A double-blind randomized placebo-controlled pilot study of neuropsychiatric adverse events in abstinent smokers treated with varenicline or placebo

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.

Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes.

DESIGN

Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results.

SETTING

Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events.

DATA SOURCES

Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model.

RESULTS

Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard.

LIMITATIONS

Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK.

FUTURE WORK

Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events associated with varenicline treatment for smoking cessation among Dutch population: A sequence symmetry analysis

Purpose

Varenicline is an effective treatment for smoking cessation. While clinical trials did not confirm a causal role, case reports suggested a possible link of varenicline with neuropsychiatric adverse drug events (NPAEs). This study aims to investigate the risk of NPAEs associated with varenicline initiation among the general population in a real‐world setting.

Methods

We conducted a sequence symmetry analysis (SSA) based on the University of Groningen IADB.nl prescription database. We selected incident users of both varenicline and marker drugs for NPAEs, including depression, anxiety and sleep disorder within different time‐intervals. Adjusted sequence ratios (aSR) were calculated for each time‐interval.

Results

Within 365‐days' time‐interval 1066 patients were incident users of both varenicline and NPAE marker drugs. In total, 505 patients were prescribed varenicline before NPAE marker drugs and 561 vice versa (crude sequence ratio [cSR] 0.90, 95% CI: 0.80–1.02). After adjustments for trends in prescriptions, overall a null association was found (aSR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.89–1.13). Regarding specific NPAEs, no increased risks were found for depression nor anxiety within any time‐interval. A small transient increased risk was found for sleep disorders, particularly in earlier time‐intervals 3 and 6 months (aSRs 1.52, 95% CI: 1.10–2.11 and 1.45, 95% CI: 1.15–1.83, respectively). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.

Conclusions

Varenicline initiation was unlikely to be associated with an increased risk of taking anti‐depressants nor anti‐anxiety drugs. Yet a small, but statistically significant, transient association with drugs for sleep disorders was noticed, possibly associated with withdrawal symptoms caused by smoking cessation.

Neuropsychiatric safety of varenicline in the general and COPD population with and without psychiatric disorders: a retrospective cohort study in a real-world setting

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the real-world association between varenicline and neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPAEs) in general and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) population with and without psychiatric disorders compared with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to strengthen the knowledge of varenicline safety.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Prescription database IADB.nl, the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

New users of varenicline or NRT among general (≥18 years) and COPD (≥40 years) population. Psychiatric subcohort was defined as people prescribed psychotropic medications (≥2) within 6 months before the index date.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The incidence of NPAEs including depression, anxiety and insomnia, defined by new or naive prescriptions of related medications in IADB.nl within 24 weeks after the first treatment initiation of varenicline or NRT.

RESULTS

For the general population in non-psychiatric cohort, the incidence of total NPAEs in varenicline (4480) and NRT (1970) groups was 10.5% and 12.6%, respectively (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.00). For the general population in psychiatric cohort, the incidence of total NPAEs was much higher, 75.3% and 78.5% for varenicline (1427) and NRT (1200) groups, respectively (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.99). For the COPD population (1598), there were no differences in the incidence of NPAEs between comparison groups in both the psychiatric cohort (aOR 0.97, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.44) and non-psychiatric cohort (aOR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.20). Results from subgroup or sensitivity analyses also did not reveal increased risks of NPAEs but showed decreased risk of some subgroup NPAEs associated with varenicline.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to the concerns of a possible increased risk of NPAEs among varenicline users, we found a relative decreased risk of total NPAEs in varenicline users of the general population in psychiatric or non-psychiatric cohorts compared with NRT and no difference for NPAEs between varenicline and NRT users in smaller population with COPD.

Cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric safety of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies in non-depressed adults: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation are widely prescribed, despite substantial concerns being raised regarding the potential increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) and neuropsychiatric adverse events associated with these treatments. This study aimed to assess the relative CV and neuropsychiatric safety between varenicline and bupropion compared with nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) in adults without a recent history of depression.

DESIGN

Retrospective new-user cohort study.

SETTING

US administrative data from 2006 to 2016 covering more than 100 million individuals.

PARTICIPANTS

Three study cohorts of new users, aged 18 years or older, limited to patients with no diagnosis or treatment for depression in the prior 12 months.

MEASUREMENTS

Propensity score adjusted log-binomial regression models. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalized CV events. Secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalized neuropsychiatric events and individual components of the primary outcome.

FINDINGS

A total of 618 497 participants were included in our study cohorts. Compared with NRT (n = 32 237), varenicline (n = 454 698) was associated with a 20% lower 1-year CV risk [adjusted relative risk (RR) = 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.75-0.85], and bupropion (n = 131 562) was associated with a 25% lower 1-year CV risk (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.69-0.81). Varenicline was associated with a 35% lower 1-year risk of neuropsychiatric hospitalization versus NRT (RR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.59-0.72), and bupropion was associated with a 21% increase in 1-year risk of neuropsychiatric hospitalization (RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.09-1.35).

CONCLUSION

Varenicline compared with nicotine replacement therapy does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular or neuropsychiatric hospitalizations. Bupropion appears to be associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular hospitalization and a higher risk of neuropsychiatric hospitalization, compared with nicotine replacement therapy.

Sex Differences in Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapy Comparative Efficacy: A Network Meta-analysis

Introduction

Converging clinical and biological evidence suggest sex is an important factor when selecting a pharmacological intervention for smoking cessation. The current investigation used network meta-analyses to estimate sex differences in the comparative efficacy of transdermal nicotine (TN), varenicline, and sustained release (SR) bupropion for smoking cessation.

