A randomized controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of varenicline for smoking cessation after acute coronary syndrome: design and methods of the Evaluation of Varenicline in Smoking Cessation for Patients Post-Acute Coronary Syndrome trial

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

In 2020, 32.6% of the world's population used tobacco. Smoking contributes to many illnesses that require hospitalisation. A hospital admission may prompt a quit attempt. Initiating smoking cessation treatment, such as pharmacotherapy and/or counselling, in hospitals may be an effective preventive health strategy. Pharmacotherapies work to reduce withdrawal/craving and counselling provides behavioural skills for quitting smoking. This review updates the evidence on interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, to understand the most effective smoking cessation treatment methods for hospitalised smokers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of any type of smoking cessation programme for patients admitted to an acute care hospital.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 7 September 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised studies of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients admitted to hospital quit. Interventions had to start in the hospital (including at discharge), and people had to have smoked within the last month. We excluded studies in psychiatric, substance and rehabilitation centres, as well as studies that did not measure abstinence at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from smoking assessed at least six months after discharge or the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically-validated rates where reported. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 82 studies (74 RCTs) that included 42,273 participants in the review (71 studies, 37,237 participants included in the meta-analyses); 36 studies are new to this update. We rated 10 studies as being at low risk of bias overall (low risk in all domains assessed), 48 at high risk of bias overall (high risk in at least one domain), and the remaining 24 at unclear risk. Cessation counselling versus no counselling, grouped by intensity of intervention Hospitalised patients who received smoking cessation counselling that began in the hospital and continued for more than a month after discharge had higher quit rates than patients who received no counselling in the hospital or following hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.49; 28 studies, 8234 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might account for an additional 76 quitters in every 1000 participants (95% CI 51 to 103). The evidence was uncertain (very low-certainty) about the effects of counselling interventions of less intensity or shorter duration (in-hospital only counselling ≤ 15 minutes: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1417 participants; and in-hospital contact plus follow-up counselling support for ≤ 1 month: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 7 studies, 4627 participants) versus no counselling. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that smoking cessation counselling for at least 15 minutes in the hospital without post-discharge support led to higher quit rates than no counselling in the hospital (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.58; 12 studies, 4432 participants). Pharmacotherapy versus placebo or no pharmacotherapy Nicotine replacement therapy helped more patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.67; 8 studies, 3838 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 62 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 9 to 126). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision (as CI encompassed the possibility of no difference), that varenicline helped more hospitalised patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 4 studies, 829 participants). Evidence for bupropion was low-certainty; the point estimate indicated a modest benefit at best, but CIs were wide and incorporated clinically significant harm and clinically significant benefit (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43, 4 studies, 872 participants). Hospital-only intervention versus intervention that continues after hospital discharge Patients offered both smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge had higher quit rates than patients offered counselling in hospital but not offered post-discharge support (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.38; 7 studies, 5610 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 34 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 to 55). Post-discharge interventions offering real-time counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.60, 8 studies, 2299 participants; low certainty-evidence) and those offering unscheduled counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 2 studies, 1598 participants; very low-certainty evidence) may have little to no effect on quit rates compared to control. Telephone quitlines versus control To provide post-discharge support, hospitals may refer patients to community-based telephone quitlines. Both comparisons relating to these interventions had wide CIs encompassing both possible harm and possible benefit, and were judged to be of very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias (post-discharge telephone counselling versus quitline referral: RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.51; 3 studies, 3260 participants; quitline referral versus control: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.96; 2 studies, 1870 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Offering hospitalised patients smoking cessation counselling beginning in hospital and continuing for over one month after discharge increases quit rates, compared to no hospital intervention. Counselling provided only in hospital, without post-discharge support, may have a modest impact on quit rates, but evidence is less certain. When all patients receive counselling in the hospital, high-certainty evidence indicates that providing both counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge increases quit rates compared to no post-discharge intervention. Starting nicotine replacement or varenicline in hospitalised patients helps more patients to quit smoking than a placebo or no medication, though evidence for varenicline is only moderate-certainty due to imprecision. There is less evidence of benefit for bupropion in this setting. Some of our evidence was limited by imprecision (bupropion versus placebo and varenicline versus placebo), risk of bias, and inconsistency related to heterogeneity. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies to implement, disseminate, and sustain interventions, and to ensure cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy initiated in the hospital is sustained after discharge.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

Background

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

Objectives

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

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. 

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e‐cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow‐up period of six months from baseline.

