Cytisine Therapy Improved Smoking Cessation in the Randomized Screening and Multiple Intervention on Lung Epidemics Lung Cancer Screening Trial

Systematic review and meta-analyses of cytisine to support tobacco cessation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cytisine (also known as cytisinicline) is a low-cost partial agonist of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors used to assist tobacco cessation. We aimed to review the effectiveness of cytisine for tobacco cessation and the effects of dose and co-use of behavioural or other pharmacological interventions on cessation outcomes.

METHODS

We searched seven databases, Google Scholar, and reference lists of included publications for randomised controlled trials investigating use of cytisine as a tobacco cessation aid. Studies were eligible if participants were ≥15 years old and used tobacco upon study enrolment. We conducted four random effects meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses with fixed effects models. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials version 2 to assess risk of bias in included studies, with adjustments recommended by the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group.

RESULTS

Participants using cytisine were significantly more likely to quit tobacco than participants who received placebo/no intervention/usual care (risk ratio [RR] = 2.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.50-4.67, 6 trials, 5194 participants) or nicotine replacement therapy (RR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.06-1.73, p = 0.0152, 2 trials, 1511 participants). The difference in cessation rates among participants receiving cytisine versus varenicline was not statistically significant (RR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.63-1.45, P = 0.8464, 3 trials, 2508 participants). Two trials examined longer versus shorter treatment duration, finding higher abstinence rates with longer treatment (RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.02-1.63, 2 trials, 1009 participants). The differences in the number of adverse events reported by participants who received cytisine versus placebo (RR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.99-1.41, P = 0.0624; 6 trials; 4578 participants) or cytisine versus varenicline (RR = 1.37, 95% CI = 0.57-3.33, P = 0.4835; 2 trials; 1345 participants) were not statistically significant. Most adverse events were mild (e.g. abnormal dreams, nausea, headaches).

CONCLUSIONS

Cytisine is an effective aid for tobacco cessation and appears to be more effective for tobacco cessation than placebo, no intervention, usual care and nicotine replacement therapy.

Cytisinicline for Vaping Cessation in Adults Using Nicotine E-Cigarettes: The ORCA-V1 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The prevalence of e-cigarette use among US adults, especially young adults, is rising. Many would like to quit vaping nicotine but are unable to do so. Cytisinicline, a plant-based alkaloid, targets nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, reduces nicotine dependence, and helps adults to stop smoking cigarettes. Cytisinicline may also help e-cigarette users to quit vaping.

Objective

To determine the efficacy and safety of cytisinicline vs placebo to produce abstinence from e-cigarette use in adults seeking to quit vaping nicotine.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial compared 12 weeks of treatment with cytisinicline vs placebo, with follow-up to 16 weeks. It was conducted from July 2022 to February 2023 across 5 US clinical trial sites. A total of 160 adults who vaped nicotine daily, sought to quit, and did not currently smoke cigarettes were enrolled, and 131 (81.9%) completed the trial.

Intervention

Participants were randomized (2:1) to cytisinicline, 3 mg, taken 3 times daily (n = 107) or placebo (n = 53) for 12 weeks. All participants received weekly behavioral support.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Biochemically verified continuous e-cigarette abstinence during the last 4 weeks of treatment (weeks 9-12; primary outcome) and through 4 weeks posttreatment (weeks 9-16; secondary outcome). Missing outcomes were counted as nonabstinence.

Results

Of 160 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 33.6 [11.1] years; 83 [51.9%] female), 115 (71.9%) formerly smoked (≥100 lifetime cigarettes). Continuous e-cigarette abstinence in cytisinicline and placebo groups occurred in 34 of 107 participants (31.8%) vs 8 of 53 participants (15.1%) (odds ratio, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.06-7.10; P = .04) at end of treatment (weeks 9-12) and in 25 of 107 participants (23.4%) vs 7 of 53 participants (13.2%) during weeks 9 to 16 (odds ratio, 2.00; 95% CI, 0.82-5.32; P = .15). There was no evidence, based on nonsignificant interactions, that cytisinicline efficacy differed in subgroups defined by demographic characteristics, vaping pattern, e-cigarette dependence, or smoking history. Cytisinicline was well tolerated, with 4 participants (3.8%) discontinuing cytisinicline due to an adverse event.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, cytisinicline for 12 weeks, with behavioral support, demonstrated efficacy for cessation of e-cigarette use at end of treatment and was well tolerated by adults, offering a potential pharmacotherapy option for treating nicotine e-cigarette use in adults who seek to quit vaping. These results need confirmation in a larger trial with longer follow-up.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05431387.

