A selective reversible monoamine oxidase B inhibitor in smoking cessation: effects on its own and in association with transdermal nicotine patch

Dietary supplementation with a wild green oat extract (Avena sativa L.) to improve wellness and wellbeing during smoking reduction or cessation: a randomized double-blind controlled study

Objective

Smoking reduction or cessation are critical public health goals, given the well-documented risks of tobacco use to health. Reducing smoking frequency and cessation entirely are challenging due to nicotine addiction and withdrawal symptoms, which can significantly affect mental wellness and overall wellbeing. Previous research has suggested that certain dietary supplements may support smoking cessation and reduction efforts by mitigating these adverse effects. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of supplementation with 900 mg/day of Neuravena®, a green oat extract (GOE) of Avena sativa L., in enhancing wellness and wellbeing during a smoking reduction or cessation experience.

Methods

This was an 8-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, ClinicalTrials Identifier: NCT04749017 (https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04749017). Participants were assigned to one of the study groups, 72 participants were assigned to GOE and 73 to placebo. The subjects were followed for 8-weeks intervention period as well as an additional 4-week follow-up period. At subsequent visits, they underwent clinical assessments including assessments of quality of life, perceived stress, depression, nicotine dependence, anxiety, cognitive performance, and specific assessments of craving intensity.

Results

GOE was associated with greater improvements in elements of the abbreviated World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire as compared with placebo. Similar results were obtained from the SF-36 questionnaire and a visual QoL analogue scale (VAS). Perceived stress levels showed greater decline from baseline among the GOE supplemented participants as compared to placebo. Sleep quality parameters improved with GOE supplementation and worsened in the placebo group. At the end of the intervention period, the percentage of successful reducers (defined as >20% reduction in daily cigarettes) was higher in the GOE group as compared to placebo (66.7% vs. 49.3%, p = 0.034). The improvements from baseline in QoL measures in the GOE group persisted at 4 weeks after termination of the intervention.

Conclusion

GOE supplementation demonstrated greater improvements in quality of life measures, stress and sleep related parameters during a smoking reduction or cessation experience and the product was shown to be safe and well tolerated.

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

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.

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.

Monoamine oxidase inhibition in cigarette smokers: From preclinical studies to tobacco product regulation

Monoamine oxidase (MAO) activity is reduced in cigarette smokers and this may promote the reinforcing actions of nicotine, thereby enhancing the addictive properties of cigarettes. At present, it is unclear how cigarette smoking leads to MAO inhibition, but preclinical studies in rodents show that MAO inhibition increases nicotine self-administration, especially at low doses of nicotine. This effect of MAO inhibition develops slowly, likely due to plasticity of brain monoamine systems; studies relying on acute MAO inhibition are unlikely to replicate what happens with smoking. Given that MAO inhibition may reduce the threshold level at which nicotine becomes reinforcing, it is important to consider this in the context of very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes and potential tobacco product regulation. It is also important to consider how this interaction between MAO inhibition and the reinforcing actions of nicotine may be modified in populations that are particularly vulnerable to nicotine dependence. In the context of these issues, we show that the MAO-inhibiting action of cigarette smoke extract (CSE) is similar in VLNC cigarettes and cigarettes with a standard nicotine content. In addition, we present evidence that in a rodent model of schizophrenia the effect of MAO inhibition to enhance nicotine self-administration is absent, and speculate how this may relate to brain serotonin systems. These issues are relevant to the MAO-inhibiting effect of cigarette smoking and its implications to tobacco product regulation.

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.

Randomized Clinical Trials Investigating Innovative Interventions for Smoking Cessation in the Last Decade

Every year, billions of dollars are spent treating smoking and related conditions, yet smoking-related morbidity and mortality continue to rise. There are currently only three FDA-approved medications for smoking cessation: nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, and varenicline. Although these medications increase abstinence rates, most individuals relapse following treatment. This chapter reviews clinical trials published within the past 10 years investigating novel smoking cessation pharmacotherapies. Among these pharmacotherapies, some showed promising results, such as cytisine and endocannabinoid modulators, whereas others failed to produce significant effects. More research is needed to develop drugs that produce higher rates of long-term abstinence and to determine which subgroups of patients benefit from a given treatment.

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

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.

Sembragiline in Moderate Alzheimer's Disease: Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase II Trial (MAyflOwer RoAD)

Background: Sembragiline is a potent, selective, long-acting, and reversible MAO-B inhibitor developed as a potential treatment for Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

Objective: To evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of sembragiline in patients with moderate AD.

Methods: In this Phase II study (NCT01677754), 542 patients with moderate dementia (MMSE 13–20) on background acetylcholinesterase inhibitors with/without memantine were randomized (1:1:1) to sembragiline 1 mg, 5 mg, or placebo once daily orally for 52 weeks.

