1
|
Dodd S, Harper J, Berk M. Current Pharmacotherapies for Smoking Cessation and Promising Emerging Drugs. Curr Rev Clin Exp Pharmacol 2024; 19:259-268. [PMID: 38708918 DOI: 10.2174/0127724328274939231121114142] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2023] [Revised: 10/25/2023] [Accepted: 10/26/2023] [Indexed: 05/07/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Pharmacotherapy is commonly used during quit attempts and has shown an increase in the likelihood of achieving abstinence. However, with established pharmacotherapies, abstinence rates following a quit attempt remain low, and relapse is common. This review aims to investigate the efficacy and harm profiles of current and emerging pharmacotherapies. METHODS Literature review of current and emerging pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation and tobacco use disorder. RESULTS Emerging pharmacotherapies include new formulations of existing therapies, drug repurposing and some new treatments. New treatments are welcome and may incorporate different mechanisms of action or different safety and tolerability profiles compared to existing treatments. However, emerging pharmacotherapies have yet to demonstrate greater efficacy compared to existing treatments. The emergence of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) or 'vaping' is a feature of the current debate around tobacco use disorder. ENDS appear to facilitate switching but not quitting and are controversial as a harm minimisation strategy. LIMITATIONS Studies included a broad range of therapies and trial designs that should be compared with their differences taken into consideration. CONCLUSION Strategies to successfully quit smoking vary between individuals and may extend beyond pharmacotherapy and involve complex psychosocial factors and pathways.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seetal Dodd
- IMPACT, The Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Barwon Health, P.O. Box 281, Geelong, 3220, Australia
- Orygen, The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, the Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
| | - Jodie Harper
- School of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
| | - Michael Berk
- IMPACT, The Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Barwon Health, P.O. Box 281, Geelong, 3220, Australia
- Orygen, The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, the Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
- Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Theodoulou A, Chepkin SC, Ye W, Fanshawe TR, Bullen C, Hartmann-Boyce J, Livingstone-Banks J, Hajizadeh A, Lindson N. Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 6:CD013308. [PMID: 37335995 PMCID: PMC10278922 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013308.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This helps to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and ease the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. Although there is high-certainty evidence that NRT is effective for achieving long-term smoking abstinence, it is unclear whether different forms, doses, durations of treatment or timing of use impacts its effects. OBJECTIVES To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords, most recently in April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded studies that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of fewer than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Separate reviews cover studies comparing NRT to control, or to other pharmacotherapies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking abstinence after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and study withdrawals due to treatment. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 68 completed studies with 43,327 participants, five of which are new to this update. Most completed studies recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. We judged 28 of the 68 studies to be at high risk of bias. Restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results for any comparisons apart from the preloading comparison, which tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day whilst still smoking. There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form plus patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.37; I2 = 12%; 16 studies, 12,169 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg patches are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; I2 = 38%; 5 studies, 1655 participants), and that 21 mg patches are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08; 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3446 participants). Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4395 participants). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 3319 participants). We found no clear evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); or fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence). Cardiac AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no clear evidence of an effect on these outcomes, and rates were low overall. More withdrawals due to treatment were reported in people using nasal spray compared to patches in one study (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46; 1 study, 922 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in people using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two studies (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 544 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum can result in an increase in the chances of successfully stopping smoking. Due to imprecision, evidence was of moderate certainty for patch dose comparisons. There is some indication that the lower-dose nicotine patches and gum may be less effective than higher-dose products. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT before quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is limited. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are reported.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Samantha C Chepkin
- NHS Hertfordshire and West Essex Integrated Care Board, Welwyn Garden City, UK
| | - Weiyu Ye
- Oxford University Clinical Academic Graduate School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Chris Bullen
