Incremental efficacy of adding bupropion to the nicotine patch for smoking cessation in smokers with a recent history of alcohol dependence: results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied. However, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco: nicotine withdrawal can produce short-term low mood that antidepressants may relieve; and some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, harms, and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, most recently on 29 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people who smoked, comparing antidepressant medications with placebo or no pharmacological treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used differently. We excluded trials with fewer than six months of follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length for our analyses of harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months' follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Our secondary outcomes were harms and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropouts due to treatment. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 124 studies (48,832 participants) in this review, with 10 new studies added to this update version. Most studies recruited adults from the community or from smoking cessation clinics; four studies focused on adolescents (with participants between 12 and 21 years old). We judged 34 studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not change clinical interpretation of the results.  There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased smoking cessation rates when compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.49 to 1.72; I2 = 16%; 50 studies, 18,577 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that a combination of bupropion and varenicline may have resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I2 = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence to establish whether a combination of bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; I2 = 43%; 15 studies, 4117 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was moderate-certainty evidence that participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs than those taking placebo or no pharmacological treatment. However, results were imprecise and the CI also encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 23 studies, 10,958 participants). Results were also imprecise when comparing SAEs between people randomised to a combination of bupropion and NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.89; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 657 participants) and randomised to bupropion plus varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.42; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1268 participants). In both cases, we judged evidence to be of low certainty. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to AEs than placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.65; I2 = 2%; 25 studies, 12,346 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence that bupropion combined with NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 737 participants) or bupropion combined with varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.45; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1230 participants) had an impact on the number of dropouts due to treatment. In both cases, imprecision was substantial (we judged the evidence to be of low certainty for both comparisons). Bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.80; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7564 participants), and to combination NRT (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 720 participants). However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and single-form NRT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 7613 participants). We also found evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I2 = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), and some evidence that bupropion resulted in superior quit rates to nortriptyline (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants), although this result was subject to imprecision. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion may increase SAEs (moderate-certainty evidence when compared to placebo/no pharmacological treatment). There is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with people receiving placebo or no pharmacological treatment. Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo, although bupropion may be more effective. Evidence also suggests that bupropion may be as successful as single-form NRT in helping people to quit smoking, but less effective than combination NRT and varenicline. In most cases, a paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions regarding harms and tolerability. Further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over other licensed smoking cessation treatments; namely, NRT and varenicline. However, it is important that future studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation measure and report on harms and tolerability.

The effect of alcohol use on smoking cessation: A systematic review

Only a small minority of all attempts to stop smoking are successful, especially among smokers who are heavy drinkers and those with an alcohol use disorder. The current systematic review focuses on the negative effects of alcohol use, either before or during attempts to quit smoking, on the success rate of these attempt(s) in alcohol-drinking tobacco smokers. We conducted a systematic review of naturalistic and experimental studies, which included at least 40 tobacco smokers with a recorded drinking status (non-drinking, heavy drinking, alcohol use disorder) and a clearly documented change in alcohol consumption. We could not conduct a meta-analysis and, thus, used consistency across studies to draw conclusions. The evidence presented here shows that alcohol use is associated with lower rates of success in quitting smoking in 20 out of 27 studies. This includes both lapses and relapses. Similarly, in 19 out of 20 long-term follow-up studies, the duration of smoking abstinence was shorter among persons with higher alcohol consumption. Finally, 12 out of 13 experimental studies showed that exposure of smokers to alcohol cues or to drinking of alcohol induce a strong propensity to smoke. It is, therefore, recommended for smokers who drink alcohol and who intend to quit smoking to use an integrated approach, i.e., to stop or substantially reduce their alcohol consumption before and/or during their attempt to quit smoking.

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.

Cessation classification likelihood increases with higher expired-air carbon monoxide cutoffs: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Expired-air carbon monoxide (CO) is commonly used to biochemically verify smoking status. The CO cutoff and CO monitor brand may affect the probability of classifying smokers as abstinent, thus influencing conclusions about the efficacy of cessation trials. No systematic reviews have tested this hypothesis. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis examining whether the likelihood of smoking cessation classification varied due to CO cutoff and monitor brand.

METHODS

Eligible studies (k = 122) longitudinally assessed CO-verified cessation in adult smokers in randomized trials. Primary meta-regressions separately assessed differences in quit classification likelihood due to continuous and categorical CO cutoffs (Low, 3-4 parts per million [ppm]; [SRNT] Recommended, 5-6 ppm; Moderate, 7-8 ppm; and High, 9-10 ppm); exploratory analyses compared likelihood outcomes between monitor brands: Bedfont and Vitalograph.

