCWG at end of treatment (MD -3.70 kg, 95% CI -4.82 to -2.58, N=1), but not significantly so at 12m (MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI -3.49 to 0.89, N=1). The VLCD increased chances of abstinence at 12m (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73, N=1). There was no evidence that cognitive behavioural therapy to allay concern about weight gain (CBT) reduced PCWG, but there was some evidence of increased PCWG at 6m (MD 0.74, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.24). It was associated with improved abstinence at 6m (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.13, N=2) but not at 12m (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.86, N=2). However, there was significant statistical heterogeneity.Part 2: We found no evidence that exercise interventions significantly reduced PCWG at end of treatment (MD -0.25 kg, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.29, N=4) however a significant reduction was found at 12m (MD -2.07 kg, 95% CI -3.78 to -0.36, N=3).Both bupropion and fluoxetine limited PCWG at the end of treatment (bupropion MD -1.12 kg, 95% CI -1.47 to -0.77, N=7) (fluoxetine MD -0.99 kg, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.61, N=2). There was no evidence that the effect persisted at 6m (bupropion MD -0.58 kg, 95% CI -2.16 to 1.00, N=4), (fluoxetine MD -0.01 kg, 95% CI -1.11 to 1.10, N=2) or 12m (bupropion MD -0.38 kg, 95% CI -2.00 to 1.24, N=4). There were no data on WG at 12m for fluoxetine.Overall, treatment with NRT attenuated PCWG at the end of treatment (MD -0.69 kg, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.51, N=19), with no strong evidence that the effect differed for the different forms of NRT. There was evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity caused by one study which reported a 4.3 kg reduction in PCWG due to NRT. With this study removed, the difference in weight change at end of treatment was -0.45 kg (95% CI -0.66 to -0.27, N=18). There was no evidence of an effect on PCWG at 12m (MD -0.42 kg, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.08, N=15).We found evidence that varenicline significantly reduced PCWG at end of treatment (MD -0.41 kg, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.19, N=11), but this effect was not maintained at 6 or 12m. Three studies compared the effect of bupropion to varenicline. Participants taking bupropion gained significantly less weight at the end of treatment (-0.51 kg (95% CI -0.93 to -0.09 kg), N=3). Direct comparison showed no significant difference in PCWG between varenicline and NRT.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although some pharmacotherapies tested to limit PCWG show evidence of short-term success, other problems with them and the lack of data on long-term efficacy limits their use. Weight management education only, is not effective and may reduce abstinence. Personalised weight management support may be effective and not reduce abstinence, but there are too few data to be sure. One study showed a VLCD increased abstinence but did not prevent WG in the longer term. CBT to accept WG did not limit PCWG and may not promote abstinence in the long term. Exercise interventions significantly reduced weight in the long term, but not the short term. More studies are needed to clarify whether this is an effect of treatment or a chance finding. Bupropion, fluoxetine, NRT and varenicline reduce PCWG while using the medication. Although this effect was not maintained one year after stopping smoking, the evidence is insufficient to exclude a modest long-term effect. The data are not sufficient to make strong clinical recommendations for effective programmes to prevent weight gain after cessation.

Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for lung cancer in the United States

INTRODUCTION

A randomized trial has demonstrated that lung cancer screening reduces mortality. Identifying participant and program characteristics that influence the cost-effectiveness of screening will help translate trial results into benefits at the population level.

METHODS

Six U.S. cohorts (men and women aged 50, 60, or 70 years) were simulated in an existing patient-level lung cancer model. Smoking histories reflected observed U.S. patterns. We simulated lifetime histories of 500,000 identical individuals per cohort in each scenario. Costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained ($/QALY) were estimated for each program: computed tomography screening; stand-alone smoking cessation therapies (4-30% 1-year abstinence); and combined programs.

RESULTS

Annual screening of current and former smokers aged 50 to 74 years costs between $126,000 and $169,000/QALY (minimum 20 pack-years of smoking) or $110,000 and $166,000/QALY (40 pack-year minimum), when compared with no screening and assuming background quit rates. Screening was beneficial but had a higher cost per QALY when the model included radiation-induced lung cancers. If screen participation doubled background quit rates, the cost of annual screening (at age 50 years, 20 pack-year minimum) was below $75,000/QALY. If screen participation halved background quit rates, benefits from screening were nearly erased. If screening had no effect on quit rates, annual screening costs more but provided fewer QALYs than annual cessation therapies. Annual combined screening/cessation therapy programs at age 50 years costs $130,500 to $159,700/QALY, when compared with annual stand-alone cessation.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening will likely be strongly linked to achievable smoking cessation rates. Trials and further modeling should explore the consequences of relationships between smoking behaviors and screen participation.

