Design of a randomized controlled trial of smoking cessation medications for alcohol reduction among HIV-positive heavy drinkers and daily smokers in St. Petersburg, Russia

Interventions for tobacco use cessation in people living with HIV

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of tobacco use among people living with HIV (PLWH) is up to four times higher than in the general population. Unfortunately, tobacco use increases the risk of progression to AIDS and death. Individual- and group-level interventions, and system-change interventions that are effective in helping PLWH stop using tobacco can markedly improve the health and quality of life of this population. However, clear evidence to guide policy and practice is lacking, which hinders the integration of tobacco use cessation interventions into routine HIV care. This is an update of a review that was published in 2016. We include 11 new studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits, harms and tolerability of interventions for tobacco use cessation among people living with HIV. To compare the benefits, harms and tolerability of interventions for tobacco use cessation that are tailored to the needs of people living with HIV with that of non-tailored cessation interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO in December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individual-/group-level behavioural or pharmacological interventions, or both, for tobacco use cessation, delivered directly to PLWH aged 18 years and over, who use tobacco. We also included RCTs, quasi-RCTs, other non-randomised controlled studies (e.g. controlled before and after studies), and interrupted time series studies of system-change interventions for tobacco use cessation among PLWH. For system-change interventions, participants could be PLWH receiving care, or staff working in healthcare settings and providing care to PLWH; but studies where intervention delivery was by research personnel were excluded. For both individual-/group-level interventions, and system-change interventions, any comparator was eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods, and used GRADE to assess certainty of the evidence. The primary measure of benefit was tobacco use cessation at a minimum of six months. Primary measures for harm were adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We also measured quit attempts or quit episodes, the receipt of a tobacco use cessation intervention, quality of life, HIV viral load, CD4 count, and the incidence of opportunistic infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 17 studies (16 RCTs and one non-randomised study) with a total of 9959 participants; 11 studies are new to this update. Nine studies contributed to meta-analyses (2741 participants). Fifteen studies evaluated individual-/group-level interventions, and two evaluated system-change interventions. Twelve studies were from the USA, two from Switzerland, and there were single studies for France, Russia and South Africa. All studies focused on cigarette smoking cessation. All studies received funding from independent national- or institutional-level funding. Three studies received study medication free of charge from a pharmaceutical company. Of the 16 RCTs, three were at low risk of bias overall, five were at high risk, and eight were at unclear risk. Behavioural support or system-change interventions versus no or less intensive behavioural support Low-certainty evidence (7 studies, 2314 participants) did not demonstrate a clear benefit for tobacco use cessation rates in PLWH randomised to receive behavioural support compared with brief advice or no intervention: risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.42, with no evidence of heterogeneity. Abstinence at six months or more was 10% (n = 108/1121) in the control group and 11% (n = 127/1193) in the intervention group. There was no evidence of an effect on tobacco use cessation on system-change interventions: calling the quitline and transferring the call to the patient whilst they are still in hospital ('warm handoff') versus fax referral (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.76 to 13.99; 1 study, 25 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the studies in this comparison assessed SAE. Pharmacological interventions versus placebo, no intervention, or another pharmacotherapy Moderate-certainty evidence (2 studies, 427 participants) suggested that varenicline may help more PLWH to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.62) with no evidence of heterogeneity. Abstinence at six months or more was 7% (n = 14/215) in the placebo control group and 13% (n = 27/212) in the varenicline group. There was no evidence of intervention effects from individual studies on behavioural support plus nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) versus brief advice (RR 8.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 126.67; 15 participants; very low-certainty evidence), behavioural support plus NRT versus behavioural support alone (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.36; 560 participants; low-certainty evidence), varenicline versus NRT (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.83; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and cytisine versus NRT (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.11; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence (2 studies, 427 participants) did not detect a difference between varenicline and placebo in the proportion of participants experiencing SAEs (8% (n = 17/212) versus 7% (n = 15/215), respectively; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.22) with no evidence of heterogeneity. Low-certainty evidence from one study indicated similar SAE rates between behavioural support plus NRT and behavioural support only (1.8% (n = 5/279) versus 1.4% (n = 4/281), respectively; RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.64). No studies assessed SAEs for the following: behavioural support plus NRT versus brief advice; varenicline versus NRT and cytisine versus NRT.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear evidence to support or refute the use of behavioural support over brief advice, one type of behavioural support over another, behavioural support plus NRT over behavioural support alone or brief advice, varenicline over NRT, or cytisine over NRT for tobacco use cessation for six months or more among PLWH. Nor is there clear evidence to support or refute the use of system-change interventions such as warm handoff over fax referral, to increase tobacco use cessation or receipt of cessation interventions among PLWH who use tobacco. However, the results must be considered in the context of the small number of studies included. Varenicline likely helps PLWH to quit smoking for six months or more compared to control. We did not find evidence of difference in SAE rates between varenicline and placebo, although the certainty of the evidence is low.