Results: No differences between treated groups and placebo in adverse events or in study completion. The primary endpoint, change from baseline in ADAS-Cog11, was not met. At Week 52, the difference between sembragiline and placebo in ADAS-Cog11 change from baseline was – 0.15 (p = 0.865) and 0.90 (p = 0.312) for 1 and 5 mg groups, respectively. Relative to placebo at Week 52 (but not at prior assessment times), the 1 mg and 5 mg sembragiline groups showed differences in ADCS-ADL of 2.64 (p = 0.051) and 1.89 (p = 0.160), respectively. A treatment effect in neuropsychiatric symptoms (as assessed by the difference between sembragiline and placebo on BEHAVE-AD-FW) was also seen at Week 52 only: – 2.80 (p = 0.014; 1 mg) and – 2.64 (p = 0.019; 5 mg), respectively. A post hoc subgroup analysis revealed greater treatment effects on behavior and functioning in patients with more severe baseline behavioral symptoms (above the median).

Conclusions: This study showed that sembragiline was well-tolerated in patients with moderate AD. The study missed its primary and secondary endpoints. Post hoc analyses suggested potential effect on neuropsychiatric symptoms and functioning in more behaviorally impaired study population at baseline.

Positron emission tomography measurement of brain MAO-B inhibition in patients with Alzheimer's disease and elderly controls after oral administration of sembragiline

PURPOSE

In Alzheimer's disease (AD), increased metabolism of monoamines by monoamine oxidase type B (MAO-B) leads to the production of toxic reactive oxygen species (ROS), which are thought to contribute to disease pathogenesis. Inhibition of the MAO-B enzyme may restore brain levels of monoaminergic neurotransmitters, reduce the formation of toxic ROS and reduce neuroinflammation (reactive astrocytosis), potentially leading to neuroprotection. Sembragiline (also referred as RO4602522, RG1577 and EVT 302 in previous communications) is a potent, selective and reversible inhibitor of MAO-B developed as a potential treatment for AD.

METHODS

This study assessed the relationship between plasma concentration of sembragiline and brain MAO-B inhibition in patients with AD and in healthy elderly control (EC) subjects. Positron emission tomography (PET) scans using [11C]-L-deprenyl-D2 radiotracer were performed in ten patients with AD and six EC subjects, who received sembragiline each day for 6-15 days.

RESULTS

At steady state, the relationship between sembragiline plasma concentration and MAO-B inhibition resulted in an Emax of ∼80-90 % across brain regions of interest and in an EC50 of 1-2 ng/mL. Data in patients with AD and EC subjects showed that near-maximal inhibition of brain MAO-B was achieved with 1 mg sembragiline daily, regardless of the population, whereas lower doses resulted in lower and variable brain MAO-B inhibition.

CONCLUSIONS

This PET study confirmed that daily treatment of at least 1 mg sembragiline resulted in near-maximal inhibition of brain MAO-B enzyme in patients with AD.

Contribution of Monoamine Oxidase Inhibition to Tobacco Dependence: A Review of the Evidence

BACKGROUND

There is a hypothesis that substances present in, or derived from, tobacco smoke inhibit monoamine oxidase (MAO) in the brains of smokers, reducing the degradation of catecholamine neurotransmitters involved in central reward pathways and acting synergistically with nicotine to increase its addictive effects.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to evaluate the evidence for a role of MAO inhibition by tobacco-derived substances in tobacco dependence.

INVESTIGATIONAL PLAN

Relevant studies on the effects of tobacco use on MAO levels or activity in humans were identified by electronic searches.

RESULTS

The identified data show a clear association between smoking and lower density of MAO-A and MAO-B binding sites in the brains of smokers and strong evidence that MAO is inhibited by a substance or substances in, or derived from, tobacco smoke. There was little evidence to support the hypothesis that low MAO levels/activity is a predictive factor for tobacco use. Substances that inhibit MAO in in vitro assays have been isolated from tobacco leaves and tobacco smoke; however, no single substance has been shown to be absorbed from tobacco smoke and to inhibit MAO in the brains of human smokers. Nevertheless, it is possible that MAO inhibition in smokers could result from additive or synergistic effects of several tobacco-derived substances. MAO inhibition potentiates the reinforcing effects of intravenous nicotine in rodents; however, no data were identified to support the hypothesis that MAO inhibitors in or derived from tobacco or tobacco additives affect tobacco dependence in human smokers.

IMPLICATIONS

This comprehensive review describes the available evidence for the role of MAO inhibition in tobacco dependence and points the way for further research in this field. In view of the large number of MAO inhibitors identified in tobacco and tobacco smoke, identification of the putative inhibitors responsible for the lower level/activity of MAO in smokers may be impractical. Future studies must address whether the lower level/activity of MAO observed in smokers is also seen in users of other tobacco products and if this change is implicated in their dependence-inducing effects.