Methods

Systematically searched previously published reviews and databases (Medline, PsycINFO, Embase) of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of bupropion-SR, TN, and varenicline for cigarette smoking cessation in primary care/general community samples were included.

Results

Thirty-two studies met all criteria and 28 (88%) were included in the final analyses, representing 14 389 smokers (51% female). Results of the full sample (women and men combined) mirrored those from a Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group network meta-analysis of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy, showing VAR>TN=BUP. All medications improved quit rates over placebo for both women and men. Relative to placebo, varenicline efficacy was similar for women and men. Significant sex differences were evident when comparing varenicline versus TN and varenicline versus bupropion. For women, varenicline was more efficacious than TN (RR = 1.41; 95% CI = 1.12,1.76) and bupropion (RR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.08,1.77). For men, outcomes for those treated with TN and bupropion were similar to those treated with varenicline. There were no differences in efficacy when comparing bupropion versus TN.

Conclusions

The advantage of varenicline over bupropion SR and TN is greater for women than men. Clinicians should strongly consider varenicline as the first option treatment for women. Among men, the advantage of varenicline over TN or bupropion is less clear.

Implications

This study provides information for the sex-informed treatment of nicotine addiction among cigarette smokers. Relative to placebo, women and men achieved similar outcomes when treated with varenicline; however the advantages of varenicline over transdermal patch and bupropion were greater for women compared to men.

[Comparative analysis: Effectiveness of nicotine addiction treatment in people with psychiatric comorbidity]

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether or not nicotine addiction treatment was less effective in psychiatric than in the healthy population.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective, descriptive and comparative cohort study was conducted in Albacete University Hospital during years 2008-2012 on all patients that attended the Tobacco Cessation Unit. The statistical tests used were Chi-squared, likelihood ratio, and the Student t test. Statistical significance P≤.05.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 1,484 patients, of which 48.6% were female. The mean age was 46.8 years, and the mean age of starting smoking was 17.6 years. The mean number of previous attempts to quit was 1.48, and mean number of cigarettes smoked was 25.39. They had a mean Fagerström score of 6.04, a Richmond score of 8.13, and a mean carbon monoxide level of 16.65ppm. Most patients were referred from Primary Care (38.7%) and Chest Diseases department (33%), and the type of tobacco smoked was "light" in 75.8%. There was 15% with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 8% with asthma, and 9.4% with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome. Furthermore, there was respiratory disease in 28.7%, cardiovascular disease in 4.6%, and both in 3.5%. Hiatus hernia was present in 7.2%, thyroid disease in 3.8%, hypertension in 19%, diabetes in 10.7%, and dyslipidaemia in 29.4%, Drugs were used by 7.1%, and 12.6% consumed alcohol. There was 39.3% psychiatric comorbidity (PC), and were comparable except in gender, age of onset, Fagerström, Richmond, source of referral, asthma, hiatus hernia, thyroid disease, hypertension, as well as drugs and treatment. Drug treatment was completed by 22.3% in the PC group, with no significant difference. There were differences in success (P=.008), but not in failure and relapse rates.

CONCLUSION

Anti-smoking treatment in psychiatric patients is effective. An increase in the probability of treatment success is observed in patients without psychiatric comorbidity.

Varenicline for smoking cessation and reduction in people with severe mental illnesses: systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To determine the effectiveness and safety of varenicline in treating tobacco dependence in patients with severe mental illness.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that compared varenicline with a placebo or an alternative intervention for smoking cessation or reduction.

SETTING

Both in- and out-patient settings in any country.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients aged 18 years and over with any type of severe mental illness. The systematic review included eight studies comprising 398 participants.

MEASURES

Primary outcome measures were (1) smoking cessation, (2) smoking reduction measured by changes in the number of cigarettes smoked per day and (3) number of psychiatric adverse events, which were collected at the end of treatment.

FINDINGS

The random-effect pooled estimates from the five studies that reported smoking-related outcomes found that varenicline is statistically superior to placebo in smoking cessation [risk ratios 4.33; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.96-9.56], and smoking reduction was higher in varenicline groups (mean reduced daily cigarettes was 6.39; 95% CI = 2.22-10.56). There is no significant difference regarding neuropsychiatric and other adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline appears to be significantly more effective than placebo in assisting with smoking cessation and reduction in people with severe mental illness. There appears to be no clear evidence that varenicline was associated with an increased risk of neuropsychiatric or other adverse events compared with placebo.

Varenicline in smokers with diabetes: A pooled analysis of 15 randomized, placebo-controlled studies of varenicline

Aims/Introduction

Stopping smoking deserves high priority in preventing complications of diabetes; however, only sparse data are available regarding the efficacy of pharmacotherapy in smokers with diabetes. We assessed the efficacy and safety of varenicline in smokers with diabetes who participated in 15 double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled studies.

Materials and Methods

This retrospective pooled analysis included data from smokers of ≥10 cigarettes per day with diabetes. Participants received varenicline 1 mg b.i.d. or placebo for 12 weeks. We examined carbon monoxide‐confirmed continuous abstinence rates (CARs) for weeks 9–12, 9–24 and 9–52, and compared safety in participants with and without diabetes.