Data collection and analysis

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

Main results

We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk.

We found moderate‐certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I2 = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low‐certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I2 = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate‐certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I2 = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I2 = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low‐certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm.

Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline found no clear evidence of difference in quit rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.26; I2 = 65%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I2 = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low‐certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I2 = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I2 = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low‐certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I2 = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual‐form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low‐certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit.

Authors' conclusions

Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual‐form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be no difference or a benefit from either medication for quitting smoking.

Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard‐dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e‐cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Can medications like varenicline and cytisine (nicotine receptor partial agonists) help people to stop smoking and do they cause unwanted effects?

Key messages

· Varenicline can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. Evidence shows it works better than bupropion and using only one type of nicotine replacement therapy (e.g. only patches). Quit rates might be similar to using more than one type of nicotine replacement therapy at the same time (e.g. patches and gum together).

· Cytisine can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. It may work as well as varenicline, but future evidence may show that while it helps, it is not quite as helpful as varenicline.

· Future studies should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other stop‐smoking medications, and should also  investigate giving cytisine or varenicline at different doses and for different lengths of time.

What are 'nicotine receptor partial agonists'?

Smoking tobacco is extremely bad for people’s health. For people who smoke, quitting is the best thing they can do to improve their health. Many people find it difficult to quit smoking. Nicotine receptor partial agonists (NRPAs) are a type of medication used to help people to stop smoking. They help to reduce the withdrawal symptoms people experience when they stop smoking, like cravings and unpleasant mood changes. They also reduce the pleasure people usually experience when they smoke. The most widely‐available treatment in this drug type is varenicline. Cytisine is another, similar medication. They may cause unwanted effects such as feeling sick (nausea) and other stomach problems, difficulties sleeping, abnormal dreams, and headache. They may also lead to potentially serious unwanted effects, such as suicidal thoughts, heart problems and raised blood pressure.

What did we want to find out?

We wanted to find out if using NRPAs can help people to quit smoking, and if they cause unwanted effects. We wanted to know:

· how many people stopped smoking for at least 6 months; and

· how many people had unwanted effects.

What did we do?

We searched for studies that investigated NRPAs used to help people quit smoking. People in the studies had to be chosen at random to receive an NRPA, or another NRPA, placebo (medication like the NRPA but with no active ingredients) or no treatment. They had to be adult tobacco smokers who wanted to stop smoking.

What did we find?

We found 75 studies that compared NRPAs with:

· placebo or no medicine;

· nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches or gum;

· bupropion (another medicine to help people stop smoking);

· another NRPA;

· e‐cigarettes.

The USA hosted the most studies (28 studies). Other studies took place in a range of countries across the world, some in several countries.

Main results

People are more likely to stop smoking for at least six months using varenicline than using placebo (41 studies, 17,395 people), bupropion (9 studies, 7560 people), or just one type of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches alone (11 studies, 7572 people). They may be just as likely to quit as people using two or more kinds of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches and gum together (5 studies, 2344 people).

Cytisine probably helps more people to stop smoking than placebo (4 studies, 4623 people) and may be just as effective as varenicline (2 studies, 2131 people).

For every 100 people using varenicline to stop smoking, 21 to 25 might successfully stop, compared with only 18 of 100 people using bupropion, 18 of 100 people using a single form of nicotine‐replacement therapy, and 20 of 100 using two or more kinds of nicotine‐replacement therapy. For every 100 people using cytisine to stop smoking, 18 to 23 might successfully stop.

The most common unwanted effect of varenicline is nausea, but this is mostly at mild or moderate levels and usually clears over time. People taking varenicline likely have an increased chance of a more serious unwanted effect that could result in going to hospital, however these are still rare (2.7% to 4% of people on varenicline, compared with 2.7% of people without) and may include many that are unrelated to varenicline. People taking cytisine may also have a slightly increased chance of serious unwanted effects compared with people not taking it, but this may be less likely compared with varenicline.

What are the limitations of the evidence?

The evidence for some of our results is very reliable. We’re very confident that varenicline helps people to quit smoking better than many alternatives. We’re less sure of some other results because fewer or smaller studies provided evidence.

Several results suggest one treatment is better or less harmful than another, but the opposite could still be true.

How up to date is the evidence?