Association between cigarette smoking and Parkinson's disease: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of Parkinson's disease (PD) with smoking, and determine whether gender, source of controls, dose of smoking, and year of studies modify the observed effects of smoking on PD.

METHODS

Available publications between 1959 and 2014 from PubMed, ScienceDirect, Springer Link and Web of Science databases were searched and carefully selected. Relative risks RR of specific study were weighted to obtain a pooled RR estimate and its 95% confidence interval CI.

RESULTS

61 case-control and 8 cohort studies were included. The pooled RR of PD was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.56-0.62) for ever smokers compared with never smokers. The stratified analyses indicated a somewhat greater impact of smoking on PD risk in cohort studies than in case-control studies, the protective effect was relatively significant in men more than in women and the inverse effect was slightly greater in hospital-based studies than in population-based studies. Furthermore, a significant inverse dose-response relationship was observed for the number of pack-years smoked. The summary RR for those smoking more than 30 pack-years was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.49-0.88), and 0.39 (95% CI, 0.29-0.53) for those smoking less than 30 pack-years.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrated the inverse association between cigarette smoking and the risk of PD. We suggest that effective drugs for PD might be developed using chemical substances derived from tobacco or tobacco smoke.

Targeting the noradrenergic system for gender-sensitive medication development for tobacco dependence

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco use remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality for both women and men in the United States, and women often experience poorer smoking cessation outcomes than men. Preliminary evidence suggests there are sex differences in medication effectiveness for smoking cessation. However, current medications do not take into account gender-sensitive treatment development and efficacy, underscoring the importance of this underdeveloped area of research.

METHODS

We reviewed preclinical and clinical evidence for gender differences in the inability to quit smoking by examining (a) the effect of increased negative affect and stress reactivity on smoking outcomes in women and (b) smoking for nicotine reinforcement in men. We also reviewed the current literature targeting the noradrenergic system as a novel gender-sensitive treatment strategy for tobacco dependence.

RESULTS

We hypothesize that noradrenergic agents that normalize noradrenergic activity may differentially attenuate stress reactivity in women and nicotine-related reinforcement in men, indicating that targeting the noradrenergic system for smoking cessation may be effective for both genders, with benefits operating through sex-specific mechanisms.

CONCLUSIONS

Converging lines of preclinical and clinical evidence suggest that gender-sensitive approaches to medication development for smoking cessation are a critical next step for addressing low quit rates and exacerbated health risks among women. Evidence reviewed indicates that smoking activates different brain systems modulated by noradrenergic activity in women versus men, and noradrenergic compounds may preferentially target these gender-sensitive systems.

Pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation: pharmacological principles and clinical practice

Strategies for assisting smoking cessation include behavioural counselling to enhance motivation and to support attempts to quit and pharmacological intervention to reduce nicotine reinforcement and withdrawal from nicotine. Three drugs are currently used as first line pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation, nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion and varenicline. Compared with placebo, the drug effect varies from 2.27 (95% CI 2.02, 2.55) for varenicline, 1.69 (95% CI 1.53, 1.85) for bupropion and 1.60 (95% CI 1.53, 1.68) for any form of nicotine replacement therapy. Despite some controversy regarding the safety of bupropion and varenicline, regulatory agencies consider these drugs as having a favourable benefit/risk profile. However, given the high rate of psychiatric comorbidity in dependent smokers, practitioners should closely monitor patients for neuropsychiatric symptoms. Second-line pharmacotherapies include nortriptyline and clonidine. This review also offers an overview of pipeline developments and issues related to smoking cessation in special populations such as persons with psychiatric comorbidity and pregnant and adolescent smokers.

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.

Pharmacotherapies and harm-reduction options for the treatment of tobacco dependence

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco dependence, a chronic relapsing condition, requires repeated interventions and multiple attempts to quit.

AREAS COVERED

Strategies for assisting smoking cessation include behavioural counselling and pharmacotherapy. Three drugs are currently used as first-line pharmacotherapy: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion and varenicline. Compared to placebo, the drug effect varies from RR = 2.27 for varenicline, to 1.69 for bupropion, and 1.60 for any form of NRT. Cytisine (similar to varenicline) has a RR = 3.98 compared to placebo (two trials). Second-line pharmacotherapies include nortriptyline and clonidine. This review also offers an overview of pipeline developments.

EXPERT OPINION

Effective medications exist, and clinicians should encourage and offer treatment to every smoker. However, most smokers try to quit by themselves, with only about 3% quitting successfully each year. Alternative interventions are needed. Harm reduction has not received much support to date. Safer alternative to tobacco smoking (smoke-free products, long-term use of cessation drugs, or electronic cigarettes) could save lives and reduce the burden of tobacco-related deaths and diseases. Despite some encouragement to develop a research agenda for e-cigarettes, particularly on the safety issues, too little attention has been brought to this area of research.