- National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Anisa Hajizadeh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Granger KT, Ferrar J, Caswell S, Haselgrove M, Moran PM, Attwood A, Barnett JH. Effects of 7.5% Carbon Dioxide and Nicotine Administration on Latent Inhibition. Front Psychiatry 2021; 12:582745. [PMID: 33935819 PMCID: PMC8085318 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.582745] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2020] [Accepted: 02/05/2021] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Stratified medicine approaches have potential to improve the efficacy of drug development for schizophrenia and other psychiatric conditions, as they have for oncology. Latent inhibition is a candidate biomarker as it demonstrates differential sensitivity to key symptoms and neurobiological abnormalities associated with schizophrenia. The aims of this research were to evaluate whether a novel latent inhibition task that is not confounded by alternative learning effects such as learned irrelevance, is sensitive to (1) an in-direct model relevant to psychosis [using 7.5% carbon dioxide (CO2) inhalations to induce dopamine release via somatic anxiety] and (2) a pro-cognitive pharmacological manipulation (via nicotine administration) for the treatment of cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia. Experiment 1 used a 7.5% CO2 challenge as a model of anxiety-induced dopamine release to evaluate the sensitivity of latent inhibition during CO2 gas inhalation, compared to the inhalation of medical air. Experiment 2 examined the effect of 2 mg nicotine administration vs. placebo on latent inhibition to evaluate its sensitivity to a potential pro-cognitive drug treatment. Inhalation of 7.5% CO2 raised self-report and physiological measures of anxiety and impaired latent inhibition, relative to a medical air control; whereas administration of 2 mg nicotine, demonstrated increased latent inhibition relative to placebo control. Here, two complementary experimental studies suggest latent inhibition is modified by manipulations that are relevant to the detection and treatment of schizophrenia. These results suggest that this latent inhibition task merits further investigation in the context of neurobiological sub-groups suitable for novel treatment strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kiri T Granger
- Cambridge Cognition, Cambridge, United Kingdom.,School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.,Monument Therapeutics, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Jennifer Ferrar
- Cambridge Cognition, Cambridge, United Kingdom.,Alcohol & Tobacco Research Group, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Sheryl Caswell
- Cambridge Cognition, Cambridge, United Kingdom.,Monument Therapeutics, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Mark Haselgrove
- School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Paula M Moran
- School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Angela Attwood
- Alcohol & Tobacco Research Group, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Jennifer H Barnett
- Cambridge Cognition, Cambridge, United Kingdom.,Monument Therapeutics, Cambridge, United Kingdom.,Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Lindson N, Chepkin SC, Ye W, Fanshawe TR, Bullen C, Hartmann‐Boyce J. Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 4:CD013308. [PMID: 30997928 PMCID: PMC6470854 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013308] [Citation(s) in RCA: 77] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes to ease the transition from cigarette smoking to abstinence. It works by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. Although there is clear evidence that NRT used after smoking cessation is effective, it is unclear whether higher doses, longer durations of treatment, or using NRT before cessation add to its effectiveness. OBJECTIVES To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to one another. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, and trial registries for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search: April 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomized trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up less than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Trials comparing NRT to control, and trials comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered elsewhere. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking abstinence was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and study withdrawals due to treatment. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS We identified 63 trials with 41,509 participants. Most recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day. We judged 24 of the 63 studies to be at high risk of bias, but restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results, apart from in the case of the preloading comparison. There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form + patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.36, 14 studies, 11,356 participants; I2 = 4%). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29, 5 studies, 1655 participants; I2 = 38%), and that 21 mg are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08, 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence (again limited by imprecision) also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41, 3 studies, 3446 participants; I2 = 0%). Five studies comparing 4 mg gum to 2 mg gum found a benefit of the higher dose (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.83, 5 studies, 856 participants; I2 = 63%); however, results of a subgroup analysis suggest that only smokers who are highly dependent may benefit. Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward; there was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44, 9 studies, 4395 participants; I2 = 0%). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05, 8 studies, 3319 participants; I2 = 0%). We found no evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); 16-hour versus 24-hour daily patch use; duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); tapering of patch dose versus abrupt patch cessation; fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence); duration of nicotine gum use; ad lib versus fixed dosing of fast-acting NRT; free versus purchased NRT; length of provision of free NRT; ceasing versus continuing patch use on lapse; and participant- versus clinician-selected NRT. However, in most cases these findings are based on very low- or low-certainty evidence, and are the findings from single studies.AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no evidence of an effect on cardiac AEs, SAEs or withdrawals. Rates of these were low overall. Significantly more withdrawals due to treatment were reported in participants using nasal spray in comparison to patch in one trial (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46, 922 participants; very low certainty) and in participants using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two trials (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50, 2 studies, 544 participants; I2 = 0%; low certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT, and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum, can increase the chances of successfully stopping smoking. For patch dose comparisons, evidence was of moderate certainty, due to imprecision. Twenty-one mg patches resulted in higher quit rates than 14 mg (24-hour) patches, and using 25 mg patches resulted in higher quit rates than using 15 mg (16-hour) patches, although in the latter case the CI included one. There was no clear evidence of superiority for 42/44 mg over 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT prior to quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is of low and very low certainty. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are both measured and reported.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola Lindson