A multi-level analysis of non-significant counseling effects in a randomized smoking cessation trial

AIMS

To determine, in the context of a trial in which counseling did not improve smoking cessation outcomes, whether this was due to a failure of the conceptual theory identifying treatment targets or the action theory specifying interventions.

DESIGN

Data from a randomized clinical trial of smoking cessation counseling and bupropion SR were submitted to multi-level modeling to test whether counseling influenced real-time reports of cognitions, emotions and behaviors, and whether these targets predicted abstinence.

SETTING

Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, Madison, WI.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 403 adult, daily smokers without contraindications to bupropion SR use. Participants were assigned randomly to receive individual counseling or no counseling and a 9-week course of bupropion SR or placebo pill. Cessation counseling was delivered in eight 10-minute sessions focused on bolstering social support, motivation, problem-solving and coping skills.

MEASUREMENTS

Pre- and post-quit ecological momentary assessments of smoking behavior, smoking triggers, active prevention and coping strategies, motivation to quit, difficulty quitting and reactions to initial lapses.

FINDINGS

Counseling prompted avoidance of access to cigarettes, improved quitting self-efficacy, reduced perceived difficulty of quitting over time and protected against guilt and demoralization following lapses. Results also supported the importance of limiting cigarette access, receiving social support, strong motivation and confidence and easing withdrawal distress during cessation efforts. Quitting self-efficacy and perceived difficulty quitting may partially mediate counseling effects on abstinence.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking cessation counseling may work by supporting confidence about quitting and reducing perceived difficulty quitting. Counseling did not affect other targets that protect against relapse.

Cost effectiveness of varenicline versus bupropion and unaided cessation for smoking cessation in a cohort of Finnish adult smokers

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost effectiveness of varenicline compared with bupropion or unaided cessation for smoking cessation in Finnish adult smokers.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The BENESCO (BENEfits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes) Markov model was used to follow a hypothetical cohort of smokers making a single quit attempt over a lifetime. Gender and age-specific data on the incidence and prevalence of five smoking-related diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], lung cancer, coronary heart disease [CHD], stroke and asthma exacerbations) were included in the model. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total treatment costs and the lifetime cumulative incidence of these parameters were the primary outcomes evaluated, and they were compared for varenicline versus bupropion and varenicline versus unaided cessation. The primary data were derived from Finnish publications and databases. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the base-case model.

RESULTS

The treatment cohort comprised 229 301 smokers making a quit attempt. In the lifetime simulation, use of varenicline prevented 1965 and 5057 additional cases of smoking-related disease, and 1184 and 3047 deaths attributable to smoking, when compared with bupropion and unaided cessation, respectively. Compared with bupropion and unaided cessation varenicline treatment yielded 4392 and 11 303 additional LYs (4851 and 12 485 QALYs), respectively. Varenicline resulted in cost savings of 15 million and 43 million euros (euro) compared with bupropion and unaided cessation, respectively. In the 20-year time horizon analysis, varenicline yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of euro8791/QALY and euro7791/QALY gained in comparison to bupropion and unaided cessation, respectively. Sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the base-case results for varenicline.

CONCLUSION

Varenicline dominated over its comparators, i.e. it was more effective and resulted in cost saving compared with bupropion and unaided cessation.

The cost-effectiveness of antidepressants for smoking cessation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients

OBJECTIVES

In healthy smokers, antidepressants can double the odds of cessation. Because of its four times lower costs and comparable efficacy in healthy smokers, nortriptyline appears to be favourable compared to bupropion. We assessed which of both drugs was most effective and cost-effective in stopping smoking after 1 year compared with placebo among smokers at risk or with existing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

A total of 255 participants, aged 30-70 years, received smoking cessation counselling and were assigned bupropion, nortriptyline or placebo randomly for 12 weeks. Prolonged abstinence from smoking was defined as a participant's report of no cigarettes from week 4 to week 52, validated by urinary cotinine. Costs were calculated using a societal perspective and uncertainty was assessed using the bootstrap method.

