Predictors of lapse and relapse to smoking in successful quitters in a varenicline post hoc analysis in Japanese smokers

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.

Factors associated with a change in smoking habit during the first COVID-19 lockdown: an Italian cross-sectional study among ever-smokers

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown period lasted from March to May 2020, resulted in a highly stressful situation yielding different negative health consequences, including the worsening of smoking habit.

METHODS

A web-based cross-sectional study on a convenient sample of 1013 Italian ever smokers aged 18 years or more was conducted. Data were derived from surveys compiled by three different groups of people: subjects belonging to Smoking Cessation Services, Healthcare Providers and Nursing Sciences' students. All institutions were from Northern Italy. The primary outcome self-reported worsening (relapse or increase) or improvement (quit or reduce) of smoking habit during lockdown period. Multiple unconditional (for worsening) and multinomial (for improving) logistic regressions were carried out.

RESULTS

Among 962 participants, 56.0% were ex-smokers. Overall, 13.2% of ex-smokers before lockdown reported relapsing and 32.7% of current smokers increasing cigarette intake. Among current smokers before lockdown, 10.1% quit smoking and 13.5% decreased cigarette intake. Out of 7 selected stressors related to COVID-19, four were significantly related to relapse (OR for the highest vs. the lowest tertile ranging between 2.24 and 3.62): fear of being infected and getting sick; fear of dying due to the virus; anxiety in listening to news of the epidemic; sense of powerlessness in protecting oneself from contagion. In addition to these stressors, even the other 3 stressors were related with increasing cigarette intensity (OR ranging between 1.90 and 4.18): sense of powerlessness in protecting loved ones from contagion; fear of losing loved ones due to virus; fear of infecting other.

CONCLUSION

The lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with both self-reported relapse or increase smoking habit and also quitting or reduction of it.

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.

The effect of outdoor smoking ban: Evidence from Korea

To address exposure to secondhand smoke, which is highly prevalent in Korea, local governments have implemented smoking bans at open public places (parks, bus stops, and school zones) since 2011. Exploiting temporal and spatial variation in the implementation dates of these bans, this study estimates their causal effects on individual smoking behavior. The individual-level longitudinal data from the 2009-2017 Korean Labor and Income Panel Study are linked to the smoking ban legislation information from the National Law Information Center. I find robust evidence that outdoor smoking bans increased the probability of making a quit attempt by 16%. This effect appears immediately after a ban goes into effect and lasts for three or more years. People who spend more time outdoors are more likely to change smoking behavior. I also find heterogeneity in effects across the amount of monetary penalty. Whereas the policy change did not affect the prevalence of smoking overall, higher penalties had stronger impacts on reducing the intensity of smoking and increasing the propensity to try to quit.

Comparisons of early and delayed abstainers and its effects on long-term smoking cessation in Taiwan

Background

Different quitting trajectories may reflect the stages of behavior change among smokers. The nature of quitting patterns could help the public health sector to design appropriate cessation plans. This study compared demographic, health, and behavioral characteristics and the effects of long-term abstinence between early and delayed abstainers.

Methods

We retrospectively sampled 142 abstainers from smoking cessation clinic participants for a study conducted from January 1 to December 31, 2017. Baseline information was obtained at the first clinic visit, and phone interviews were conducted 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months later. The 7-day point prevalence abstinence was employed for measuring their quitting status. We defined early abstainers as those who attained abstinence by second week and delayed abstainers as those who had done so by the third month. We compared their characteristics and 6-month quit rates and examined potential predictors between the two quitting patterns.

Results

One hundred forty-two participants were included with 87 (61.3%) early abstainers and 55 (38.7%) delayed abstainers. Early abstainers were older with more comorbidities, presenting longer smoking duration, higher exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) concentration and Fagerstrom Test of Cigarette Dependence (FTCD) scores. The 6-month abstinence rate was high for both quitting patterns with no significant difference (83.9% versus 81.8%, p = 0.7462). Higher FTCD scores and exhaled CO concentration were potential predictors for early abstainers with adjusted odds ratio 1.16 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01–1.33) and 1.04 (95% CI, 1.00–1.08) respectively.

Conclusions

Our results associated early abstainers with older age, more comorbidities and higher nicotine dependence. Both groups achieved good long-term abstinence maintenance. Although early abstainers may achieve earlier reduction of health risks, smokers could still benefit from long-term abstinence if they can manage to quit smoking even at later phases of cessation courses.

Factors associated with the efficacy of smoking cessation treatments and predictors of smoking abstinence in EAGLES

AIMS

To assess (1) how far the efficacies of front-line smoking cessation pharmacotherapies vary as a function of smoker characteristics and (2) associations between these characteristics and success of smoking cessation attempts.