RESULTS

The likelihood of quit classification increased 18% with each 1 ppm increase above the lowest cutoff (3 ppm). Odds of classification as quit significantly increased between each cutoff category and High: 261% increase from Low; 162% increase from Recommended; and 150% increase from Moderate. There were no differences in cessation classification between monitor brands.

CONCLUSIONS

As expected, higher CO cutoffs were associated with greater likelihood of cessation classification. The lack of CO monitor brand differences may have been due to model-level variance not able to be followed up in the present dataset. Researchers are advised to report outcomes using a range of cutoffs-including the recommended range (5-6 ppm)-and the CO monitor brand/model used. Using higher CO cutoffs significantly increases likelihood of quit classification, possibly artificially elevating treatment strategies.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Whilst the pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco. Firstly, nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms and antidepressants may relieve these. Additionally, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, safety and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Specialized Register, which includes reports of trials indexed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO, clinicaltrials.gov, the ICTRP, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in May 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited smokers, and compared antidepressant medications with placebo or no treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used in a different way. We excluded trials with less than six months follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length in safety analyses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months follow-up, expressed as a risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. Similarly, we presented incidence of safety and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropout due to drug, as RRs (95% CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 115 studies (33 new to this update) in this review; most recruited adult participants from the community or from smoking cessation clinics. We judged 28 of the studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk did not change clinical interpretation of the results. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased long-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.52 to 1.77; I2 = 15%; 45 studies, 17,866 participants). There was insufficient evidence to establish whether participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs compared to those taking placebo. Results were imprecise and CIs encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 21 studies, 10,625 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded one level due to imprecision). We found high-certainty evidence that use of bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to adverse events of the drug than placebo (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.56; I2 = 19%; 25 studies, 12,340 participants). Participants randomized to bupropion were also more likely to report psychiatric AEs compared with those randomized to placebo (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.37; I2 = 15%; 6 studies, 4439 participants). We also looked at the safety and efficacy of bupropion when combined with other non-antidepressant smoking cessation therapies. There was insufficient evidence to establish whether combination bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.51; I2 = 52%; 12 studies, 3487 participants), or whether combination bupropion and varenicline resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I2 = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). We judged the certainty of evidence to be low and moderate, respectively; in both cases due to imprecision, and also due to inconsistency in the former. Safety data were sparse for these comparisons, making it difficult to draw clear conclusions. A meta-analysis of six studies provided evidence that bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 6286 participants), whilst there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and NRT (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; I2 = 18%; 10 studies, 8230 participants). We also found some evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I2 = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), whilst there was insufficient evidence to determine whether bupropion or nortriptyline were more effective when compared with one another (RR 1.30 (favouring bupropion), 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants). There was no evidence that any of the other antidepressants tested (including St John's Wort, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)) had a beneficial effect on smoking cessation. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion also increases the number of adverse events, including psychiatric AEs, and there is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with placebo. However, there is no clear evidence to suggest whether people taking bupropion experience more or fewer SAEs than those taking placebo (moderate certainty). Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo. Evidence suggests that bupropion may be as successful as NRT and nortriptyline in helping people to quit smoking, but that it is less effective than varenicline. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the other antidepressants tested, such as SSRIs, aid smoking cessation, and when looking at safety and tolerance outcomes, in most cases, paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions. Due to the high-certainty evidence, further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over front-line smoking cessation aids already available. However, it is important that where studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation are carried out they measure and report safety and tolerability clearly.

Pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation: effects by subgroup defined by genetically informed biomarkers

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation therapies are not effective for all smokers, and researchers are interested in identifying those subgroups of individuals (e.g. based on genotype) who respond best to specific treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether quit rates vary by genetically informed biomarkers within pharmacotherapy treatment arms and as compared with placebo. To assess the effects of pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation in subgroups of smokers defined by genotype for identified genome-wide significant polymorphisms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialised register, clinical trial registries, and genetics databases for trials of pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation from inception until 16 August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited adult smokers and reported pharmacogenomic analyses from trials of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies versus controls. Eligible trials included those with data on a priori genome-wide significant (P < 5 × 10-8) single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), replicated non-SNPs, and/or the nicotine metabolite ratio (NMR), hereafter collectively described as biomarkers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was smoking abstinence at six months after treatment. The secondary outcome was abstinence at end of treatment (EOT). We conducted two types of meta-analyses- one in which we assessed smoking cessation of active treatment versus placebo within genotype groups, and another in which we compared smoking cessation across genotype groups within treatment arms. We carried out analyses separately in non-Hispanic whites (NHWs) and non-Hispanic blacks (NHBs). We assessed heterogeneity between genotype groups using T², I², and Cochrane Q statistics.