The added value of an AI-based body composition analysis in a lung cancer screening population: preliminary results

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Body composition has been linked with clinical and prognostic outcomes in patients with cancer and cardiovascular diseases. Body composition analysis in lung cancer screening (LCS) is very limited. This study aimed at assessing the association of subcutaneous fat volume (SFV) and subcutaneous fat density (SFD), measured on chest ultra-low dose computed tomography (ultra-LDCT) images by a fully automated artificial intelligence (AI)-based software, with clinical and anthropometric characteristics in a LCS population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Demographic, clinical, and dietary data were obtained from the written questionnaire completed by each participant at the first visit, when anthropometric measurements, blood sample collection and chest ultra-LDCT were performed. Images were analyzed for automated 3D segmentation of subcutaneous fat and muscle. The analysis included 938 volunteers (372 females); men with a smoking history of ≥40 pack-years had higher SFV (p = 0.0009), while former smokers had lower SFD (p = 0.0019). In female participants, SFV and SFD differed significantly according to age. SFV increased with rising BMI, waist circumference, waist-hip ratio, and CRP levels ≥2 mg/L (p < 0.0001), whereas SFD decreased with rising BMI, waist circumference, waist-hip ratio, and CRP levels ≥2 mg/L (p < 0.001) in both sexes. SFV was associated with glycemia and triglycerides levels (p = 0.0067 and p=<0.0001 in males, p = 0.0074 and p < 0.0001 in females, respectively), while SFD with triglycerides levels (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

We observed different associations of SFV and SFD with age and smoking history between men and women, whereas the association with anthropometric data, CRP, glycemia and triglycerides levels was similar in the two sexes.

The pros and cons of lung cancer screening

Several trials have shown that low-dose computed tomography-based lung cancer screening (LCS) allows a substantial reduction in lung cancer-related mortality, carrying the potential for other clinical benefits. There are, however, some uncertainties to be clarified and several aspects to be implemented to optimize advantages and minimize the potential harms of LCS. This review summarizes current evidence on LCS, discussing some of the well-established and potential benefits, including lung cancer (LC)-related mortality reduction and opportunity for smoking cessation interventions, as well as the disadvantages of LCS, such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Different perspectives are provided on LCS based on the updated literature. KEY POINTS: Lung cancer is a leading cancer-related cause of death and screening should reduce associated mortality. This review summarizes current evidence related to LCS. Several aspects need to be implemented to optimize benefits and minimize potential drawbacks of LCS.

Smartphone application versus written material for smoking reduction and cessation in individuals undergoing low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer: a phase II open-label randomised controlled trial

Background

Counseling, nicotine replacement, and other cessation medications have been proven effective in smoking cessation. The wide-scale adoption of smartphones and other mobile devices has opened new possibilities for scalable and personalized smoking cessation approaches. The study investigated whether a smartphone application would be more effective than written material for smoking cessation and reduction in smoking in individuals undergoing low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer (NCT05630950).

Methods

This randomized controlled trial enrolled 201 current smokers with marked smoking history (smoked ≥15 cigarettes/day for ≥25 years or smoked ≥10 cigarettes/day for ≥30 years). Participants were stratified by age and pack-years and randomized in 1:1 fashion to the developed smartphone application (experimental arm) or written material (standard of care). All the subjects underwent LDCT screening. Self-reported smoking cessation at three and six months were the primary endpoints of the study. The smoking-related secondary endpoints of the study were the percentage of individuals who had reduced the number of smoked cigarettes/d from the baseline.

Findings

Between Nov 18, 2022, and Apr 14, 2023, 201 patients were screened at Oulu University Hospital, Finland, of whom all were randomly assigned to smartphone application (n = 101) or written cessation material (n = 100); 200 were included in the full analysis set. Study arms were well-balanced for all the studied demographic factors. Subjects randomized to the smartphone application arm had significantly higher rates for self-reported smoking cessation at three (19.8 versus 7.1%; OR 3.175 CI 95% 1.276-7.899) and six months (18.8 versus 7.1%; OR 2.847 CI 95% 1.137-7.128). In the experimental arm, individuals with a frequent use of the application had a higher chance for smoking cessation at three (p < 0.001) and six months (p = 0.003).