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesRadcliffe Observatory QuarterWoodstock RoadOxfordOxfordshireUKOX2 6GG
| | | | - Weiyu Ye
- University of OxfordOxford University Clinical Academic Graduate SchoolOxfordUK
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesRadcliffe Observatory QuarterWoodstock RoadOxfordOxfordshireUKOX2 6GG
| | - Chris Bullen
- University of AucklandNational Institute for Health InnovationPrivate Bag 92019Auckland Mail CentreAucklandNew Zealand1142
| | - Jamie Hartmann‐Boyce
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesRadcliffe Observatory QuarterWoodstock RoadOxfordOxfordshireUKOX2 6GG
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Hartmann‐Boyce J, Chepkin SC, Ye W, Bullen C, Lancaster T. Nicotine replacement therapy versus control for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 5:CD000146. [PMID: 29852054 PMCID: PMC6353172 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd000146.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 242] [Impact Index Per Article: 40.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. OBJECTIVES To determine the effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), including gum, transdermal patch, intranasal spray and inhaled and oral preparations, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to placebo or 'no NRT' interventions. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search is July 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomized trials in people motivated to quit which compared NRT to placebo or to no treatment. We excluded trials that did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months, except for those in pregnancy (where less than six months, these were excluded from the main analysis). We recorded adverse events from included and excluded studies that compared NRT with placebo. Studies comparing different types, durations, and doses of NRT, and studies comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered in separate reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment 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) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS We identified 136 studies; 133 with 64,640 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The majority of studies were conducted in adults and had similar numbers of men and women. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day at the start of the studies. We judged the evidence to be of high quality; we judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias but restricting the analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the result. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.61). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 56 trials, 22,581 participants) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.75, 51 trials, 25,754 participants) for nicotine patch; 1.52 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.74, 8 trials, 4439 participants) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials, 976 participants) for nicotine inhalator; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials, 887 participants) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the definition of abstinence, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. A subset of six trials conducted in pregnant women found a statistically significant benefit of NRT on abstinence close to the time of delivery (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.69; 2129 participants); in the four trials that followed up participants post-partum the result was no longer statistically significant (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.86; 1675 participants). Adverse events from using NRT were related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. Attempts to quantitatively synthesize the incidence of various adverse effects were hindered by extensive variation in reporting the nature, timing and duration of symptoms. The odds ratio (OR) of chest pains or palpitations for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.88 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.57, 15 included and excluded trials, 11,074 participants). However, chest pains and palpitations were rare in both groups and serious adverse events were extremely rare. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is high-quality evidence that all of the licensed forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhalator and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50% to 60%, regardless of setting, and further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect. The relative effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT. NRT often causes minor irritation of the site through which it is administered, and in rare cases can cause non-ischaemic chest pain and palpitations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie Hartmann‐Boyce
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesRadcliffe Observatory QuarterWoodstock RoadOxfordUKOX2 6GG
| | | | - Weiyu Ye
- University of OxfordOxford University Clinical Academic Graduate SchoolOxfordUK
| | - Chris Bullen
- University of AucklandNational Institute for Health InnovationPrivate Bag 92019Auckland Mail CentreAucklandNew Zealand1142
| | - Tim Lancaster
- King’s College LondonGKT School of Medical EducationLondonUK
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Rasmussen SC, Becker WD, Shanga GM. Single-Dose Bioequivalence of Two Mini Nicotine Lozenge Formulations. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev 2017; 7:498-505. [PMID: 29193747 PMCID: PMC6032825 DOI: 10.1002/cpdd.415] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2017] [Accepted: 10/03/2017] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Abstract
Diverse nicotine replacement therapy options may improve consumer usage. This study was conducted to establish the bioequivalence of a new cherry‐flavored mini lozenge with that of a currently marketed mint‐flavored mini lozenge. The rate (Cmax) and extent (AUC0–t) of plasma nicotine absorption were compared after administration of 2‐ and 4‐mg doses of each lozenge in healthy adult smokers (n = 43). The bioequivalence of each respective dose was established based on the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of geometric means for both Cmax and AUC0–t lying within the range of 0.80 to 1.25. Adverse‐event profiles were similar between formulations.