MAIN RESULTS

Analyses included 18 trials including 9017 participants, of whom 6924 were NHW and 2093 NHB participants. Data were available for the following biomarkers: nine SNPs (rs1051730 (CHRNA3); rs16969968, rs588765, and rs2036527 (CHRNA5); rs3733829 and rs7937 (in EGLN2, near CYP2A6); rs1329650 and rs1028936 (LOC100188947); and rs215605 (PDE1C)), two variable number tandem repeats (VNTRs; DRD4 and SLC6A4), and the NMR. Included data produced a total of 40 active versus placebo comparisons, 16 active versus active comparisons, and 64 between-genotype comparisons within treatment arms.For those meta-analyses showing statistically significant heterogeneity between genotype groups, we found the quality of evidence (GRADE) to be generally moderate. We downgraded quality most often because of imprecision or risk of bias due to potential selection bias in genotyping trial participants. Comparisons of relative treatment effects by genotypeFor six-month abstinence, we found statistically significant heterogeneity between genotypes (rs16969968) for nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) versus placebo at six months for NHB participants (P = 0.03; n = 2 trials), but not for other biomarkers or treatment comparisons. Six-month abstinence was increased in the active NRT group as compared to placebo among participants with a GG genotype (risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 2.03), but not in the combined group of participants with a GA or AA genotype (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.26; ratio of risk ratios (RRR) GG vs GA or AA of 3.51, 95% CI 1.19 to 10.3). Comparisons of treatment effects between genotype groups within pharmacotherapy randomisation armsFor those receiving active NRT, treatment was more effective in achieving six-month abstinence among individuals with a slow NMR than among those with a normal NMR among NHW and NHB combined participants (normal NMR vs slow NMR: RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.78; n = 2 trials). We found no such differences in treatment effects between genotypes at six months for any of the other biomarkers among individuals who received pharmacotherapy or placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not identify widespread differential treatment effects of pharmacotherapy based on genotype. Some genotype groups within certain ethnic groups may benefit more from NRT or may benefit less from the combination of bupropion with NRT. The reader should interpret these results with caution because none of the statistically significant meta-analyses included more than two trials per genotype comparison, many confidence intervals were wide, and the quality of this evidence (GRADE) was generally moderate. Although we found evidence of superior NRT efficacy for NMR slow versus normal metabolisers, because of the lack of heterogeneity between NMR groups, we cannot conclude that NRT is more effective for slow metabolisers. Access to additional data from multiple trials is needed, particularly for comparisons of different pharmacotherapies.

A Guide to Medications Inducing Salivary Gland Dysfunction, Xerostomia, and Subjective Sialorrhea: A Systematic Review Sponsored by the World Workshop on Oral Medicine VI

BACKGROUND

Medication-induced salivary gland dysfunction (MISGD), xerostomia (sensation of oral dryness), and subjective sialorrhea cause significant morbidity and impair quality of life. However, no evidence-based lists of the medications that cause these disorders exist.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to compile a list of medications affecting salivary gland function and inducing xerostomia or subjective sialorrhea.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases were searched for relevant articles published until June 2013. Of 3867 screened records, 269 had an acceptable degree of relevance, quality of methodology, and strength of evidence. We found 56 chemical substances with a higher level of evidence and 50 with a moderate level of evidence of causing the above-mentioned disorders. At the first level of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system, 9 of 14 anatomical groups were represented, mainly the alimentary, cardiovascular, genitourinary, nervous, and respiratory systems. Management strategies include substitution or discontinuation of medications whenever possible, oral or systemic therapy with sialogogues, administration of saliva substitutes, and use of electro-stimulating devices.

LIMITATIONS

While xerostomia was a commonly reported outcome, objectively measured salivary flow rate was rarely reported. Moreover, xerostomia was mostly assessed as an adverse effect rather than the primary outcome of medication use. This study may not include some medications that could cause xerostomia when administered in conjunction with others or for which xerostomia as an adverse reaction has not been reported in the literature or was not detected in our search.