Interpretation

The study showed that the developed smartphone application increases the likelihood for smoking cessation in individuals undergoing lung cancer LDCT screening.

Funding

AstraZeneca, Roche, and Cancer Foundation Finland.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of cytisine for the treatment of smoking cessation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Smoking is considered the main cause of preventable death world-wide. This study aimed to review the efficacy and safety of cytisine for smoking cessation.

METHODS

This review included an exhaustive search of databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in health centers of any level with smokers of any age or gender investigating the effects of cytisine at standard dosage versus placebo, varenicline or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).

RESULTS

We identified 12 RCTs. Eight RCTs compared cytisine with placebo at the standard dose covering 5922 patients, 2996 of whom took cytisine, delivering a risk ratio (RR) of 2.25 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.42-3.56; I2  = 88%; moderate-quality evidence]. The greater intensity of behavioral therapy was associated directly with the efficacy findings (moderate-quality evidence). The confirmed efficacy of cytisine was not evidenced in trials conducted in low- and middle-income countries. We estimate a number needed to treat (NNT) of 11. Two trials compared the efficacy of cytisine versus NRT, and the combination of both studies yields modest results in favor of cytisine. Three trials compared cytisine with varenicline, without a clear benefit for cytisine. Meta-analyses of all non-serious adverse events in the cytisine group versus placebo groups yielded a RR of 1.24 (95% CI = 1.11-1.39; participants = 5895; studies = 8; I2  = 0%; high-quality evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

Cytisine increases the chances of successful smoking cessation by more than twofold compared with placebo and has a benign safety profile, with no evidence of serious safety concerns. Limited evidence suggests that cytisine may be more effective than nicotine replacement therapy, with modest cessation rates.

Cytisine as a smoking cessation aid: Preliminary observations with a modified therapeutic scheme in real life

INTRODUCTION

Cigarette smoke accounts for over 90,000 deaths each year in Italy. Tobacco dependence treatment guidelines suggest adopting an integrated pharmacological-behavioral model of intervention. Cytisine is a partial agonist of nicotinic receptors. Trials conducted to date have demonstrated its good efficacy in promoting smoking cessation. The cytisine scheme of treatment consists of 25 days of treatment. A 40-day regimen, with an escalating dose and an extended duration of the treatment, has been in use in many anti-smoking centers in Italy for several years, but to date there are no reports on the use of cytisine with this scheme.

METHODS

A retrospective, real-life, observational study was conducted between January 2016 and September 2022. The 300 patients who had received at least one dose of study medication were selected. Continuous variables were compared by the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were implemented for self-reported seven-day point prevalence for abstinence at three, six and 12 months.

RESULTS

The median age of the patients was 59 years, 57% were women. The median smoking exposure was 33.8 pack-years. Self-reported smoking abstinence at three, six and 12 months was 68.7%, 56.3% and 47.3% respectively. 84% completed the cytisine treatment, 31.3% reported adverse events and in 8.3% these led to dropping out of the treatment.

CONCLUSION

Cytisine, administered with a novel therapeutic scheme in the real-life setting of a specialized anti-smoking center, significantly promotes smoking abstinence. However, more studies are needed to assess the tolerability and efficacy of this new regimen.

Study rationale and design of the PEOPLHE trial

PURPOSE

Lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) demonstrated a 20-40% reduction in lung cancer mortality. National stakeholders and international scientific societies are increasingly endorsing LCS programs, but translating their benefits into practice is rather challenging. The "Model for Optimized Implementation of Early Lung Cancer Detection: Prospective Evaluation Of Preventive Lung HEalth" (PEOPLHE) is an Italian multicentric LCS program aiming at testing LCS feasibility and implementation within the national healthcare system. PEOPLHE is intended to assess (i) strategies to optimize LCS workflow, (ii) radiological quality assurance, and (iii) the need for dedicated resources, including smoking cessation facilities.

METHODS

PEOPLHE aims to recruit 1.500 high-risk individuals across three tertiary general hospitals in three different Italian regions that provide comprehensive services to large populations to explore geographic, demographic, and socioeconomic diversities. Screening by LDCT will target current or former (quitting < 10 years) smokers (> 15 cigarettes/day for > 25 years, or > 10 cigarettes/day for > 30 years) aged 50-75 years. Lung nodules will be volumetric measured and classified by a modified PEOPLHE Lung-RADS 1.1 system. Current smokers will be offered smoking cessation support.