The evidence is up to date to 29 April 2022.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Cardiovascular prevention in elderly patients

In recent decades, life expectancy has been increasing significantly. In this scenario, health interventions are necessary to improve prognosis and quality of life of elderly with cardiovascular risk factors and cardiovascular disease. However, the number of elderly patients included in clinical trials is low, thus current clinical practice guidelines do not include specific recommendations. This document aims to review prevention recommendations focused in patients ≥ 75 years with high or very high cardiovascular risk, regarding objectives, medical treatment options and also including physical exercise and their inclusion in cardiac rehabilitation programs. Also, we will show why geriatric syndromes such as frailty, dependence, cognitive impairment, and nutritional status, as well as comorbidities, ought to be considered in this population regarding their important prognostic impact.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Most people who stop smoking gain weight. This can discourage some people from making a quit attempt and risks offsetting some, but not all, of the health advantages of quitting. Interventions to prevent weight gain could improve health outcomes, but there is a concern that they may undermine quitting.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effects of: (1) interventions targeting post-cessation weight gain on weight change and smoking cessation (referred to as 'Part 1') and (2) interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that plausibly affect post-cessation weight gain (referred to as 'Part 2').

SEARCH METHODS

Part 1 - We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; latest search 16 October 2020. Part 2 - We searched included studies in the following 'parent' Cochrane reviews: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, e-cigarettes, and exercise interventions for smoking cessation published in Issue 10, 2020 of the Cochrane Library. We updated register searches for the review of nicotine receptor partial agonists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Part 1 - trials of interventions that targeted post-cessation weight gain and had measured weight at any follow-up point or smoking cessation, or both, six or more months after quit day. Part 2 - trials included in the selected parent Cochrane reviews reporting weight change at any time point.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. Change in weight was expressed as difference in weight change from baseline to follow-up between trial arms and was reported only in people abstinent from smoking. Abstinence from smoking was expressed as a risk ratio (RR). Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the inverse variance method for weight, and Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking.

MAIN RESULTS

Part 1: We include 37 completed studies; 21 are new to this update. We judged five studies to be at low risk of bias, 17 to be at unclear risk and the remainder at high risk.  An intermittent very low calorie diet (VLCD) comprising full meal replacement provided free of charge and accompanied by intensive dietitian support significantly reduced weight gain at end of treatment compared with education on how to avoid weight gain (mean difference (MD) -3.70 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.82 to -2.58; 1 study, 121 participants), but there was no evidence of benefit at 12 months (MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI -3.49 to 0.89; 1 study, 62 participants). The VLCD increased the chances of abstinence at 12 months (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73; 1 study, 287 participants). However, a second study  found that no-one completed the VLCD intervention or achieved abstinence. Interventions aimed at increasing acceptance of weight gain reported mixed effects at end of treatment, 6 months and 12 months with confidence intervals including both increases and decreases in weight gain compared with no advice or health education. Due to high heterogeneity, we did not combine the data. These interventions increased quit rates at 6 months (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.96; 4 studies, 619 participants; I² = 21%), but there was no evidence at 12 months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.06; 2 studies, 496 participants; I² = 26%). Some pharmacological interventions tested for limiting post-cessation weight gain (PCWG) reduced weight gain at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine, phenylpropanolamine, naltrexone). The effects of ephedrine and caffeine combined, lorcaserin, and chromium were too imprecise to give useful estimates of treatment effects. There was very low-certainty evidence that personalized weight management support reduced weight gain at end of treatment (MD -1.11 kg, 95% CI -1.93 to -0.29; 3 studies, 121 participants; I² = 0%), but no evidence in the longer-term 12 months (MD -0.44 kg, 95% CI -2.34 to 1.46; 4 studies, 530 participants; I² = 41%). There was low to very low-certainty evidence that detailed weight management education without personalized assessment, planning and feedback did not reduce weight gain and may have reduced smoking cessation rates (12 months: MD -0.21 kg, 95% CI -2.28 to 1.86; 2 studies, 61 participants; I² = 0%; RR for smoking cessation 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90; 2 studies, 522 participants; I² = 0%). Part 2: We include 83 completed studies, 27 of which are new to this update. There was low certainty that exercise interventions led to minimal or no weight reduction compared with standard care at end of treatment (MD -0.25 kg, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.29; 4 studies, 404 participants; I² = 0%). However, weight was reduced at 12 months (MD -2.07 kg, 95% CI -3.78 to -0.36; 3 studies, 182 participants; I² = 0%). Both bupropion and fluoxetine limited weight gain at end of treatment (bupropion MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.67; 10 studies, 1098 participants; I² = 3%); (fluoxetine MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.53; 2 studies, 144 participants; I² = 38%; low- and very low-certainty evidence, respectively). There was no evidence of benefit at 12 months for bupropion, but estimates were imprecise (bupropion MD -0.26 kg, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.78; 7 studies, 471 participants; I² = 0%). No studies of fluoxetine provided data at 12 months. There was moderate-certainty that NRT reduced weight at end of treatment (MD -0.52 kg, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.05; 21 studies, 2784 participants; I² = 81%) and moderate-certainty that the effect may be similar at 12 months (MD -0.37 kg, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.11; 17 studies, 1463 participants; I² = 0%), although the estimates are too imprecise to assess long-term benefit. There was mixed evidence of the effect of varenicline on weight, with high-certainty evidence that weight change was very modestly lower at the end of treatment (MD -0.23 kg, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.06; 14 studies, 2566 participants; I² = 32%); a low-certainty estimate gave an imprecise estimate of higher weight at 12 months (MD 1.05 kg, 95% CI -0.58 to 2.69; 3 studies, 237 participants; I² = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is no intervention for which there is moderate certainty of a clinically useful effect on long-term weight gain. There is also no moderate- or high-certainty evidence that interventions designed to limit weight gain reduce the chances of people achieving abstinence from smoking.