CONCLUSIONS

We compiled a comprehensive list of medications with documented effects on salivary gland function or symptoms that may assist practitioners in assessing patients who complain of dry mouth while taking medications. The list may also prove useful in helping practitioners anticipate adverse effects and consider alternative medications.

Interventions for tobacco use cessation in people in treatment for or recovery from substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

Smoking rates in people with alcohol and other drug dependencies are two to four times those of the general population. Concurrent treatment of tobacco dependence has been limited due to concern that these interventions are not successful in this population or that recovery from other addictions could be compromised if tobacco cessation was combined with other drug dependency treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether interventions for tobacco cessation are associated with tobacco abstinence for people in concurrent treatment for or in recovery from alcohol and other drug dependence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases, with the most recent search completed in August 2016. A grey literature search of conference abstracts from the Society on Nicotine Research and Treatment and the ProQuest database of digital dissertations yielded one additional study, which was excluded.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions among people in concurrent treatment for alcohol or other drug dependence or in outpatient recovery programmes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study risk of bias and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by consensus. The primary outcome was abstinence from tobacco use at the longest period of follow-up, and the secondary outcome was abstinence from alcohol or other drugs, or both. We reported the strictest definition of abstinence. We summarised effects as risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Two clustered studies did not provide intraclass correlation coefficients, and were excluded from the sensitivity analysis. We used the I² statistic to assess heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-five randomised controlled trials, one ongoing, involving 5796 participants met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Included studies assessed the efficacy of tobacco cessation interventions, including counselling, and pharmacotherapy consisting of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or non-NRT, or the two combined, in both inpatient and outpatient settings for participants in treatment and in recovery. Most studies did not report information to assess the risk of allocation, selection, and attrition bias, and were classified as unclear.Analyses considered the nature of the intervention, whether participants were in treatment or recovery and the type of dependency. Of the 34 studies included in the meta-analysis, 11 assessed counselling, 11 assessed pharmacotherapy, and 12 assessed counselling in combination with pharmacotherapy, compared to usual care or no intervention. Tobacco cessation interventions were significantly associated with tobacco abstinence for two types of interventions. Pharmacotherapy appeared to increase tobacco abstinence (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.12, 11 studies, 1808 participants, low quality evidence), as did combined counselling and pharmacotherapy (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.18, 12 studies, 2229 participants, low quality evidence) at the period of longest follow-up, which ranged from six weeks to 18 months. There was moderate evidence of heterogeneity (I² = 56% with pharmacotherapy and 43% with counselling plus pharmacotherapy). Counselling interventions did not significantly increase tobacco abstinence (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.95).Interventions were significantly associated with tobacco abstinence for both people in treatment (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.50) and people in recovery (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.67), and for people with alcohol dependence (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.81) and people with other drug dependencies (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.40).Offering tobacco cessation therapy to people in treatment or recovery for other drug dependence was not associated with a difference in abstinence rates from alcohol and other drugs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.03, 11 studies, 2231 participants, moderate evidence of heterogeneity (I² = 66%)).Data on adverse effect of the interventions were limited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The studies included in this review suggest that providing tobacco cessation interventions targeted to smokers in treatment and recovery for alcohol and other drug dependencies increases tobacco abstinence. There was no evidence that providing interventions for tobacco cessation affected abstinence from alcohol and other drugs. The association between tobacco cessation interventions and tobacco abstinence was consistent for both pharmacotherapy and combined counselling and pharmacotherapy, for participants both in treatment and in recovery, and for people with alcohol dependency or other drug dependency. The evidence for the interventions was low quality due primarily to incomplete reporting of the risks of bias and clinical heterogeneity in the nature of treatment. Certain results were sensitive to the length of follow-up or the type of pharmacotherapy, suggesting that further research is warranted regarding whether tobacco cessation interventions are associated with tobacco abstinence for people in recovery, and the outcomes associated with NRT versus non-NRT or combined pharmacotherapy. Overall, the results suggest that tobacco cessation interventions incorporating pharmacotherapy should be incorporated into clinical practice to reduce tobacco addiction among people in treatment for or recovery from alcohol and other drug dependence.