Results

Of 6,771 participants, 323 had diabetes (varenicline n = 162; placebo n = 161). Week 9–12 CAR was higher with varenicline than placebo (43.8% vs 24.8%; odds ratio 2.36, 95% CI 1.47–3.79), as was week 9–24 CAR (27.5% vs 14.4%; odds ratio 2.25, 95% CI 1.27–4.00). Week 9–52 CAR was 18.4% for varenicline and 10.1% for placebo (odds ratio 2.00, 95% CI 0.90–4.49). The most commonly‐reported adverse events in participants with diabetes for varenicline vs placebo were: nausea (27.2% vs 8.1%); headache (9.3% vs 9.9%); and insomnia (8.6% vs 5.6%), incidences that were similar in participants without diabetes (29.6% vs 9.7%; 13.4% vs 10.9%; and 11.4% vs 7.1%, respectively). Weight gain in quitters with diabetes (1.7 kg) was similar to that of those without diabetes (2.1 kg).

Conclusions

Varenicline was an effective and well‐tolerated aid for smoking cessation in individuals with diabetes. Safety was comparable with participants without diabetes.

A comparison of neuropsychiatric adverse events during early treatment with varenicline or a nicotine patch

AIMS

We compared the risk of mental health episodes requiring hospitalization (primary aim) or out-patient clinic visits (secondary aim) associated with varenicline versus the nicotine patch (NP) in an era prior to psychiatric boxed warnings.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), USA.

PARTICIPANTS

VA patients with or without psychiatric comorbidities and a new prescription for varenicline (15 255) were propensity score-matched (1 : 2) to new users of NP (123 054) between 1 May 2006 and 30 September 2007, resulting in 11 774 and 23 548 patients in the varenicline and NP groups, respectively.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcomes were hospitalizations with a primary discharge diagnosis of a range of mental health disorders: depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, suicide attempt, post-traumatic stress disorder, other psychosis and drug-induced mental disorders. Secondary outcomes were out-patient clinic visits with a primary diagnosis of the above list of mental health disorders.

FINDINGS

Background characteristics of the treatment groups were similar after matching. There was no statistically significant difference in risk of hospitalization for any of the studied mental health disorders with varenicline compared with NP. Among secondary outcomes there was an increased risk of out-patient clinic visits for schizophrenia among patients who received varenicline [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.27; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.07, 1.51], this increase being evident only in those with a pre-existing mental health disorder.

CONCLUSION

In US VA patients studied prior to the boxed warning being implemented, use of varenicline for smoking cessation was not associated with a detectable increase compared with nicotine patches in hospitalization for any mental health outcomes. There was an increased rate of out-patient attendances with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia amounting to five per 100 person years of treatment. This increase was found only in patients with a pre-existing mental health disorder.

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 and Adverse Cardiovascular Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Varenicline is an efficacious smoking‐cessation drug. However, previous meta‐analyses provide conflicting results regarding its cardiovascular safety. The publication of several new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provides an opportunity to reassess this potential adverse drug reaction.

Methods and Results

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs that compare varenicline with placebo for smoking cessation. RCTs reporting cardiovascular serious adverse events and/or all‐cause mortality during the treatment period or within 30 days of treatment discontinuation were eligible for inclusion. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs were generated by using DerSimonian–Laird random‐effects models. Thirty‐eight RCTs met our inclusion criteria (N=12 706). Events were rare in both varenicline (57/7213) and placebo (43/5493) arms. No difference was observed for cardiovascular serious adverse events when comparing varenicline with placebo (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.72–1.49). Similar findings were obtained when examining cardiovascular (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.57–1.89) and noncardiovascular patients (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.64–1.64). Deaths were rare in both varenicline (11/7213) and placebo (9/5493) arms. Although 95% CIs were wide, pooling of all‐cause mortality found no difference between groups (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.50–1.52), including when stratified by participants with (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.40–3.83) and without (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.40–1.48) cardiovascular disease.

Conclusions

We found no evidence that varenicline increases the rate of cardiovascular serious adverse events. Results were similar among those with and without cardiovascular disease. Given varenicline's efficacy as a smoking cessation drug and the long‐term cardiovascular benefits of cessation, it should continue to be prescribed for smoking cessation.

The possible role of maternal bonding style and CHRNB2 gene polymorphisms in nicotine dependence and related depressive phenotype

OBJECTIVES

Neuronal nicotinic acetylcholinergic receptors (nAChR) and especially α4β2 nAChRs are the major targets for cessation medications and also for some promising antidepressant agents. Furthermore, depressive symptoms pose multifacet difficulties during cessation therapy. However, gene encoding for the β2 subunit of nAChRs has been poorly investigated in association with depression. Since both nicotine dependence (ND) and depressive phenotype are complex disorders, we investigated the effects of a significant early life experience, maternal bonding style (MB) and CHRNB2 gene SNPs on smoking-related depression.

METHODS

We recruited two hundred and thirty-two treatment-seeking smokers in our study. Phenotypic variants were evaluated using the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND), the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (ZSDS) and the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI). Besides the total score (TS) of ZSDS, impulsivity (ZSDS-I) and suicidal ideation (ZSDS-S) were distinguished as phenotypic variable. DNAs were extracted from buccal mucosa samples and one SNP in promoter and two SNPs in 3' UTR of CHRNB2 gene were genotyped. GLM and ANOVA tests were performed for genotype associations and interaction analyses.