RESULTS

The prolonged abstinence rate was 20.9% with bupropion, 20.0% with nortriptyline and 13.5% with placebo. The differences between bupropion and placebo [relative risk (RR) = 1.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8-3.0] and between nortriptyline and placebo (RR = 1.5; 95% CI 0.8-2.9) were not significant. Severity of airway obstruction did not influence abstinence significantly. Societal costs were 1368 euros (2.5th-97.5th percentile 193-5260) with bupropion, 1906 euros (2.5th-97.5th 120-17 761) with nortriptyline and 1212 euros (2.5th-97.5th 96-6602) with placebo. Were society willing to pay more than 2000 euros for a quitter, bupropion was most likely to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Bupropion and nortriptyline seem to be equally effective, but bupropion appears to be more cost-effective when compared to placebo and nortriptyline. This impression holds using only health care costs. As the cost-effectiveness analyses concern some uncertainties, the results should be interpreted with care and future studies are needed to replicate the findings.

Psychoeducational treatment and prevention of depression: the "Coping with Depression" course thirty years later

The "Coping with Depression" course (CWD) is by the far the best studied psychoeducational intervention for the treatment and prevention of depression, and is used in routine practice in several countries. The CWD is a highly structured cognitive-behavioral intervention, which has been adapted for several goals, contexts, and target populations. The efficacy of the CWD has been examined in 25 randomized controlled trials. We conducted a meta-analysis of these studies. The 6 studies aimed at the prevention of new cases of major depression were found to result in a reduced risk of getting major depression of 38% (incidence rate ratio was 0.62). The 18 studies examining the CWD as a treatment of depression found a mean effect size (Cohen's d) of 0.28. Direct comparisons with other psychotherapies did not result in any indication that the CWD was less efficacious. The CWD is a flexible treatment which can easily be adapted for different populations and this may have led researchers to use this intervention for complex target groups, which in turn may have resulted in a lower mean effect size. The CWD has contributed considerably to the development and innovation of prevention and treatment of depression in many target populations.

Disrupting nicotine reinforcement: from cigarette to brain

Cigarette smoking is a tenacious addiction that is maintained to a significant extent by the reinforcing effects of nicotine. An emerging theme in smoking cessation treatment is the development of methods for interfering with these reinforcing effects. By attenuating nicotine reinforcement, treatments may enhance a smoker's chances of successfully remaining abstinent. Several treatment approaches will be described, including the use of denicotinized cigarettes, nicotine vaccines, nicotinic receptor agonists and antagonists, and modulators of brain reinforcement processes. These techniques highlight the numerous sites along the path between the cigarette and the brain that can be targeted for intervention. In addition to unimodal therapies, treatment combinations will be discussed that might more effectively block cigarette reward and thereby further enhance smoking abstinence.

Nicotine abstinence genotyping: assessing the impact on smoking cessation clinical trials

Twin studies document substantial heritability for successful abstinence from smoking. A genome-wide association study has identified markers whose allele frequencies differ with nominal P<0.005 in nicotine-dependent clinical trial participants who were successful vs unsuccessful in abstaining from smoking; many of these results are also supported by data from two additional samples. More study is required to precisely determine the variance in quitting success that can be accounted for by the single-nucleotide polymorphisms that are currently identified and to precisely classify individuals who may display varying degrees of genetic vs environmental effects into quitters or nonquitters. However, the data at hand do allow us to model the effects of genotypic stratification in smoking cessation trials. We identify relationships between the costs of identifying and genotyping prospective trial participants vs the costs of performing the clinical trials. We quantitate the increasing savings that result from genetically stratified designs as recruiting/genotyping costs go down and trial costs increase. This model helps to define the circumstances in which genetically stratified designs may enhance power and reduce costs for smoking cessation clinical trials.