A Randomized Trial of Contingency Management for Smoking Cessation During Intensive Outpatient Alcohol Treatment

INTRODUCTION

This randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of contingency management (CM) for smoking cessation for smokers with alcohol abuse or dependence delivered concurrently with intensive outpatient alcohol treatment. The study also explored the indirect effects of CM smoking treatment and smoking cessation on alcohol and drug use outcomes.

METHODS

Alcohol abuse/dependent smokers were randomized to cognitive behavioral therapy plus nicotine replacement therapy plus contingency management (CBT+NRT+CM) or to cognitive behavior therapy plus nicotine replacement therapy (CBT+NRT) delivered concurrent with a three-week intensive outpatient alcohol treatment program.

RESULTS

Participants in the CBT+NRT+CM condition were significantly more likely to be cigarette abstinent at the end of treatment (χ²(1)=8.48, p=.004) with approximately double the carbon monoxide confirmed quit rate (60%) compared with the CBT+NRT condition (29%). At the one-month and six-month time-points there were nonsignificant differences in smoking abstinence outcomes by condition. Smoking treatment condition did not directly affect alcohol abstinence outcomes, but we observed an indirect effect of smoking treatment on alcohol and drug abstinence at one-month follow-up that was mediated by smoking cessation at the end of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding CM to an evidence-based smoking cessation treatment that included medication and behavioral counseling doubled the quit rate at the end of treatment. This finding provides strong evidence for the efficacy of CM for helping alcohol dependent smokers reach the milestone of initial smoking abstinence.

Improving Quality of Care for Hospitalized Smokers with HIV: Tobacco Dependence Treatment Referral and Utilization

BACKGROUND

Most persons living with HIV smoke cigarettes and tend to be highly dependent, heavy smokers. Few such persons receive tobacco treatment, and many die from tobacco-related illness. Although advancements in antiretroviral therapy (ART) have increased the quality and quantity of life, the health harms from tobacco use diminish these gains. Without cessation assistance, thousands will benefit from costly ART, only to suffer the consequences of tobacco-related disease and death. A study was conducted to examine in detail inpatient tobacco treatment for smokers with HIV.

METHODS

Data collected at hospital admission and data collected by tobacco treatment specialists were examined retrospectively for all inpatients with HIV who were admitted to an academic medical center for a five-year period. Specifically, the prevalence of cigarette smoking, factors predictive of referral to tobacco treatment, referral for tobacco treatment, treatment participation, and abstinence at six months posttreatment were measured. Differences in referral and treatment participation between all smokers and smokers with HIV were also assessed.

RESULTS

Among the 422 admitted persons with HIV, 54.5% smoked and 21.7% were referred to inpatient tobacco treatment services. Substance abuse and tobacco-related diagnoses were predictive of referral to inpatient tobacco treatment specialists. Among the 14 treatment participants reached for follow-up, 11 (78.6%) made quit attempts and 3 (21.4%) reported abstinence. Smokers with HIV were less likely to be referred to and treated by tobacco treatment services than all smokers admitted during the same time frame.

CONCLUSIONS

Although tobacco is a major cause of mortality, few smokers with HIV are offered treatment during hospitalization. Those who are treated attempt to quit. Hospitalization offers a prime opportunity for initiating smoking cessation among those with HIV.

A Systematic Review of Smoking Cessation Interventions for Adults in Substance Abuse Treatment or Recovery

INTRODUCTION

The aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for patients with substance use disorders. The secondary aim was to evaluate impact on substance use treatment outcomes.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials involving adult smokers, recently or currently receiving inpatient or outpatient treatment for substance use disorders were reviewed. Databases, grey literature, reference lists, and journals were searched for relevant studies between 1990 and August 2014. Two authors extracted data and assessed quality. The primary outcome was biochemically verified continuous abstinence from smoking at 6 or 12 months, secondary outcomes were biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence (PPA) at 6 or 12 months and substance use outcomes. Heterogeneity between studies precluded pooled analyses of the data.

RESULTS

Seventeen of 847 publications were included. Five studies reported significant effects on smoking cessation: (1) nicotine patches improved continuous abstinence at 6 months; (2) nicotine gum improved continuous abstinence at 12 months; (3) counseling, contingency management and relapse prevention improved continuous abstinence at 6 and 12 months; (4) cognitive behavioral therapy, plus nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), improved PPA at 6 months; and (5) a combination of bupropion, NRT, counseling and contingency management improved PPA at 6 months. Two studies showed some evidence of improved substance use outcomes with the remaining eight studies measuring substance use outcomes showing no difference.