RESULTS

Maternal bonding had a significant impact on depressive phenotypes. Low care, high protection and affectionless control (ALC) were associated with ZSDS-TS and all subphenotypes of ZSDS. One SNP, the rs2072660 in 3' UTR, had a significant effect on the FTND score (p=0.010). Direct association of CHRNB2 variants and depressive phenotypes were not significant. However, in interaction with ALC, rs2072660 was significantly associated with ZSDS-S (p=0.005). MB had no significant effect on smoking-related phenotype.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results highlight the important role of 3' UTR in the CHRNB2 gene in the shared molecular background of ND and depressive phenotype. Parental bonding style can be suggested as a significant environmental factor in further GxE studies of depression. The presented significant GxE interaction on smoking-related suicidal subphenotype may help establish further investigations on development of more effective and safer smoking cessation and antidepressant agents.

Varenicline and risk of psychiatric conditions, suicidal behaviour, criminal offending, and transport accidents and offences: population based cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To examine associations between varenicline and the incidence of a range of adverse outcomes.

DESIGN

Population based cohort study using within person analyses to control for confounding by indication.

SETTING

Whole population of Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

7,917,436 people aged 15 and over, of whom 69,757 were treated with varenicline between 2006 and 2009.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incidence of new psychiatric conditions, suicidal behaviour, suspected and convicted criminal offending, transport accidents, and suspected and convicted traffic offences.

RESULTS

In the whole population, 337,393 new psychiatric conditions were diagnosed during follow-up. In addition, 507,823 suspected and 338,608 convicted crimes, 40,595 suicidal events, 124,445 transport accidents, and 99,895 suspected and 57,068 convicted traffic crimes were recorded. Within person analyses showed that varenicline was not associated with significant hazards of suicidal behaviour, criminal offending, transport accidents, traffic offences, or psychoses. However, varenicline was associated with a small increase in the risk of anxiety conditions (hazard ratio 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.51) and mood conditions (1.31, 1.06 to 1.63), which was only seen in people with pre-existing psychiatric disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

Concerns that varenicline is associated with an increased risk of many adverse outcomes, including suicidality and accidents, are not supported in this observational study. The small increase in risk of two psychiatric conditions in people with pre-existing psychiatric disorders needs to be confirmed using other research designs.

Smoking cessation in Asians: focus on varenicline

Smoking is a modifiable risk factor for morbidity and mortality caused by cancer, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, and many other diseases. Given the large population size and high prevalence of smoking in Asia, successful smoking cessation could potentially prevent the large number of premature deaths in Asians. However, most dependent smokers cannot successfully quit smoking due to nicotine addiction, and they need professional help and smoking cessation therapies. Varenicline is a highly selective partial agonist for the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor α4β2 subtype, which is believed to be responsible for mediating the reinforcing properties of nicotine. This article is a narrative review, which summarizes the smoking cessation efficacy, side effects, and cost utilities of varenicline in Asians. From this review, we conclude that varenicline is an effective medication that could assist smoking cessation in the Asian populations. The adverse events of varenicline are tolerable, and the most common events were nausea and abnormal dreams. Both the efficacy and tolerance of varenicline in Asians are similar to that in Western populations. Considering the cost utilities, varenicline should be recommended for use in smoking cessation and be covered by medical insurance in most Asian countries.

Risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events associated with varenicline: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events associated with use of varenicline compared with placebo in randomised controlled trials.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing study effects using two summary estimates in fixed effects models, risk differences, and Peto odds ratios.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and clinicaltrials.gov.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials with a placebo comparison group that reported on neuropsychiatric adverse events (depression, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, suicide, insomnia, sleep disorders, abnormal dreams, somnolence, fatigue, anxiety) and death. Studies that did not involve human participants, did not use the maximum recommended dose of varenicline (1 mg twice daily), and were cross over trials were excluded.

RESULTS

In the 39 randomised controlled trials (10,761 participants), there was no evidence of an increased risk of suicide or attempted suicide (odds ratio 1.67, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 8.57), suicidal ideation (0.58, 0.28 to 1.20), depression (0.96, 0.75 to 1.22), irritability (0.98, 0.81 to 1.17), aggression (0.91, 0.52 to 1.59), or death (1.05, 0.47 to 2.38) in the varenicline users compared with placebo users. Varenicline was associated with an increased risk of sleep disorders (1.63, 1.29 to 2.07), insomnia (1.56, 1.36 to 1.78), abnormal dreams (2.38, 2.05 to 2.77), and fatigue (1.28, 1.06 to 1.55) but a reduced risk of anxiety (0.75, 0.61 to 0.93). Similar findings were observed when risk differences were reported. There was no evidence for a variation in depression and suicidal ideation by age group, sex, ethnicity, smoking status, presence or absence of psychiatric illness, and type of study sponsor (that is, pharmaceutical industry or other).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis found no evidence of an increased risk of suicide or attempted suicide, suicidal ideation, depression, or death with varenicline. These findings provide some reassurance for users and prescribers regarding the neuropsychiatric safety of varenicline. There was evidence that varenicline was associated with a higher risk of sleep problems such as insomnia and abnormal dreams. These side effects, however, are already well recognised.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014009224.

Effects of varenicline, nicotine or placebo on depressive symptoms in postmenopausal smokers

BACKGROUND

Varenicline carries a black box warning for neuropsychiatric adverse events.

OBJECTIVE

We examined varenicline use and past history of major depressive disorder (MDD) on depressive symptoms during smoking cessation.