Is Abstinence from Alcohol and Smoking Associated with Less Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms Among People with HIV?

Achieving abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, or both may improve mental health, but is understudied in people with HIV (PWH). The St PETER HIV randomized clinical trial compared varenicline, cytisine, and nicotine replacement therapy on alcohol and smoking behavior among 400 PWH in Russia. The primary exposure was thirty-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) from (1) alcohol, (2) smoking, (3) both, or (4) neither and was assessed at 1, 3, 6 and 12-months as were the study outcomes of anxiety (GAD-7) and depressive (CES-D) symptoms. The primary aim was to examine the association between smoking and/or alcohol abstinence and subsequent symptoms of depression and anxiety. Primary analysis used repeated measures generalized linear modeling to relate PPA with mental health scores across time. In secondary analyses, Kruskal-Wallis tests related PPA with mental health scores at each timepoint. Primary analyses did not identify significant differences in anxiety or depressive symptoms between exposure groups over time. Secondary analyses found CES-D scores across PPA categories were similar at 1-month (11, 10, 11, 11) and 6-months (10, 10, 11, 11) but differed at 3-months (9, 11, 10, 12; p = 0.035) and 12-months (10, 6, 11, 10; p = 0.019). GAD-7 scores did not vary across PPA categories at any time point. While abstinence was associated with fewer depressive symptoms at times, findings were not consistent during follow-up, perhaps reflecting intermittent relapse. PWH with polysubstance use and mental health comorbidity are complex, and larger samples with sustained abstinence would further elucidate effects of abstinence on mental health.

Healthcare Utilization Among Persons with HIV and Unhealthy Alcohol Use in St. Petersburg, Russia

Few studies have examined the association between healthcare utilization and heavy alcohol use in Russia among persons with HIV (PWH), a group with high healthcare needs. This study analyzed the association between unhealthy alcohol use (defined as AUDIT score ≥ 8) and healthcare utilization among PWH with heavy alcohol use and daily smoking in St. Petersburg, Russia. This secondary analysis used data from a randomized controlled trial addressing alcohol use. The primary outcome was seeing an infectionist for HIV care in the past year. Outcomes were measured at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. We assessed the association between unhealthy alcohol use and healthcare utilization outcomes with a repeated measures logistic regression model, controlling for relevant covariates. Nearly all (96.0%) participants had unhealthy alcohol use at baseline, and 90.0% had seen an infectionist for HIV care in the past year. In adjusted analyses, unhealthy alcohol use was associated with a 36% decrease in seeing an infectionist for HIV care (aOR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.95). Participants reported low levels of emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Understanding how to engage this population in alcohol use disorder treatment and HIV care is an important next step for improving health outcomes for this population.

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.

Impact of alcohol use disorder severity on human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) viral suppression and CD4 count in three international cohorts of people with HIV

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use has been linked to worse human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) immunologic/virologic outcomes, yet few studies have explored the effects of alcohol use disorder (AUD). This study assessed whether AUD severity is associated with HIV viral suppression and CD4 count in the three cohorts of the Uganda Russia Boston Alcohol Network for Alcohol Research Collaboration on HIV/AIDS (URBAN ARCH) Consortium.