Collapse
|
7
|
Cook JW, Baker TB, Beckham JC, McFall M. Smoking-induced affect modulation in nonwithdrawn smokers with posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and in those with no psychiatric disorder. JOURNAL OF ABNORMAL PSYCHOLOGY 2016; 126:184-198. [PMID: 28004948 DOI: 10.1037/abn0000247] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
This research sought to determine whether smoking influences affect by means other than withdrawal reduction. Little previous evidence suggests such an effect. We surmised that such an effect would be especially apparent in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder (MDD), 2 disorders that are frequently comorbid with smoking and that involve dysregulated affect. Participants were U.S. veterans who were regular smokers (N = 159): 52 with PTSD (58% with comorbid MDD), 51 with MDD, and 56 controls with no psychiatric disorder. During 3 positive and 3 negative mood induction trials (scheduled over 2 sessions), nonwithdrawn participants smoked either a nicotine-containing cigarette (NIC+), a nicotine-free cigarette (NIC-), or held a pen. Positive and negative affect were each measured before and after mood induction. Results showed a significant 2-way interaction of Smoking Condition × Time on negative affect during the negative mood induction (F(6, 576) = 2.41, p = .03) in those with PTSD and controls. In these groups, both NIC+ and NIC-, relative to pen, produced lower negative affect ratings after the negative mood induction. There was also a 2-way interaction of Smoking Condition × Time on positive affect response to the positive mood induction among those with PTSD and controls (F(6, 564) = 3.17, p = .005) and among MDD and controls (F(6, 564) = 2.27, p = .036). Among all smokers, NIC+ enhanced the magnitude and duration of positive affect more than did NIC-. Results revealed affect modulation outside the context of withdrawal relief; such effects may motivate smoking among those with psychiatric diagnoses, and among smokers in general. (PsycINFO Database Record
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica W Cook
- Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health
| | - Timothy B Baker
- Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health
| | | | - Miles McFall
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine and Public Health
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Beard E, Shahab L, Cummings DM, Michie S, West R. New Pharmacological Agents to Aid Smoking Cessation and Tobacco Harm Reduction: What Has Been Investigated, and What Is in the Pipeline? CNS Drugs 2016; 30:951-83. [PMID: 27421270 DOI: 10.1007/s40263-016-0362-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma Beard
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Cancer Research UK Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London, WC1E 6BP, UK.
- Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, WC1E 6BP, UK.
| | - Lion Shahab
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Cancer Research UK Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London, WC1E 6BP, UK
| | - Damian M Cummings
- Department of Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Susan Michie
- Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, WC1E 6BP, UK
| | - Robert West
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Cancer Research UK Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London, WC1E 6BP, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
The effect of acute exercise on cigarette cravings while using a nicotine lozenge. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2015; 232:2531-9. [PMID: 25701265 DOI: 10.1007/s00213-015-3887-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2014] [Accepted: 02/09/2015] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Abstract
RATIONALE It is imperative that smoking cessation aids effectively alleviate cigarette craving and withdrawal symptoms because their intensity has shown to predict relapse. The nicotine lozenge and a single session of exercise have both been shown to provide relief from craving for smokers who have stopped smoking. These two efficacious monotherapies have distinct mechanic pathways, and applying them concurrently may provide additive-craving relief benefit. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to examine whether an acute bout of moderate-intensity exercise provides additional craving relief to the nicotine replacement lozenge in recently quit smokers. RESULTS Thirty smokers who had abstained from smoking for 15 h were randomized to either the experimental (exercise and lozenge, n = 15) or control (lozenge alone, n = 15) condition. Craving was assessed before (baseline), during (10 and 20 min), and after (10, 20, 30, and 40 min) treatment. RESULT A significant condition by time interaction effect was found for craving (F(6, 23) = 2.70, p = 0.039, Wilks' Λ = 0.59, η ρ (2) = 0.41). While both conditions demonstrated reductions in craving, the reduction was significantly greater for the experimental group. CONCLUSION These findings demonstrate that an acute bout of exercise provides additional craving relief to the nicotine lozenge in recently quit smokers. We recommend smokers who attempt to quit employ both cessation aids simultaneously to maximize reductions in cravings.