METHOD

This is a secondary analysis of two smoking cessation studies in 152 postmenopausal women who received placebo or nicotine patch, or 78 women who received varenicline with relaxation. Lifetime history of MDD (LH-MDD) was assessed at baseline and women with current MDD were excluded. Center for Epidemiologic Study Depression scale (CESD) measured depressive symptoms at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Baseline CESD scores were 5.3 + 4.4. Those with a LH-MDD reported higher CESD scores (p > .001). Those taking varenicline reported lower scores over all time periods compared to nicotine or placebo (p < .01). The differences between varenicline and the other treatments remained when controlling for LH-MDD, indicating an independent effect. CESD scores were associated with concurrent smoking status (p < .001), and with withdrawal symptoms (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

CESD score were lower in those receiving varenicline, whether this is due to an anti-depressant effect, subject selection, use of relaxation or another cause is unknown. Varenicline does not increase depressive symptoms during smoking cessation in postmenopausal women without current MDD. Subjects with a LH-MDD are susceptible to developing depressive symptoms during smoking cessation, regardless of pharmacologic aid.

SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

Pharmacologic aids did not increase depression symptoms in this select population of postmenopausal women without current depression. Smoking cessation does increase depressive symptoms in those with LH-MDD, though the degree of increase was not clinically meaningful.

Rationale and design of a randomized controlled trial of varenicline directly observed therapy delivered in methadone clinics

Background

Tobacco cessation medication adherence is one of the few factors shown to improve smoking cessation rates among methadone-maintained smokers, but interventions to improve adherence to smoking cessation medications have not yet been tested among methadone treatment patients. Methadone clinic-based, directly observed therapy (DOT) programs for HIV and tuberculosis improve adherence and clinical outcomes, but have not been evaluated for smoking cessation. We describe a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether a methadone clinic-based, directly observed varenicline therapy program increases adherence and tobacco abstinence among opioid-dependent drug users receiving methadone treatment.

Methods/Design

We plan to enroll 100 methadone-maintained smokers and randomize them to directly observed varenicline dispensed with daily methadone doses or treatment as usual (self-administered varenicline) for 12 weeks. Our outcome measures are: 1) pill count adherence and 2) carbon monoxide-verified tobacco abstinence. We will assess differences in adherence and abstinence between the two treatment arms using repeated measures models.

Discussion

This trial will allow for rigorous evaluation of the efficacy of methadone clinic-based, directly observed varenicline for improving adherence and smoking cessation outcomes. This detailed description of trial methodology can serve as a template for the development of future DOT programs and can guide protocols for studies among opioid-dependent smokers receiving methadone treatment.

Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov NCT01378858

Retreatment with varenicline for smoking cessation in smokers who have previously taken varenicline: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

The efficacy and safety of retreatment with varenicline in smokers attempting to quit were evaluated in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial (Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Participants were generally healthy adult smokers (≥10 cigarettes/day) with ≥1 prior quit attempt (≥2 weeks) using varenicline and no quit attempts in ≤3 months; they were randomly assigned (1:1) to 12 weeks' varenicline (n = 251) or placebo (n = 247) treatment, with individual counseling, plus 40 weeks' nontreatment follow-up. The primary efficacy end point was the carbon monoxide–confirmed (≤10 ppm) continuous abstinence rate for weeks 9–12, which was 45.0% (varenicline; n = 249) vs. 11.8% (placebo; n = 245; odds ratio: 7.08; 95% confidence interval: 4.34, 11.55; P < 0.0001). Common varenicline group adverse events were nausea, abnormal dreams, and headache, with no reported suicidal behavior. Varenicline is efficacious and well tolerated in smokers who have previously taken it. Abstinence rates are comparable with rates reported for varenicline-naive smokers.

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.

Cardiovascular events associated with smoking cessation pharmacotherapies: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Stopping smoking is associated with many important improvements in health and quality of life. The use of cessation medications is recommended to increase the likelihood of quitting. However, there is historical and renewed concern that smoking cessation therapies may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease events associated within the quitting period. We aimed to examine whether the 3 licensed smoking cessation therapies-nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, and varenicline-were associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease events using a network meta-analysis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched 10 electronic databases, were in communication with authors of published randomized, clinical trials (RCTs), and accessed internal US Food and Drug Administration reports. We included any RCT of the 3 treatments that reported cardiovascular disease outcomes. Among 63 eligible RCTs involving 21 nicotine replacement therapy RCTs, 28 bupropion RCTs, and 18 varenicline RCTs, we found no increase in the risk of all cardiovascular disease events with bupropion (relative risk [RR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-1.73) or varenicline (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.79-2.23). There was an elevated risk associated with nicotine replacement therapy that was driven predominantly by less serious events (RR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.39-3.82). When we examined major adverse cardiovascular events, we found a protective effect with bupropion (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.21-0.85) and no clear evidence of harm with varenicline (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.66-2.66) or nicotine replacement therapy (RR, 1.95; 95% CI, 0.26-4.30).

CONCLUSION

Smoking cessation therapies do not appear to raise the risk of serious cardiovascular disease events.

A double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial of varenicline for smokeless tobacco dependence in India

INTRODUCTION

The rate of smokeless tobacco use in India is 20%; its use causes serious health problems, and no trial has assessed behavioral or pharmacological treatments for this public health concern. This trial evaluated varenicline for treating smokeless tobacco dependence in India.

METHODS

This was a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial of varenicline (12 weeks, 1mg, twice per day) with 237 smokeless tobacco users in India. All participants received behavioral counseling. Outcomes included self-reported and biochemically verified abstinence at the end of treatment (EOT), lapse and recovery events, safety, and medication adherence.