The use of bupropion SR in cigarette smoking cessation

Cigarette smoking remains the largest preventable cause of premature death in developed countries. Until recently nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) has been the only recognised form of treatment for smoking cessation. Bupropion, the first non-nicotine based drug for smoking cessation was licensed in the United States of America (US) in 1997 and in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2000 for smoking cessation in people aged 18 years and over. Bupropion exerts its effect primarily through the inhibition of dopamine reuptake into neuronal synaptic vesicles. It is also a weak noradrenalin reuptake inhibitor and has no effect on the serotonin system. Bupropion has proven efficacy for smoking cessation in a number of clinical trials, helping approximately one in five smokers to stop smoking. Up to a half of patients taking bupropion experience side effects, mainly insomnia and a dry mouth, which are closely linked to the nicotine withdrawal syndrome. Bupropion is rarely associated with seizures however care must be taken when co-prescribing with drugs that can lower seizure threshold. Also, bupropion is a potent enzyme inhibitor and can raise plasma levels of some drugs including antidepressants, antiarrhythmics and antipsychotics. Bupropion has been shown to be a safe and cost effective smoking cessation agent. Despite this, NRT remains the dominant pharmacotherapy to aid smoking cessation.

Cost-effectiveness of varenicline compared with bupropion, NRT, and nortriptyline for smoking cessation in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

To examine the cost-effectiveness of varenicline, a new pharmacotherapy to support smoking cessation, compared with the currently available pharmacologic alternatives in the Netherlands.

METHODS

The BENESCO-model was used to estimate the long-term health and economic benefits of smoking cessation for a cohort of smokers making a one-time quit attempt. The cohort represented the population of Dutch smokers with respect to gender, age, and prevalence of the smoking-related diseases included in the model: COPD, lung cancer, CHD, stroke, and asthma exacerbations. The model compared the cumulative incidence of smoking-related diseases, (quality-adjusted) life years, intervention costs, and direct medical costs between the cohort treated with varenicline and the same cohort either untreated (unaided cessation) or treated with bupropion, nortriptyline or NRT. The time horizon was lifetime. Future costs were discounted at 4%, health outcomes at 1.5%.

RESULTS

The cost of varenicline per additional quitter ranged from 1030 Euro compared with NRT to 4270 Euro compared with nortriptyline. When including the savings due to the reduction in incidence of smoking-related diseases, varenicline generated net savings compared with bupropion and NRT. Compared with nortriptyline and unaided cessation, varenicline was estimated to cost 1650 Euro/QALY and 320 Euro/QALY gained, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay as low as 5000/QALY gained, the probability that varenicline was cost-effective was more than 80% compared to bupropion, NRT, and unaided cessation and about 60% compared to nortriptyline.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with varenicline for smoking cessation is cost-effective compared with nortriptyline and unaided cessation and even cost-saving compared with bupropion and NRT.

Effects of internet-based voucher reinforcement and a transdermal nicotine patch on cigarette smoking

Nicotine replacement products are commonly used to promote smoking cessation, but alternative and complementary methods may increase cessation rates. The current experiment compared the short-term effects of a transdermal nicotine patch to voucher-based reinforcement of smoking abstinence on cigarette smoking. Fourteen heavy smokers (7 men and 7 women) completed the four 5-day phases of the study: baseline, patch treatment, voucher treatment, and return to baseline. The order of the two treatment phases was counterbalanced across participants. In the patch treatment condition, participants wore a 14-mg transdermal nicotine patch every day. In the voucher treatment condition, participants received vouchers contingent on abstinence from smoking, defined as producing carbon monoxide (CO) readings of < or =4 parts per million. Participants e-mailed two video clips per day showing them breathing into a CO monitor and the resulting CO reading to clinic staff. In the voucher treatment, 24% of samples were negative, and 5% of samples were negative in the patch treatment. Results suggest that contingent vouchers were more effective than transdermal nicotine patches in promoting abstinence.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