CONCLUSIONS

NRT, behavioral support, and combination approaches appear to increase smoking abstinence in those treated for substance use disorders. Higher quality studies are required to strengthen the evidence base.

Comparison of nicotine dependence indicators in predicting quitting among pregnant smokers

Research in the general population of smokers indicates that across various measures of nicotine dependence, time to first cigarette (TTFC) is the strongest single-item predictor of quitting success. Whether those findings generalize to pregnant smokers is unclear. To investigate this matter, we compared TTFC with cigarettes per day (CPD) and the Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI; Kozlowski, Porter, Orleans, Pope, & Heatherton, 1994) in predicting late-pregnancy abstinence among 289 pregnant women enrolled in 4 smoking-cessation trials assessing the efficacy of financial incentives. Logistic regression was used to compare predictors, with model fit measured using the c statistic (range = 0.5, poor prediction to 1.0, perfect prediction). In simple regressions, model fit was comparable across the 3 measures although strongest for CPD alone (c = 0.70, 0.68, 0.66 for CPD, HSI, and TTFC, respectively). In a stepwise multiple regression, treatment was entered first (c = 0.67), then CPD (c = 0.77), quit attempts prepregnancy (c = .81), TTFC (c = .82), and quit attempts during pregnancy (c = .83). We saw no evidence supporting TTFC as the optimal predictor of quitting among pregnant smokers. Instead, the evidence supported using CPD and TTFC together or CPD alone if using only a single predictor.

Pharmacological Options for Smoking Cessation in Heavy-Drinking Smokers

There is a high prevalence of comorbid tobacco use and alcohol use disorder (AUD), affecting more than 6 million people in the US. Globally, tobacco and alcohol use rank fourth and fifth, respectively, for disability-adjusted life-years lost. Levels of alcohol use are higher in smokers than nonsmokers, and the prevalence of smoking is higher in heavy drinkers compared with nondrinkers. This relationship is driven by many different factors, including genetics, neurobiological mechanisms, conditioning processes, and psychosocial influences. Although this unique population tends to experience more negative health consequences, more severe AUD, and poorer response to treatment than those with either AUD or tobacco use disorder alone, there are currently no available treatment protocols tailored to this comorbid condition. In this review, we provide a comprehensive review of ongoing clinical research into smoking cessation options for heavy-drinking smokers (HDS) through an evaluation of the effect of promising novel pharmacotherapies as well as combination therapies, including varenicline, naltrexone, the combination of varenicline and naltrexone, and the combination of naltrexone and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). These treatments are considered in light of the standard of care for smoking cessation, and seek to improve upon the available guidelines for this sizeable subgroup of smokers, namely those smokers who drink heavily.

Smoking reductions and increased self-efficacy in a randomized controlled trial of smoking abstinence-contingent incentives in residential substance abuse treatment patients

INTRODUCTION

Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) experience increased smoking-related morbidity and mortality but severely compromised smoking treatment benefits. Residential SUD treatment settings may be particularly positioned to target smoking, with ever-increasing smoking bans and culture shifts, but most smokers continue smoking. This study examined the effects of contingency management (CM) for increasing smoking abstinence in residential patients.

METHODS

Smokers interested in quitting were recruited from a residential SUD program for men and were randomized to frequent smoking monitoring with behavioral support (monitoring; n = 21) or that plus smoking abstinence-contingent (expired carbon monoxide [CO] ≤ 6 ppm; urinary cotinine ≤ 30ng/ml) incentives (CM, n = 24) for 4 weeks. After setting a quit date, procedures included daily behavioral support and smoking self-reports, 2 CO samples (a.m./p.m.) Monday through Friday, and cotinine tests on Mondays. CM participants received escalating draws for prizes ($1, $20, and $100 values) for negative tests; positive and missed samples reset draws. Follow-ups involved samples, self-reported smoking, and self-efficacy (weeks 4, 8, 12, and 24).

RESULTS

Percent days CO-negative was higher with CM (median [interquartile range] 51.7% [62.8%]) compared to monitoring (0% [32.1%]) (p = .002). Cigarettes per day declined and point-prevalence abstinence increased through follow-up (p < .01), without significant group by time effects (p > .05). Abstinence self-efficacy increased overall during the intervention and more with CM compared to monitoring and was associated with abstinence across conditions through follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

CM improved some measures of response to smoking treatment in residential SUD patients.

A randomized trial of concurrent smoking-cessation and substance use disorder treatment in stimulant-dependent smokers

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of concurrent treatments for substance use disorder and nicotine-dependence for stimulant-dependent patients.