METHODS

People with HIV (PWH) in Uganda (n = 301), Russia (n = 400), and Boston (n = 251), selected in-part based on their alcohol use, were included in analyses. Logistic and linear regressions were used to assess the cross-sectional associations between AUD severity (number of DSM-5 diagnostic criteria) and (1) HIV viral suppression, and (2) CD4 count (cells/mm3 ) adjusting for covariates. Analyses were conducted separately by site.

RESULTS

The proportion of females was 51% (Uganda), 34% (Russia), and 33% (Boston); mean age (SD) was 40.7 (9.6), 38.6 (6.3), and 52.1 (10.5), respectively. All participants in Uganda and all but 27% in Russia and 5% in Boston were on antiretroviral therapy. In Uganda, 32% met criteria for AUD, 92% in Russia, and 43% in Boston. The mean (SD) number of AUD criteria was 1.6 (2.4) in Uganda, 5.6 (3.3) in Russia, and 2.4 (3.1) in Boston. Most participants had HIV viral suppression (Uganda 92%, Russia 57%, Boston 87%); median (IQR) CD4 count was 673 (506, 866), 351 (201, 542), and 591 (387, 881), respectively. In adjusted models, there were no associations between AUD severity and HIV viral suppression: adjusted odds ratios (AOR) (95%CI) per 1 additional AUD criterion in Uganda was 1.08 (0.87, 1.33); Russia 0.98 (0.92, 1.04); and Boston 0.95 (0.84, 1.08) or CD4 count: mean difference (95%CI) per 1 additional criterion: 5.78 (-7.47, 19.03), -3.23 (-10.91, 4.44), and -8.18 (-24.72, 8.35), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In three cohorts of PWH, AUD severity was not associated with HIV viral suppression or CD4 count. PWH with AUD in the current era of antiretroviral therapy can achieve virologic control.

Alcohol and falls among people with HIV infection: A view from Russia and the United States

BACKGROUND

Both human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and alcohol use predispose to autonomic/sensory neuropathy, imbalance symptoms, and cognitive impairment-conditions associated with a greater risk of falls-yet it is unclear how to identify people with HIV (PWH) whose drinking is associated with falls. Research on alcohol and falls using the same instruments in different countries could help to specify the level of alcohol use associated with fall risk. We examined whether a consumption-based measure (the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption [AUDIT-C]) and/or a symptom-based measure (DSM-5 criteria for alcohol use disorder [AUD]) are associated with sustaining a fall among PWH in St Petersburg, Russia and Boston, Massachusetts in the United States.

METHODS

Separate multivariate logistic regressions were used for each cohort to examine cross-sectional associations for each alcohol measure predicting fall. Potential confounders included physical functioning, depressive symptoms, and other substance use (measured with the Addiction Severity Index).

RESULTS

A fall was reported by 35% (87/251) of the sample in Boston and 12% (46/400) in St Petersburg. Each additional AUD criterion-but not higher AUDIT-C score-was significantly associated with a fall in both Boston (odds ratio [OR] = 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02, 1.18) and St Petersburg (adjusted OR AOR = 1.10; 95% CI 1.02, 1.18). Heavy alcohol use (>6 drinks/occasion, any vs. none) was associated with more than twice the odds of a fall (AOR = 2.24; 95% CI 1.21, 4.13) in Boston.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that while fall risk may vary by setting and population, heavy alcohol use and AUD symptom severity are potential targets for interventions to prevent falls. Studies in diverse global settings advance our understanding of the relationship between alcohol and falls in PWH.

Effectiveness of Varenicline and Cytisine for Alcohol Use Reduction Among People With HIV and Substance Use: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Cigarette smoking and risky alcohol consumption co-occur and are undertreated. Nicotine receptor partial agonists and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) treat smoking but are unproven for alcohol, and clinical trials rarely include individuals with HIV, substance use, and mental health conditions.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects on drinking and smoking of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonists varenicline and cytisine with those of NRT.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This 4-group randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted from July 2017 to December 2020 in St Petersburg, Russia. Included participants were 400 individuals with HIV who engaged in risky drinking (≥5 prior-month heavy-drinking days [HDDs]) and daily smoking; they were followed up for 12 months after enrollment. Data were analyzed from May 2021 through June 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants received alcohol and tobacco counseling, 1 active medication, and 1 placebo in 1 of 4 groups: active varenicline and placebo NRT (group 1), placebo varenicline and active NRT (group 2), active cytisine and placebo NRT (group 3), or placebo cytisine and active NRT (group 4).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was number of prior-month HDDs at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included biochemically validated abstinence from alcohol at 3 months and smoking at 6 months.