There are at least two theoretical reasons to believe antidepressants might help in smoking cessation. Nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms or precipitate a major depressive episode and antidepressants may relieve these. Nicotine may have antidepressant effects that maintain smoking, and antidepressants may substitute for this effect. Alternatively, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways underlying nicotine addiction, (e.g. blocking nicotine receptors) independent of their antidepressant effects.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the effect of antidepressant medications in aiding long-term smoking cessation. The medications include bupropion; doxepin; fluoxetine; imipramine; moclobemide; nortriptyline; paroxetine; sertraline, tryptophan and venlafaxine.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register which includes trials indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, SciSearch and PsycINFO, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in September 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized trials comparing antidepressant medications to placebo or an alternative pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. We also included trials comparing different doses, using pharmacotherapy to prevent relapse or re-initiate smoking cessation or to help smokers reduce cigarette consumption. We excluded trials with less than six months follow up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the type of study population, the nature of the pharmacotherapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow up in patients smoking at baseline, expressed as an odds ratio (OR). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen new trials were identified since the last update in 2004 bringing the total number of included trials to 53. There were 40 trials of bupropion and eight trials of nortriptyline. When used as the sole pharmacotherapy, bupropion (31 trials, odds ratio [OR] 1.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.72 to 2.19) and nortriptyline (four trials, OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.61 to 3.41) both doubled the odds of cessation. There is insufficient evidence that adding bupropion or nortriptyline to nicotine replacement therapy provides an additional long-term benefit. Three trials of extended therapy with bupropion to prevent relapse after initial cessation did not find evidence of a significant long-term benefit. From the available data bupropion and nortriptyline appear to be equally effective and of similar efficacy to nicotine replacement therapy. Pooling three trials comparing bupropion to varenicline showed a lower odds of quitting with bupropion (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.78). There is a risk of about 1 in 1000 of seizures associated with bupropion use. Concerns that bupropion may increase suicide risk are currently unproven. Nortriptyline has the potential for serious side-effects, but none have been seen in the few small trials for smoking cessation. There were six trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; four of fluoxetine, one of sertraline and one of paroxetine. None of these detected significant long-term effects, and there was no evidence of a significant benefit when results were pooled. There was one trial of the monoamine oxidase inhibitor moclobemide, and one of the atypical antidepressant venlafaxine. Neither of these detected a significant long-term benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The antidepressants bupropion and nortriptyline aid long-term smoking cessation but selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (e.g. fluoxetine) do not. Evidence suggests that the mode of action of bupropion and nortriptyline is independent of their antidepressant effect and that they are of similar efficacy to nicotine replacement. Adverse events with both medications are rarely serious or lead to stopping medication.

Group behaviour therapy programmes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Group therapy offers individuals the opportunity to learn behavioural techniques for smoking cessation, and to provide each other with mutual support.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine the effects of smoking cessation programmes delivered in a group format compared to self-help materials, or to no intervention; to compare the effectiveness of group therapy and individual counselling; and to determine the effect of adding group therapy to advice from a health professional or to nicotine replacement. We also aimed to determine whether specific components increased the effectiveness of group therapy. We aimed to determine the rate at which offers of group therapy are taken up.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Trials Register, with additional searches of MEDLINE and PsycINFO, including the terms behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, psychotherapy or group therapy, in January 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized trials that compared group therapy with self help, individual counselling, another intervention or no intervention (including usual care or a waiting list control). We also considered trials that compared more than one group programme. We included those trials with a minimum of two group meetings, and follow up of smoking status at least six months after the start of the programme. We excluded trials in which group therapy was provided to both active therapy and placebo arms of trials of pharmacotherapies, unless they had a factorial design.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the participants, the interventions provided to the groups and the controls, including programme length, intensity and main components, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow up in patients smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically validated rates where available. Subjects lost to follow up were analyzed as continuing smokers. Where possible, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effects (Mantel-Haenszel) model.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 55 trials met inclusion criteria for one or more of the comparisons in the review. Sixteen studies compared a group programme with a self-help programme. There was an increase in cessation with the use of a group programme (N = 4395, odds ratio (OR) 2.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60 to 2.60). Group programmes were more effective than no intervention controls (seven trials, N = 815, OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.37 to 3.45). There was no evidence that group therapy was more effective than a similar intensity of individual counselling. There was limited evidence that the addition of group therapy to other forms of treatment, such as advice from a health professional or nicotine replacement, produced extra benefit. There was variation in the extent to which those offered group therapy accepted the treatment. There was limited evidence that programmes which included components for increasing cognitive and behavioural skills and avoiding relapse were more effective than same length or shorter programmes without these components. This analysis was sensitive to the way in which one study with multiple conditions was included. We did not find an effect of manipulating the social interactions between participants in a group programme on outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Group therapy is better for helping people stop smoking than self help, and other less intensive interventions. There is not enough evidence to evaluate whether groups are more effective, or cost-effective, than intensive individual counselling. There is not enough evidence to support the use of particular psychological components in a programme beyond the support and skills training normally included.