RESULTS

Self-reported EOT abstinence was significantly greater for varenicline (43%) versus placebo (31%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.6, 95% CI = 1.2-4.2, p = .009). Biochemically confirmed EOT abstinence was greater for varenicline versus placebo (25.2% vs. 19.5%), but this was not statistically different (AOR = 1.6, 95% CI = 0.84-3.1, p = .15). Compared with placebo, varenicline did not reduce the risk for a lapse (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.69-1.1, p = .14), but it did increase the likelihood of recovery to abstinence (HR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.02-1.4, p = .02). Greater adherence increased EOT cessation rates for varenicline (39% vs. 18%, p = .003) but not for placebo (28% vs. 14%, p = .06). There were no significant differences between varenicline and placebo in rate of side effects, serious adverse events, hypertension, or stopping or reducing medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline is safe for treating smokeless tobacco dependence in India, and further examination of this medication for this important public health problem is warranted.

Varenicline, smoking cessation, and neuropsychiatric adverse events

OBJECTIVE

In 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a black box warning for varenicline regarding neuropsychiatric events. The authors used data from randomized controlled trials and from a large Department of Defense (DOD) observational study to assess the efficacy and safety of varenicline.

METHOD

The authors reanalyzed data from the 17 placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (N=8,027) of varenicline conducted by Pfizer, using complete intent-to-treat person-level longitudinal data to assess smoking abstinence and reports of suicidal thoughts and behavior, depression, aggression/agitation, and nausea and to compare effects in patients with (N=1,004) and without (N=7,023) psychiatric disorders. The authors also analyzed a large DOD data set to compare acute (30-day and 60-day) rates of neuropsychiatric adverse events in patients receiving varenicline or nicotine replacement therapy (N=35,800) and to assess reports of anxiety, mood, and psychotic symptoms and disorders, other mental disorders, and suicide attempt.

RESULTS

In the randomized controlled trials, varenicline increased the risk of nausea (odds ratio=3.69, 95% CI=3.03-4.48) but not rates of suicidal events, depression, or aggression/agitation. It significantly increased the abstinence rate, by 124% compared with placebo and 22% compared with bupropion. Having a current or past psychiatric illness increased the risk of neuropsychiatric events equally in treated and placebo patients. In the DOD study, after propensity score matching, the overall rate of neuropsychiatric disorders was significantly lower for varenicline than for nicotine replacement therapy (2.28% compared with 3.16%).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis revealed no evidence that varenicline is associated with adverse neuropsychiatric events. The evidence supports the superior efficacy of varenicline relative to both placebo and bupropion, indicating considerable benefit without evidence of risk of serious neuropsychiatric adverse events, in individuals with and without a recent history of a psychiatric disorder.

Effect of varenicline on individual nicotine withdrawal symptoms: a combined analysis of eight randomized, placebo-controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Concerns exist that varenicline may cause neuropsychiatric side effects. Some of these symptoms (e.g., depression, irritability) have been measured in clinical trials using nicotine withdrawal scales. This study assessed the effect of varenicline on neuropsychiatric and other symptoms, as measured by the Minnesota Nicotine Withdrawal Scale (MNWS).

METHODS

We analyzed weekly individual MNWS symptom ratings in 8 randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled smoking cessation trials funded by Pfizer with similar methodology (n = 2,403 varenicline; n = 1,434 placebo). Ratings for the past 24hr were obtained prior to quitting and starting treatment and at Weeks 1-6 and 11 after the quit date.

RESULTS

In repeated measures analyses controlling for baseline values, ratings for 5 neuropsychiatric symptoms (depressed mood, irritability, anxiety, difficulty concentrating, and restlessness) and urge to smoke were lower (p < .01) for varenicline than placebo at each timepoint. Worsening in scores from 0-2 (baseline) to 4 was less frequent on varenicline than placebo for all ratings except appetite- (significantly more frequent for varenicline, p < .0001) and sleep-related items. Repeated measures analysis for individuals with low levels of exhaled carbon monoxide revealed similar patterns except for a nonsignificant difference for increased appetite.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of varenicline while trying to quit smoking reduces and does not increase neuropsychiatric symptoms such as depressed mood and irritability measured on the MNWS in smokers without current psychiatric disorders. It is associated with increases in sleep disturbance and appetite although the latter appears due to enabling more subjects to abstain from smoking.

Effects of short-term varenicline administration on emotional and cognitive processing in healthy, non-smoking adults: a randomized, double-blind, study

Varenicline is an effective and increasingly prescribed drug for smoking cessation, but has been associated with depressive symptoms and suicidal behavior. However, it remains unclear whether those changes in mood and behavior are directly related to varenicline use, or caused by smoking cessation itself or reflects depression and suicidality rates in smokers, independent of treatment. To investigate the influence of varenicline on mood and behavior independent of smoking and smoking cessation, we assessed the effects of varenicline on emotional processing (a biomarker of depressogenic effects), emotion-potentiated startle reactivity, impulsivity (linked with suicidal behavior), and cognitive performance in non-smoking subjects. We used a randomized, double-blind design, in which we administered varenicline or placebo to healthy subjects over 7 days (0.5 mg/day first 3 days, then 1 mg/day). Cognitive and emotional processing was assessed by a battery of computerized tasks and recording of emotion-potentiated startle response. A total of 41 subjects were randomized, with 38 subjects included in the analysis. The varenicline group did not differ from placebo in terms of negative biases in emotional processing or mood. However, compared with placebo, the varenicline group scored higher on working and declarative memory. In conclusion, short-term varenicline use did not influence negative biases in emotional processing or impulsivity in non-smoking subjects, thereby not supporting direct depressogenic or suicidal risk behavior-inducing effects. In contrast, varenicline may have cognitive-enhancing effects.