Smoking abstinence 1 year after acute coronary syndrome: follow-up from a randomized controlled trial of varenicline in patients admitted to hospital

BACKGROUND

Patients who continue to smoke after acute coronary syndrome are at increased risk of reinfarction and death. We previously found use of varenicline to increase abstinence 24 weeks after acute coronary syndrome; here we report results through 52 weeks.

METHODS

The EVITA trial was a multicentre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of varenicline for smoking cessation in patients admitted to hospital with acute coronary syndrome. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive varenicline or placebo for 12 weeks, in conjunction with low-intensity counselling. Smoking abstinence was assessed via 7-day recall, with biochemical validation using exhaled carbon monoxide. Participants lost to follow-up or withdrawn were assumed to have returned to smoking.

RESULTS

Among the 302 participants, abstinence declined over the course of the trial, with 34.4% abstinent 52 weeks after acute coronary syndrome. Compared with placebo, point estimates suggest use of varenicline increased point-prevalence abstinence (39.9% v. 29.1%, difference 10.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01% to 21.44%; number needed to treat 10), continuous abstinence (31.1% v. 21.2%, difference 9.9%, 95% CI -0.01% to 19.8%) and reduction in daily cigarette smoking by 50% or greater (57.8% v. 49.7%, difference 8.1%, 95% CI -3.1% to 19.4%). Varenicline and placebo groups had similar occurrence of serious adverse events (24.5% v. 21.9%, risk difference 2.7%, 95% CI -7.3% to 12.6%) and major adverse cardiovascular events (8.6% v. 9.3%, risk difference -0.7%, 95% CI -7.8% to 6.5%).

INTERPRETATION

Varenicline was efficacious for smoking cessation in this high-risk patient population. However, 60% of patients who received treatment with varenicline still returned to smoking. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT00794573.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist).