Collapse
|
10
|
Carpenter MJ, Jardin BF, Burris JL, Mathew AR, Schnoll RA, Rigotti NA, Cummings KM. Clinical strategies to enhance the efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation: a review of the literature. Drugs 2014; 73:407-26. [PMID: 23572407 DOI: 10.1007/s40265-013-0038-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
A number of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies have led to increases in quitting and thus to significant benefits to public health. Among existing medications, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) has been available the longest, has the largest literature base in support, and is the only option for over-the-counter access. While the short-term efficacy of NRT is well documented in clinical trials, long-term abstinence rates associated with using NRT are modest, as most smokers will relapse. This literature review examines emerging clinical strategies to improve NRT efficacy. After an initial overview of NRT and its FDA-approved indications for use, we review randomized trials in which clinical delivery of NRT was manipulated and tested, in an attempt to enhance efficacy, through (1) duration of use (pre-quit and extended use), (2) amount of use (high-dose and combination NRT), (3) tailoring to specific smoker groups (genotype and phenotype), or (4) use of NRT for novel purposes (relapse prevention, temporary abstinence, cessation induction). Outcomes vary within and across topic area, and we highlight areas that offer stronger promise. Combination NRT likely represents the most promising strategy moving forward; other clinical strategies offer conflicting evidence but deserve further testing (pre-quit NRT or tailored treatment) or offer potential utility but are in need of further, direct tests. Some areas, though based on a limited set of studies, do not offer great promise (high-dose and extended treatment NRT). We conclude with a brief discussion of emergent NRT products (e.g., oral nicotine spray, among others), which may ultimately offer greater efficacy than current formulations. In order to further lower the prevalence of smoking, novel strategies designed to optimize NRT efficacy are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew J Carpenter
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC), Charleston, SC, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Shahab L, Brose LS, West R. Novel delivery systems for nicotine replacement therapy as an aid to smoking cessation and for harm reduction: rationale, and evidence for advantages over existing systems. CNS Drugs 2013; 27:1007-19. [PMID: 24114587 DOI: 10.1007/s40263-013-0116-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Abstract
Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) has been used in the treatment of tobacco dependence for over three decades. Whilst the choice of NRT was limited early on, in the last ten years there has been substantial increase in the number of nicotine delivery devices that have become available. This article briefly summarises existing forms of NRT, evidence of their efficacy and use, and reviews the rationale for the development of novel products delivering nicotine via buccal, transdermal or pulmonary routes (including nicotine mouth spray, nicotine films, advanced nicotine inhalers and electronic cigarettes). It presents available evidence on the efficacy, tolerability and abuse potential of these products, with a focus on their advantages as well as disadvantages compared with established forms of NRT for use as an aid to both smoking cessation as well as harm reduction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lion Shahab
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 6BT, UK,
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Shahab L, Sarkar BK, West R. The acute effects of yogic breathing exercises on craving and withdrawal symptoms in abstaining smokers. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2013; 225:875-82. [PMID: 22993051 DOI: 10.1007/s00213-012-2876-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2012] [Accepted: 09/03/2012] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
RATIONALE Breathing exercises have been proposed as a way of combating cigarette cravings, potentially presenting a low-cost, easily scalable smoking cessation aid. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to evaluate the acute impact of breathing exercises based on yogic pranayama on cravings in abstaining smokers. METHODS Participants visited the laboratory on two occasions 24 h apart and were asked to abstain from smoking 12 h prior to the first visit until the end of the second visit. Smokers (N = 96) were randomly allocated to a yogic breathing exercise (YBG) or video control (VCG) group. The former was instructed on breathing exercises, practised these for 10 min and asked to use these when experiencing cravings until the next visit. The latter was shown a breathing exercise video for 10 min and asked to concentrate on their breathing. Strength of urges to smoke, other craving measures and mood and physical symptoms associated with cigarette withdrawal were assessed at the beginning and end of the first visit, and again at the second visit. RESULTS At immediate follow-up, in the laboratory, all craving measures were reduced in YBG compared with VCG (strength of urges: F(1, 96) = 16.1, p < 0.001; cigarette craving: F(1, 96) = 11.3, p = 0.001; desire to smoke: F(1, 96) = 6.6, p = 0.012). There was no effect on mood or physical symptoms. Adherence to the breathing exercise regimen in the following 24 h was low, and at 24 h follow-up, there was no evidence of reduced cravings in YBG compared with VCG. CONCLUSIONS Simple yogic-style breathing exercises can reduce cigarette craving acutely in the laboratory. Further research is needed to determine how far this translates into field settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lion Shahab