DESIGN

Prospective correlational study in the context of a double-blind randomized trial. The outcome was regressed individually onto each covariate after adjusting for treatment, and then a forward stepwise model constructed. Treatment moderator effects of covariates were tested by treatment × covariate interactions.

SETTING

Health service facilities in multiple countries.

PARTICIPANTS

Data came from 8120 smokers willing to make a quit attempt, randomized to varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or placebo in Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study (EAGLES) between 30 November 2011 and 13 January 2015.

MEASUREMENTS

Smoker characteristics measured at baseline were country, psychiatric history, sex, age, body mass index (BMI), ethnic group, life-time suicidal ideation/behaviour, anxiety, depression, aggression, psychotropic medication, history of alcohol/substance use disorder, age of starting smoking, cigarette dependence [Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence (FTCD)] and prior use of study medicines. Outcome was biochemically confirmed continuous abstinence at weeks 9-24 from start of treatment.

FINDINGS

No statistically significant treatment × covariate interactions were found. Odds of success were associated independently positively with age [odds ratio (OR) = 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.00, 1.01], BMI (1.01; 95% CI = 1.00, 1.02) and age of starting smoking (1.03; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.04). Odds were associated independently negatively with US (versus non-US) study site (0.53; 95% CI = 0.46, 0.61), black (versus white) ethnic group (0.57; 95% CI = 0.45, 0.72), mood disorder (0.85; 95% CI = 0.73, 0.99), anxiety disorder (0.71; 95% CI = 0.55, 0.90) and psychotic disorder (0.73; 95% CI = 0.50, 1.07), taking psychotropic medication (0.81; 95% CI = 0.68, 0.95), FTCD (0.89; 95% CI = 0.87, 0.92) and previous use of NRT (0.78; 95% CI = 0.67, 0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

While a range of smoker characteristics-including psychiatric history, cigarette dependence and prior use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)-are associated with lower cessation rates, they do not substantially influence the efficacy of varenicline, bupropion or NRT.

Associations between pain intensity and urge to smoke: Testing the role of negative affect and pain catastrophizing

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smokers are more likely to experience pain than nonsmokers, and experimental research indicates that pain is a potent motivator of smoking. Urge to smoke is a predictor of early relapse, yet associations between pain and urge to smoke have yet to be tested among daily smokers. This study aimed to conduct the first crosssectional test of associations between current pain intensity and urge to smoke, and to test the role of negative affect and pain catastrophizing in relations between pain intensity and urge to smoke.

METHODS

Participants (N = 229, 42.4% Female, 38.9% black/African American, Mcpd = 21.9) were recruited for a laboratory study of pain and smoking, and these data were collected at the baseline session. Data were analyzed using a series of regressions and conditional process models.

RESULTS

Current pain intensity was positively associated with urge to smoke, and urge to smoke for the relief of negative affect. There was an indirect association via state negative affect, such that pain intensity was positively associated with negative affect, which in turn was associated with greater urge to smoke. Further, positive associations between pain intensity and urge to smoke were only evident among smokers who endorsed low (vs high) levels of catastrophizing.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings contribute to an emerging literature indicating that pain and related constructs are relevant to the maintenance of tobacco smoking. Future research should examine how painrelevant cognitive-affective factors may influence associations between the experience of pain and motivation to smoke tobacco.

Effect of 0.5 mg versus 1 mg varenicline for smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial

AIMS

Varenicline is used in smoking cessation. The aims of the trial were to test for differences between standard 1- and 0.5-mg doses (both twice daily during 8 weeks) in (1) abstinence, (2) adherence and (3) side effects.

DESIGN

Open-label randomized parallel-group controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. All those randomized were included in the final sample using an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach.

SETTING

Stop-Smoking Clinic of the Virgen Macarena University Hospital in Seville, Spain.

PARTICIPANTS

The study comprised smokers (n = 484), 59.5% of whom were men with a mean age of 50.67 years and a smoking history of 37.5 pack-years.

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

Participants were randomized to 1 mg (n = 245) versus 0.5 mg (n = 239) and received behavioural support, which consisted of a baseline visit and six follow-ups during 1 year.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was continuous self-reported abstinence during 1 year, with biochemical verification. The secondary outcomes were adherence and side effects. Also measured were baseline demographics, medical history and smoking characteristics.

FINDINGS

Abstinence rates at 1 year were 46.5% with 1 mg versus 46.4% with 0.5 mg [odds ratio (OR) = 0.997; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.7-1.43; P = 1.0]; Bayes factor in favour of H0 = 238.507, Bayes factor against H0 = 0.004. Treatment adherence was similar in both regimens (OR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.8-1.7; P = 0.44). Side effects were reported in 19.3% of cases with 1 mg versus 12.1% with 0.5 mg, although with no significant differences between regimens (OR = 1.73; 95% CI = 0.94-3.18; P = 0.093).

CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be no difference in smoking cessation effectiveness between 1 mg and 0.5 mg varenicline, both administered twice daily for 8 weeks, with similar rates of abstinence (46.5% versus 46.4%), adherence and side effects.

Gender difference and effect of pharmacotherapy: findings from a smoking cessation service

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation services are available in England to provide assistance to those wishing to quit smoking. Data from one such service were analysed in order to investigate differences in quit rate between males and females prescribed with different treatments.

METHODS

A logistic regression model was fitted to the data using the binary response of self-reported quit (failed attempt = 0, successful attempt = 1), validated by Carbon Monoxide (CO) monitoring, 4 weeks after commencing programme. Main effects fitted were: client gender; age; region; the type of advisory sessions; and pharmacotherapy, Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) or Varenicline. A second model was fitted including all main effects plus two-way interactions except region. These models were repeated using 12-week self-reported quit as the outcome.

RESULTS

At 4 weeks, all main effects were statistically significant, with males more likely (odds ratio and 95 % CI, females v males = 0.88 [0.79-0.97]), older smokers more likely (adjusted odds ratios [OR] and 95 % confidence interval [CI] respectively for groups 20-29, 30-49, 50-69 and 70+ vs 12-19 age group: 1.79 [1.39-2.31], 2.12 [1.68-2.68], 2.30 [1.80-2.92] and 2.47 [1.81-3.37] and for overall difference between groups, χ2(4) = 53.5, p < 0.001) and clients being treated with Varenicline more likely to have successfully quit than those on NRT (adjusted OR and 95 % CI for Varenicline vs NRT = 1.41 [1.21-1.64]). Statistically significant interactions were observed between (i) gender and type of counselling, and (ii) age and type of counselling. Similar results were seen in relation to main effects at 12 weeks except that type of counselling was non-significant. The only significant interaction at this stage was between gender and pharmacotherapy (adjusted OR and 95 % CI for females using Varenicline versus all other groups = 1.43 [1.06-1.94]).

CONCLUSION

Gender and treatment options were identified as predictors of abstinence at both 4 and 12 weeks after quitting smoking. Furthermore, interactions were observed between gender and (i) type of counselling received (ii) pharmacotherapy. In particular, the quit rate in women at 12 weeks was significantly improved in conjunction with Varenicline use. These findings have implications for service delivery.

Insomnia symptoms as a risk factor for cessation failure following smoking treatment

Insomnia symptoms are associated with smoking, and may interfere with smoking cessation. Specifically, studies have shown that smoking-related sleep problems are associated with long-term smoking relapse, and longer sleep duration is associated with successful smoking cessation. However, it is currently unclear whether pre- or post-quit insomnia symptoms are associated with smoking cessation outcomes. As such, the current study aimed to extend previous findings by using a measure of insomnia symptoms as a predictor of smoking cessation failure by month 3 following smoking cessation treatment. Additionally, we examined whether post-quit insomnia symptoms predicted cessation outcomes. Results indicated that pre-, but not post-quit insomnia, predicted smoking cessation failure by 3 months post-cessation, after covarying for depressive symptoms, anxiety sensitivity, alcohol use disorder severity, treatment condition, and number of cigarettes per day. These findings add to the literature on insomnia symptoms as a risk factor for difficulties with smoking cessation, and suggest it may be a worthy clinical target for smoking populations who are interested in quitting smoking.

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.

Additional follow-up telephone counselling and initial smoking relapse: a longitudinal, controlled study

OBJECTIVES

Smoking cessation services can help smokers to quit; however, many smoking relapse cases occur over time. Initial relapse prevention should play an important role in achieving the goal of long-term smoking cessation. Several studies have focused on the effect of extended telephone support in relapse prevention, but the conclusions remain conflicting.

DESIGN AND SETTING

From October 2008 to August 2013, a longitudinal, controlled study was performed in a large general hospital of Beijing.

PARTICIPANTS

The smokers who sought treatment at our smoking cessation clinic were non-randomised and divided into 2 groups: face-to-face individual counselling group (FC group), and face-to-face individual counselling plus telephone follow-up counselling group (FCF group). No pharmacotherapy was offered.

OUTCOMES

The timing of initial smoking relapse was compared between FC and FCF groups. Predictors of initial relapse were investigated during the first 180 days, using the Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

Of 547 eligible male smokers who volunteered to participate, 457 participants (117 in FC group and 340 in FCF group) achieved at least 24 h abstinence. The majority of the lapse episodes occurred during the first 2 weeks after the quit date. Smokers who did not receive the follow-up telephone counselling (FC group) tended to relapse to smoking earlier than those smokers who received the additional follow-up telephone counselling (FCF group), and the log-rank test was statistically significant (p=0.003). A Cox regression model showed that, in the FCF group, being married, and having a lower Fagerström test score, normal body mass index and doctor-diagnosed tobacco-related chronic diseases, were significantly independent protective predictors of smoking relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that additional follow-up telephone counselling might be an effective strategy in preventing relapse. Further research is still needed to confirm our findings.