METHOD

A randomized, 10-week trial with follow-up at 3 and 6 months after smoking quit date conducted at 12 substance use disorder treatment programs between February 2010 and July 2012. Adults meeting DSM-IV-TR criteria for cocaine and/or methamphetamine dependence and interested in quitting smoking were randomized to treatment as usual (n = 271) or treatment as usual with smoking-cessation treatment (n = 267). All participants received treatment as usual for substance use disorder treatment. Participants assigned to treatment as usual with concurrent smoking-cessation treatment received weekly individual smoking cessation counseling and extended-release bupropion (300 mg/d) during weeks 1-10. During post-quit treatment (weeks 4-10), participants assigned to treatment as usual with smoking-cessation treatment received a nicotine inhaler and contingency management for smoking abstinence. Weekly proportion of stimulant-abstinent participants during the treatment phase, as assessed by urine drug screens and self-report, was the primary outcome. Secondary measures included other substance/nicotine use outcomes and treatment attendance.

RESULTS

There were no significant treatment effects on stimulant-use outcomes, as measured by the primary outcome and stimulant-free days, on drug-abstinence, or on attendance. Participants assigned to treatment as usual with smoking-cessation treatment, relative to those assigned to treatment as usual, had significantly better outcomes for drug-free days at 6-month follow-up (χ(2)(1) = 4.09, P <.05), with a decrease in drug-free days from baseline of -1.3% in treatment as usual with smoking-cessation treatment and of -7.6% in treatment as usual. Participants receiving treatment as usual with smoking-cessation treatment, relative to those receiving treatment as usual, had significantly better outcomes on smoking point-prevalence abstinence (25.5% vs 2.2%; χ(2)(1) = 44.69, P < .001; OR =18.2).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that providing smoking-cessation treatment to illicit stimulant-dependent patients in outpatient substance use disorder treatment will not worsen, and may enhance, abstinence from nonnicotine substance use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01077024.

EPA Guidance on Tobacco Dependence and Strategies for Smoking Cessation in People with Mental Illness

Tobacco dependence is the most common substance use disorder in adults with mental illness. The prevalence rates for tobacco dependence are two to four times higher in these patients than in the general population. Smoking has a strong, negative influence on the life expectancy and quality of life of mental health patients, and remains the leading preventable cause of death in this group. Despite these statistics, in some countries smokers with mental illness are disadvantaged in receiving intervention and support for their tobacco dependence, which is often overlooked or even tolerated. This statement from the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) systematically reviews the current evidence on tobacco dependence and withdrawal in patients with mental illness and their treatment. It provides seven recommendations for the core components of diagnostics and treatment in this patient group. These recommendations concern: (1) the recording process, (2) the timing of the intervention, (3) counselling specificities, (4) proposed treatments, (5) frequency of contact after stopping, (6) follow-up visits and (7) relapse prevention. They aim to help clinicians improve the care, health and well-being of patients suffering from mental illness.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