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, WC1E 6BT, London, UK.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Stead LF, Perera R, Bullen C, Mant D, Hartmann-Boyce J, Cahill K, Lancaster T. Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 11:CD000146. [PMID: 23152200 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd000146.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 441] [Impact Index Per Article: 36.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. OBJECTIVES The aims of this review were: To determine the effect of NRT compared to placebo in aiding smoking cessation, and to consider whether there is a difference in effect for the different forms of NRT (chewing gum, transdermal patches, oral and nasal sprays, inhalers and tablets/lozenges) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes. To determine whether the effect is influenced by the dosage, form and timing of use of NRT; the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; or the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated. To determine whether combinations of NRT are more likely to lead to successful quitting than one type alone. To determine whether NRT is more or less likely to lead to successful quitting compared to other pharmacotherapies. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search July 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or to no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data in duplicate on the type of participants, the dose, duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up. 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) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS We identified 150 trials; 117 with over 50,000 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The risk ratio (RR) of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.60 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53 to 1.68). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 55 trials) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.52 to 1.78, 43 trials) for nicotine patch; 1.95 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.36, 6 trials) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials) for nicotine inhaler; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials) for nicotine nasal spray. One trial of oral spray had an RR of 2.48 (95% CI 1.24 to 4.94). The effects were largely independent of the duration of therapy, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. The effect was similar in a small group of studies that aimed to assess use of NRT obtained without a prescription. In highly dependent smokers there was a significant benefit of 4 mg gum compared with 2 mg gum, but weaker evidence of a benefit from higher doses of patch. There was evidence that combining a nicotine patch with a rapid delivery form of NRT was more effective than a single type of NRT (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.51, 9 trials). The RR for NRT used for a short period prior to the quit date was 1.18 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.40, 8 trials), just missing statistical significance, though the efficacy increased when we pooled only patch trials and when we removed one trial in which confounding was likely. Five studies directly compared NRT to a non-nicotine pharmacotherapy, bupropion; there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.18). A combination of NRT and bupropion was more effective than bupropion alone (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.45, 4 trials). Adverse effects from using NRT are related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. There is no evidence that NRT increases the risk of heart attacks. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS All of the commercially available forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhaler and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50 to 70%, regardless of setting. The effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lindsay F Stead
- Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford,Oxford,UK.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Hansson A, Hajek P, Perfekt R, Kraiczi H. Effects of nicotine mouth spray on urges to smoke, a randomised clinical trial. BMJ Open 2012; 2:bmjopen-2012-001618. [PMID: 23015605 PMCID: PMC3467658 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001618] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE A new nicotine mouth spray was shown to be an effective stop-smoking treatment. This study was set up to examine the speed with which it relieves urges to smoke, and how it compares with nicotine lozenge in this respect. DESIGN Randomised, cross-over trial that compared nicotine mouth spray 2 mg versus nicotine lozenge 2 or 4 mg. SETTING Clinical pharmacology research unit. PARTICIPANTS 200 Volunteer smokers who smoked their first cigarette of the day within 30 min of waking. INTERVENTIONS Subjects abstained from smoking the night before the morning they attended the laboratory. Treatment was administered following 5 h of witnessed abstinence. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES Urge to smoke was rated before and at 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, 25, 30, 45 min and 1, 1.5, and 2 h after treatment administration. The primary outcome concerned change during the first 1, 3 and 5 min after treatment administration. RESULTS Nicotine mouth spray achieved greater reductions in craving than either lozenge during the first 1, 3 and 5 min postadministration. After using mouth spray, half of the users experienced 50% reduction in craving within 3.40 min, while the same treatment effect was achieved within 9.92 and 9.20 min for the 2 and 4 mg lozenge, respectively. Adverse events with both mouth spray and lozenge were mostly mild. Hiccups, local irritation, nausea and dyspepsia were more frequent with spray than lozenge. CONCLUSIONS Nicotine mouth spray provides a faster relief of cravings than nicotine lozenge.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Hansson
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, McNeil AB, Lund, Sweden
| | - Peter Hajek
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK
| | - Roland Perfekt
- Global Biometrics and Clinical Data Systems, McNeil AB, Helsingborg, Sweden
| | - Holger Kraiczi
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, McNeil AB, Lund, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|