Tobacco price increase and smoking behaviour changes in various subgroups: a nationwide longitudinal 7-year follow-up study among a middle-aged Japanese population

Objective

Few longitudinal studies have examined the effect of tobacco price increase on both cessation among smokers and relapse among quitters. Our objective was to investigate the differential impact of the tobacco price increase on the changes in smoking status in the total population and various subgroups.

Methods

We analysed data from a Japanese nationally representative longitudinal study of 30 773 individuals aged 50–59 years (weighted sum of discrete-time number = 215 411) with smoking information, using inverse probability weighting to account for non-response at follow-up. Generalised estimating equation models were used to calculate the odds ratios (ORs) for smoking behavioural changes (cessation among smokers and relapse among quitters), using discrete-time design. Stratified analyses were conducted according to demographic, socioeconomic and health behavioural characteristics.

Results

From 2005 to 2012, current smoker prevalence among the middle-aged Japanese population decreased from 30.5% to 24.3%. Of all the factors surveyed, only the tobacco price increase in 2010 (up by 37%, the highest increase during the period) was significantly associated with both cessation among smokers (OR 2.14, 95% confidence interval 1.90 to 2.41) and prevention of relapse among quitters (0.60, 0.46 to 0.77). Regarding the subgroup analysis, the tobacco price increase was associated with a significant reduction in relapse in the lowest income, recent quitters and very poor health subgroups. However, different associations were observed for cessation; a significant association between price increase and cessation was observed among all subgroups except for the heavy smoker and recently unemployed subgroups.

Conclusions

We confirmed that the tobacco price rise was associated with increasing cessation and decreasing relapse concurrently. Furthermore, this price rise was associated with favourable smoking changes in nearly all population subgroups; a large differential impact was not observed across the various subgroups.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Smoking Cessation Interventions in Japan Using a Discrete-Event Simulation

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation medications have been shown to yield higher success rates and sustained abstinence than unassisted quit attempts. In Japan, the treatments available include nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and varenicline; however, unassisted attempts to quit smoking remain common.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the health and economic consequences in Japan of using pharmacotherapy to support smoking cessation with unassisted attempts and the current mix of strategies used.

METHODS

A discrete-event simulation that models lifetime quitting behaviour and includes multiple quit attempts (MQAs) and relapses was adapted for these analyses. The risk of developing smoking-related diseases is estimated based on the duration of abstinence. Data collected from a survey conducted in Japan were used to determine the interventions selected by smokers initiating a quit attempt and the time between MQAs. Direct and indirect costs are assessed (expressed in 2014 Japanese Yen).

RESULTS

Using pharmacotherapy (NRT or varenicline) to support quit attempts proved to be dominant when compared with unassisted attempts or the current mix of strategies (most are unassisted). The results of stratified analyses by age imply that smoking cessation improves health outcomes across all generations. Indirect costs due to premature death leading to lost wages are an important component of the total costs, exceeding the direct medical cost estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased utilisation of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy to support quit attempts is predicted to lead to an increase in the number of smokers achieving abstinence, and provide improvements in health outcomes over a lifetime with no additional costs.

Web-based survey on smoking cessation behaviors of current and former smokers in Japan

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the long term smoking cessation behaviors in a population of Japanese current smokers (CS) and former smokers (FS).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Retrospective survey of Japanese men and women ≥20 years of age who were CS (those who smoked any number of cigarettes at the time of the survey, 24-27 June 2013) or FS (those who had smoked any number of cigarettes in the past but did not consider themselves smokers at the time of the survey). CS/FS were selected from a prescreened source population recruited by online advertisement that was age- and gender-matched, to represent Japanese smokers. Clinical and socio-demographic characteristics and smoking/smoking cessation history were assessed through a web-based questionnaire.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES were number of past quit attempts and time to relapse; others included methods used to achieve smoking cessation, and reasons for wanting to quit.

RESULTS

Overall, 1261 Japanese subjects were surveyed (CS, n = 631; FS, n = 630). Nearly half (45.6%) of CS had never attempted to quit smoking. Of those who had attempted to quit smoking, one single quit attempt was the most common for both CS and FS (19.0 vs. 39.0%). Estimated median time to relapse was 105 days (FS and CS combined). Unaided smoking cessation was the most common method both for CS and FS (78.2 vs. 63.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

In our survey, >70% of smokers used unaided smoking cessation methods, which may have resulted in a lower success rate. Participants relapsed after a median of 105 days of abstinence (25% within 7 days; the remainder had resumed smoking after 1260 days). As with all surveys, recall bias may have influenced the results. Our observations could be combined with other data in health economic models of smoking cessation to identify appropriate measures to reduce the prevalence of smoking in Japan.