RESULTS

Among 400 participants (263 [65.8%] men; mean [SD] age, 39 [6] years), 97 individuals (24.3%) used opioids and 156 individuals (39.1%) had depressive symptoms. These individuals had a mean (SD) CD4 count of 391 (257) cells/mm3, smoked a mean (SD) of 21 [8] cigarettes/d, and reported a mean (SD) of 9.3 (5.8) HDDs in the prior 30 days. At 3 months, the mean (SD) number of HDDs was decreased vs baseline across all groups (group 1: 2.0 [3.8] HDDs vs. 9.5 [6.1] HDDs; group 2: 2.1 [4.3] HDDs vs 9.3 [5.7] HDDs; group 3: 1.5 [3.3] HDDs vs 8.9 [5.0] HDDs; group 4: 2.4 [5.2] HDDs vs 9.6 [6.3] HDDs). There were no significant differences at 3 months between groups in mean (SD) HDDs, including group 1 vs 2 (incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.49-1.79), 3 vs 4 (IRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.30-1.18), and 1 vs 3 (IRR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.65-2.55). There were no significant differences at 6 months between groups in smoking abstinence, including group 1 vs 2 (15 of 100 individuals [15.0%] vs 17 of 99 individuals [17.2%]; odds ratio [OR],0.89; 95% CI, 0.38-2.08), 3 vs 4 (19 of 100 individuals [19.0%] vs 19 of 101 individuals [18.8%]; OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.46-2.17), and 1 vs 3 (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.35-1.78). Post hoc analyses suggested lower mean (SD) HDDs (eg, at 3 months: 0.7 [1.8] HDDs vs 2.3 [4.6] HDDs) and higher alcohol abstinence (eg, at 3 months: 30 of 85 individuals [35.3%] vs 54 of 315 individuals [17.1%]) among those who quit vs continued smoking.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that among individuals with HIV who engaged in risky drinking and smoking, varenicline and cytisine were not more efficacious than NRT to treat risky drinking and smoking but that behavior change rates were high in all groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02797587.

Characteristic analysis of clinical coronary heart disease and coronary artery disease concerning young and middle-aged male patients

BACKGROUND

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a type of coronary atherosclerotic heart disease. In recent years, the incidence of CHD has been increasing annually, with an increasing number of young patients. Severe CHD may cause severe myocardial ischemia or myocardial necrosis, which in turn may cause myocardial infarction and related complications that seriously affect the life and health of the patient.

AIM

To examine the coronary arteries and clinical features of young and middle-aged male patients with CHD.

METHODS

From February 2019 to January 2020, 110 male CHD patients admitted to our hospital were selected as research subjects and were divided into two groups by age: middle-aged group (n = 55) and young group (n = 55). The coronary arteries and clinical features of the patients were compared.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in dyslipidemia, stroke history, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, or triacylglycerol (P > 0.05) between the two groups. In the young group, age, diabetes, hypertension, smoking history, body mass index, family history of CHD, drinking history, fibrinogen, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, and single-vessel disease were higher than those in the middle-aged group. Correspondingly, serum uric acid, hyperuricemia, myocardial infarction, Gensini score > 50, collateral circulation, multivessel disease, double vessel disease, involvement of the right coronary artery, and involvement of the left main coronary artery were lower in the young group than in the middle-aged group. The middle-aged group mainly suffered from a high Gensini score, implicating multiple arteries, whereas the young group was mainly affected by single-vessel disease. The between-group difference was significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In CHD attacks, multiple coronary arteries are implicated in middle-aged male patients and single-vessel disease in young male patients.