There are at least three reasons to believe antidepressants might help in smoking cessation. Firstly, nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms or precipitate a major depressive episode and antidepressants may relieve these. Secondly, nicotine may have antidepressant effects that maintain smoking, and antidepressants may substitute for this effect. Finally, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways (e.g. inhibiting monoamine oxidase) or receptors (e.g. blockade of nicotinic-cholinergic receptors) underlying nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the effect and safety of antidepressant medications to aid long-term smoking cessation. The medications include bupropion; doxepin; fluoxetine; imipramine; lazabemide; moclobemide; nortriptyline; paroxetine; S-Adenosyl-L-Methionine (SAMe); selegiline; sertraline; St. John's wort; tryptophan; venlafaxine; and zimeledine.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register which includes reports of trials indexed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in July 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized trials comparing antidepressant medications to placebo or an alternative pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. We also included trials comparing different doses, using pharmacotherapy to prevent relapse or re-initiate smoking cessation or to help smokers reduce cigarette consumption. We excluded trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in patients smoking at baseline, expressed as a risk ratio (RR). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four new trials were identified since the 2009 update, bringing the total number of included trials to 90. There were 65 trials of bupropion and ten trials of nortriptyline, with the majority at low or unclear risk of bias. There was high quality evidence that, when used as the sole pharmacotherapy, bupropion significantly increased long-term cessation (44 trials, N = 13,728, risk ratio [RR] 1.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49 to 1.76). There was moderate quality evidence, limited by a relatively small number of trials and participants, that nortriptyline also significantly increased long-term cessation when used as the sole pharmacotherapy (six trials, N = 975, RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78). There is insufficient evidence that adding bupropion (12 trials, N = 3487, RR 1.9, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.51) or nortriptyline (4 trials, N = 1644, RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.55) to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) provides an additional long-term benefit. Based on a limited amount of data from direct comparisons, bupropion and nortriptyline appear to be equally effective and of similar efficacy to NRT (bupropion versus nortriptyline 3 trials, N = 417, RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; bupropion versus NRT 8 trials, N = 4096, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09; no direct comparisons between nortriptyline and NRT). Pooled results from four trials comparing bupropion to varenicline showed significantly lower quitting with bupropion than with varenicline (N = 1810, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.83). Meta-analyses did not detect a significant increase in the rate of serious adverse events amongst participants taking bupropion, though the confidence interval only narrowly missed statistical significance (33 trials, N = 9631, RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.69). There is a risk of about 1 in 1000 of seizures associated with bupropion use. Bupropion has been associated with suicide risk, but whether this is causal is unclear. Nortriptyline has the potential for serious side-effects, but none have been seen in the few small trials for smoking cessation.There was no evidence of a significant effect for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors on their own (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.22, N = 1594; 2 trials fluoxetine, 1 paroxetine, 1 sertraline) or as an adjunct to NRT (3 trials of fluoxetine, N = 466, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.82). Significant effects were also not detected for monoamine oxidase inhibitors (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.79, N = 827; 1 trial moclobemide, 5 selegiline), the atypical antidepressant venlafaxine (1 trial, N = 147, RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.32), the herbal therapy St John's wort (hypericum) (2 trials, N = 261, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.53), or the dietary supplement SAMe (1 trial, N = 120, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.07).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The antidepressants bupropion and nortriptyline aid long-term smoking cessation. Adverse events with either medication appear to rarely be serious or lead to stopping medication. Evidence suggests that the mode of action of bupropion and nortriptyline is independent of their antidepressant effect and that they are of similar efficacy to nicotine replacement. Evidence also suggests that bupropion is less effective than varenicline, but further research is needed to confirm this finding. Evidence suggests that neither selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (e.g. fluoxetine) nor monoamine oxidase inhibitors aid cessation.

Treatment of tobacco dependence in people with mental health and addictive disorders

People with mental health and addictive disorders (MHADs) have higher rates of cigarette smoking, and less success in quitting smoking compared with the general population. Moreover, tobacco-related medical illness may be the leading cause of death in the MHAD population. We discuss the scope of this comorbidity, and approaches to the treatment of tobacco dependence in people with MHAD, including schizophrenia, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and alcohol and substance use disorders. Finally, at the level of health systems, we emphasize the importance of integrated treatment of tobacco dependence in MHADs.

Predictors of relapse in a bupropion trial for smoking cessation in recently-abstinent alcoholics: preliminary results using an aggregate genetic risk score

Introduction

Rates of smoking in the US population have decreased overall, but rates in some groups, including alcoholic smokers, remain high. Many newly sober alcoholics are concerned about their smoking and some attempt to quit. However, quit rates in this population are low. Prior studies suggest risk for relapse in this population may be genetically influenced and that genetic factors may moderate response to treatment.

Methods

In this exploratory study, we had two specific aims: (1) to investigate associations between genetic risk and outcome; (2) to investigate whether genetic risk moderates the efficacy of a medication intervention. Data are from a subsample of 90 participants from a clinical trial of smoking cessation treatment for smokers with between 2 and 12 months of alcohol abstinence. Subjects were randomly assigned to bupropion or placebo. All subjects received counseling and nicotine patches. To examine the possibility that bupropion may have been efficacious in participants with a specific genetic profile (ie, a pharmacogenetic approach), an aggregate genetic risk score was created by combining risk genotypes previously identified in bupropion treatment studies.

Results

Although medication efficacy was not moderated by the aggregate genetic risk score, there was an interaction between nicotine dependence and genetic risk in predicting smoking abstinence rates at the end of treatment (10 weeks).

Conclusions

Results suggest an aggregate genetic risk score approach may have utility in treatment trials of alcoholics who smoke. Additionally, these findings suggest a strategy for understanding and interpreting conflicting results for single genetic markers examined as moderators of smoking cessation treatment.