Neuropsychiatric events in varenicline and nicotine replacement patch users in the Military Health System

AIM

To determine the rate ratio of neuropsychiatric hospitalizations in new users of varenicline compared to new users of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) patch in the Military Health System (MHS).

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Varenicline (n = 19,933) and NRT patch (n = 15,867) users who initiated therapy from 1 August 2006 to 31 August 2007 within the MHS were included in this retrospective cohort study. After matching according to propensity scores, 10,814 users remained in each cohort. The study population included those with and without a history of neuropsychiatric disease.

MEASUREMENTS

Patients were followed for neuropsychiatric hospitalizations defined by primary neuropsychiatric discharge diagnosis using ICD-9 codes from in-patient administrative claims. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated after propensity score matching on exposure for socio-demographic factors, health-care utilization, comorbidities, medication history and neuropsychiatric history.

FINDINGS

There was no increase in the rate of neuropsychiatric hospitalizations in patients treated with varenicline compared to NRT patch when followed for 30 days (propensity-score matched HR = 1.14, 95% CI: 0.56-2.34). Results were similar after 60 days of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

There does not appear to be an increase in neuropsychiatric hospitalizations with varenicline compared with nicotine replacement therapy patch over 30 or 60 days after drug initiation.

Complementary medicine, exercise, meditation, diet, and lifestyle modification for anxiety disorders: a review of current evidence

Use of complementary medicines and therapies (CAM) and modification of lifestyle factors such as physical activity, exercise, and diet are being increasingly considered as potential therapeutic options for anxiety disorders. The objective of this metareview was to examine evidence across a broad range of CAM and lifestyle interventions in the treatment of anxiety disorders. In early 2012 we conducted a literature search of PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Library, for key studies, systematic reviews, and metaanalyses in the area. Our paper found that in respect to treatment of generalized anxiety or specific disorders, CAM evidence revealed current support for the herbal medicine Kava. One isolated study shows benefit for naturopathic medicine, whereas acupuncture, yoga, and Tai chi have tentative supportive evidence, which is hampered by overall poor methodology. The breadth of evidence does not support homeopathy for treating anxiety. Strong support exists for lifestyle modifications including adoption of moderate exercise and mindfulness meditation, whereas dietary improvement, avoidance of caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine offer encouraging preliminary data. In conclusion, certain lifestyle modifications and some CAMs may provide a beneficial role in the treatment of anxiety disorders.

Risk of cardiovascular serious adverse events associated with varenicline use for tobacco cessation: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the risk of treatment emergent, cardiovascular serious adverse events associated with varenicline use for tobacco cessation.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis comparing study effects using four summary estimates.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Cochrane Library, online clinical trials registries, and reference lists of identified articles.

REVIEW METHODS

We included randomised controlled trials of current tobacco users of adult age comparing use of varenicline with an inactive control and reporting adverse events. We defined treatment emergent, cardiovascular serious adverse events as occurring during drug treatment or within 30 days of discontinuation, and included any ischaemic or arrhythmic adverse cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary revascularisation, coronary artery disease, arrhythmias, transient ischaemic attacks, stroke, sudden death or cardiovascular related death, or congestive heart failure).

RESULTS

We identified 22 trials; all were double blinded and placebo controlled; two included participants with active cardiovascular disease and 11 enrolled participants with a history of cardiovascular disease. Rates of treatment emergent, cardiovascular serious adverse events were 0.63% (34/5431) in the varenicline groups and 0.47% (18/3801) in the placebo groups. The summary estimate for the risk difference, 0.27% (95% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.63; P = 0.15), based on all 22 trials, was neither clinically nor statistically significant. For comparison, the relative risk (1.40, 0.82 to 2.39; P = 0.22), Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (1.41, 0.82 to 2.42; P = 0.22), and Peto odds ratio (1.58, 0.90 to 2.76; P = 0.11), all based on 14 trials with at least one event, also indicated a non-significant difference between varenicline and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta--analysis--which included all trials published to date, focused on events occurring during drug exposure, and analysed findings using four summary estimates-found no significant increase in cardiovascular serious adverse events associated with varenicline use. For rare outcomes, summary estimates based on absolute effects are recommended and estimates based on the Peto odds ratio should be avoided.

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

The primary objective of this review is to assess the efficacy and tolerability of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including cytisine, dianicline and varenicline 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, PsycINFO and Web of Science 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 December 2011. We also searched online clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized 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 randomization 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 recent cytisine trials (937 people) found that more participants taking cytisine stopped smoking compared with placebo at longest follow-up, with a pooled RR of 3.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.01 to 7.87). One trial of dianicline (602 people) failed to find evidence that it was effective (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.75). Fifteen trials compared varenicline with placebo for smoking cessation; three of these also included a bupropion treatment arm. We also found one open-label trial comparing varenicline plus counselling with counselling alone. We found one relapse prevention trial, comparing varenicline with placebo, and two open-label trials comparing varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). We also include one trial in which all the participants were given varenicline, but received behavioural support either online or by phone calls, or by both methods. This trial is not included in the analyses, but contributes to the data on safety and tolerability. The included studies covered 12,223 participants, 8100 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 2.27 (95% CI 2.02 to 2.55; 14 trials, 6166 people, excluding one trial evaluating long term safety). Varenicline at lower or variable doses was also shown to be effective, with an RR of 2.09 (95% CI 1.56 to 2.78; 4 trials, 1272 people). The pooled RR for varenicline versus bupropion at one year was 1.52 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.88; 3 trials, 1622 people). The RR for varenicline versus NRT for point prevalence abstinence at 24 weeks was 1.13 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.35; 2 trials, 778 people). The two 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 main adverse effect of varenicline was nausea, which was mostly at mild to moderate levels and usually subsided over time. A meta-analysis of reported serious adverse events occurring during or after active treatment and not necessarily considered attributable to treatment suggests there may be a one-third increase in the chance of severe adverse effects among people using varenicline (RR 1.36; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.79; 17 trials, 7725 people), but this finding needs to be tested further. Post-marketing safety data have raised questions about a possible association between varenicline and depressed mood, agitation, and suicidal behaviour or ideation. The labelling of varenicline was amended in 2008, and the manufacturers produced a Medication Guide. Thus far, surveillance reports and secondary analyses of trial data are inconclusive, but the possibility of a link between varenicline and serious psychiatric or cardiovascular events cannot be ruled out.