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register for trials, using the terms ('cytisine' or 'Tabex' or 'dianicline' or 'varenicline' or 'nicotine receptor partial agonist') in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO using MeSH terms and free text to identify controlled trials of interventions for smoking cessation and prevention. We contacted authors of trial reports for additional information where necessary. The latest update of the specialised register was in May 2015, although we have included a few key trials published after this date. We also searched online clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials which compared the treatment drug with placebo. We also included comparisons with bupropion and nicotine patches where available. We excluded trials which did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from start of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on the type of participants, the dose and duration of treatment, the outcome measures, the randomisation procedure, concealment of allocation, and completeness of follow-up.The main outcome measured was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, and preferred biochemically validated rates where they were reported. Where appropriate we pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials of cytisine (937 people) found that more participants taking cytisine stopped smoking compared with placebo at longest follow-up, with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 3.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.01 to 7.87; low-quality evidence). One recent trial comparing cytisine with NRT in 1310 people found a benefit for cytisine at six months (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.80).One trial of dianicline (602 people) failed to find evidence that it was effective (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.75). This drug is no longer in development.We identified 39 trials that tested varenicline, 27 of which contributed to the primary analysis (varenicline versus placebo). Five of these trials also included a bupropion treatment arm. Eight trials compared varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Nine studies tested variations in varenicline dosage, and 13 tested usage in disease-specific subgroups of patients. The included studies covered 25,290 participants, 11,801 of whom used varenicline.The pooled RR for continuous or sustained abstinence at six months or longer for varenicline at standard dosage versus placebo was 2.24 (95% CI 2.06 to 2.43; 27 trials, 12,625 people; high-quality evidence). Varenicline at lower or variable doses was also shown to be effective, with an RR of 2.08 (95% CI 1.56 to 2.78; 4 trials, 1266 people). The pooled RR for varenicline versus bupropion at six months was 1.39 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.54; 5 trials, 5877 people; high-quality evidence). The RR for varenicline versus NRT for abstinence at 24 weeks was 1.25 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; 8 trials, 6264 people; moderate-quality evidence). Four trials which tested the use of varenicline beyond the 12-week standard regimen found the drug to be well-tolerated during long-term use. The number needed to treat with varenicline for an additional beneficial outcome, based on the weighted mean control rate, is 11 (95% CI 9 to 13). The most commonly reported adverse effect of varenicline was nausea, which was mostly at mild to moderate levels and usually subsided over time. Our analysis of reported serious adverse events occurring during or after active treatment suggests there may be a 25% increase in the chance of SAEs among people using varenicline (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.49; 29 trials, 15,370 people; high-quality evidence). These events include comorbidities such as infections, cancers and injuries, and most were considered by the trialists to be unrelated to the treatments. There is also evidence of higher losses to follow-up in the control groups compared with the intervention groups, leading to a likely underascertainment of the true rate of SAEs among the controls. Early concerns about a possible association between varenicline and depressed mood, agitation, and suicidal behaviour or ideation led to the addition of a boxed warning to the labelling in 2008. However, subsequent observational cohort studies and meta-analyses have not confirmed these fears, and the findings of the EAGLES trial do not support a causal link between varenicline and neuropsychiatric disorders, including suicidal ideation and suicidal behaviour. The evidence is not conclusive, however, in people with past or current psychiatric disorders. Concerns have also been raised that varenicline may slightly increase cardiovascular events in people already at increased risk of those illnesses. Current evidence neither supports nor refutes such an association, but we await the findings of the CATS trial, which should establish whether or not this is a valid concern.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cytisine increases the chances of quitting, although absolute quit rates were modest in two recent trials. Varenicline at standard dose increased the chances of successful long-term smoking cessation between two- and three-fold compared with pharmacologically unassisted quit attempts. Lower dose regimens also conferred benefits for cessation, while reducing the incidence of adverse events. More participants quit successfully with varenicline than with bupropion or with NRT. Limited evidence suggests that varenicline may have a role to play in relapse prevention. The most frequently recorded adverse effect of varenicline is nausea, but mostly at mild to moderate levels and tending to subside over time. Early reports of possible links to suicidal ideation and behaviour have not been confirmed by current research.Future trials of cytisine may test extended regimens and more intensive behavioural support.

Varenicline for Smoking Cessation in Hospitalized Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome

Background—

Less than one-third of smokers hospitalized with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remain abstinent following discharge. We assessed whether varenicline, begun in-hospital, is efficacious for smoking cessation following ACS.

Methods and Results—

We conducted a multi-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which smokers hospitalized with an ACS were randomized to varenicline or placebo for 12 weeks. All patients received low-intensity counseling. The primary end point was point-prevalence smoking abstinence assessed at 24 weeks by 7-day recall and biochemical validation using expired carbon monoxide. A total of 302 patients were randomized (mean age 55±9 years; 75% male; 56% ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; 38% non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; 6% unstable angina). Patients smoked a mean of 21±11 cigarettes/d at the time of hospitalization and had been smoking for a mean of 36±12 years. At 24 weeks, patients randomized to varenicline had significantly higher rates of smoking abstinence and reduction than patients randomized to placebo. Point-prevalence abstinence rates were 47.3% in the varenicline group and 32.5% in the placebo group ( P =0.012; number needed to treat=6.8). Continuous abstinence rates were 35.8% and 25.8%, respectively ( P =0.081; number needed to treat=10.0), and rates of reduction ≥50% in daily cigarette consumption were 67.4% and 55.6%, respectively ( P =0.05; number needed to treat=8.5). Adverse event rates within 30 days of study drug discontinuation were similar between groups (serious adverse events: varenicline 11.9%, placebo 11.3%; major adverse cardiovascular events: varenicline 4.0%, placebo 4.6%).

Conclusions—

Varenicline, initiated in-hospital following ACS, is efficacious for smoking cessation. Future studies are needed to establish safety in these patients.

Clinical Trial Registration—

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00794573.