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 threefold 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. Two open-label trials of varenicline versus NRT suggested a modest benefit of varenicline but confidence intervals did not rule out equivalence. Limited evidence suggests that varenicline may have a role to play in relapse prevention. The main adverse effect of varenicline is nausea, but mostly at mild to moderate levels and tending to subside over time. Possible links with serious adverse events, including serious psychiatric or cardiovascular events, cannot be ruled out.Future trials of cytisine may test extended regimens and more intensive behavioural support. There is a need for further trials of the efficacy of varenicline treatment extended beyond 12 weeks.

A Review of Varenicline's Efficacy and Tolerability in Smoking Cessation Studies in Subjects with Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is a severe psychiatric disorder affecting 1% of the world's population. Nicotine addiction is one of the most important health concerns for patients with schizophrenia. An extensive body of evidence points to a high prevalence rate of comorbid nicotine addiction in people with schizophrenia (70-90%), which contributes to significant cardiovascular and cancer risks in this vulnerable population. Therefore, effective smoking cessation strategies could play a major role in preventing significant morbidity and mortality in this population. Two of the most common pharmacological approaches to smoking cessation, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), have been used in psychiatric patients to reduce their smoking. In 2006, varenicline, a partial agonist of α4β2 acetylcholine receptor, was approved for smoking cessation by the FDA. This drug not only has the beneficial effects on withdrawal symptoms, but also reduces craving and rewarding effects of smoking. While varenicline has been shown to be an effective, safe medication for the general population, its efficacy and safety for subjects with schizophrenia is less well characterized. A number of case studies have prompted FDA warnings about the potential exacerbation of psychiatric symptoms. However, other case studies and pilot studies have shown varenicline to be a safe and effective treatment for smoking cessation in subjects with schizophrenia. Varenicline has the potential to reduce smoking in subjects with schizophrenia, however, clinicians should carefully monitor patients receiving varenicline for potential exacerbation of psychiatric symptoms.

Varenicline decreases alcohol consumption in heavy-drinking smokers

RATIONALE

Emerging evidence suggests that the α4β2 form of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) modulates the rewarding effects of alcohol. The nAChR α4β2 subunit partial agonist varenicline (Chantix™), which is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for smoking cessation, also decreases ethanol consumption in rodents (Steensland et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:12518-12523, 2007) and in human laboratory and open-label studies (Fucito et al., Psychopharmacology (Berl) 215:655-663, 2011; McKee et al., Biol Psychiatry 66:185-190 2009).

OBJECTIVES

We present a randomized, double-blind, 16-week study in heavy-drinking smokers (n = 64 randomized to treatment) who were seeking treatment for their smoking. The study was designed to determine the effects of varenicline on alcohol craving and consumption. Outcome measures included number of alcoholic drinks per week, cigarettes per week, amount of alcohol craving per week, cumulative cigarettes and alcoholic drinks consumed during the treatment period, number of abstinent days, and weekly percentage of positive ethyl glucuronide and cotinine screens.

RESULTS

Varenicline significantly decreases alcohol consumption (χ (2) = 35.32, p < 0.0001) in smokers. Although varenicline has previously been associated with suicidality and depression, side effects were low in this study and declined over time in the varenicline treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline can produce a sustained decrease in alcohol consumption in individuals who also smoke. Further studies are warranted to assess varenicline efficacy in treatment-seeking alcohol abusers who do not smoke and to ascertain the relationship between varenicline effects on smoking and drinking.

Varenicline for tobacco dependence: panacea or plight?

INTRODUCTION

This review examines the postmarketing experience with varenicline, including case reports, newer clinical trials and secondary analyses of large clinical datasets.

AREAS COVERED

Varenicline has been shown to be an effective treatment in a broad range of tobacco users with medical, behavioral and diverse demographic characteristics. Recent studies finding excellent safety and efficacy in groups of smokers with diseases including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are particularly encouraging and call for increased use of this medication for smoking cessation. Despite case reports of serious neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients taking varenicline, including changes in behavior and mood, causality has not been established. Recent analyses of large datasets from clinical trials have not demonstrated that varenicline is associated with more depression or suicidality than other treatments for smoking cessation.

EXPERT OPINION

Now that additional clinical trials in specific populations and observational studies on treatment-seeking smokers outside of clinical trials have been published, we can be confident that varenicline remains the most efficacious monotherapy for smoking cessation and that its side-effect profile remains good. The risk-to-benefit ratio of receiving varenicline to quit smoking must include the increased chances of quitting smoking and avoiding the sizeable risks of smoked-caused disease and death that remain if tobacco addiction is not properly treated.