CONCLUSION

The PEOPLHE program will provide information on strategies for screening enrollment and smoking cessation interventions; administrative, organizational, and radiological needs for performing a state-of-the-art LCS; collateral and incidental findings (both pulmonary and extrapulmonary), contributing to the LCS implementation within national healthcare systems.

The Smokers Health Multiple ACtions (SMAC-1) Trial: Study Design and Results of the Baseline Round

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening with low-dose helical computed tomography (LDCT) reduces mortality in high-risk subjects. Cigarette smoking is linked to up to 90% of lung cancer deaths. Even more so, it is a key risk factor for many other cancers and cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases. The Smokers health Multiple ACtions (SMAC-1) trial aimed to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of an integrated program based on the early detection of smoking-related thoraco-cardiovascular diseases in high-risk subjects, combined with primary prevention. A new multi-component screening design was utilized to strengthen the framework on conventional lung cancer screening programs. We report here the study design and the results from our baseline round, focusing on oncological findings.

METHODS

High-risk subjects were defined as being >55 years of age and active smokers or formers who had quit within 15 years (>30 pack/y). A PLCOm2012 threshold >2% was chosen. Subject outreach was streamlined through media campaign and general practitioners' engagement. Eligible subjects, upon written informed consent, underwent a psychology consultation, blood sample collection, self-evaluation questionnaire, spirometry, and LDCT scan. Blood samples were analyzed for pentraxin-3 protein levels, interleukins, microRNA, and circulating tumor cells. Cardiovascular risk assessment and coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring were performed. Direct and indirect costs were analyzed focusing on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life years gained in different scenarios. Personalized screening time-intervals were determined using the "Maisonneuve risk re-calculation model", and a threshold <0.6% was chosen for the biennial round.

RESULTS

In total, 3228 subjects were willing to be enrolled. Out of 1654 eligible subjects, 1112 participated. The mean age was 64 years (M/F 62/38%), with a mean PLCOm2012 of 5.6%. Former and active smokers represented 23% and 77% of the subjects, respectively. At least one nodule was identified in 348 subjects. LDCTs showed no clinically significant findings in 762 subjects (69%); thus, they were referred for annual/biennial LDCTs based on the Maisonneuve risk (mean value = 0.44%). Lung nodule active surveillance was indicated for 122 subjects (11%). Forty-four subjects with baseline suspicious nodules underwent a PET-FDG and twenty-seven a CT-guided lung biopsy. Finally, a total of 32 cancers were diagnosed, of which 30 were lung cancers (2.7%) and 2 were extrapulmonary cancers (malignant pleural mesothelioma and thymoma). Finally, 25 subjects underwent lung surgery (2.25%). Importantly, there were zero false positives and two false negatives with CT-guided biopsy, of which the patients were operated on with no stage shift. The final pathology included lung adenocarcinomas (69%), squamous cell carcinomas (10%), and others (21%). Pathological staging showed 14 stage I (47%) and 16 stage II-IV (53%) cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

LDCTs continue to confirm their efficacy in safely detecting early-stage lung cancer in high-risk subjects, with a negligible risk of false-positive results. Re-calculating the risk of developing lung cancer after baseline LDCTs with the Maisonneuve model allows us to optimize time intervals to subsequent screening. The Smokers health Multiple ACtions (SMAC-1) trial offers solid support for policy assessments by policymakers. We trust that this will help in developing guidelines for the large-scale implementation of lung cancer screening, paving the way for better outcomes for lung cancer patients.

Current and Future Perspectives on Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer: A Roadmap From 2023 to 2027 From the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer substantially reduces mortality from lung cancer, as revealed in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. This review is based on the ninth CT screening symposium of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, which focuses on the major themes pertinent to the successful global implementation of LDCT screening and develops a strategy to further the implementation of lung cancer screening globally. These recommendations provide a 5-year roadmap to advance the implementation of LDCT screening globally, including the following: (1) establish universal screening program quality indicators; (2) establish evidence-based criteria to identify individuals who have never smoked but are at high-risk of developing lung cancer; (3) develop recommendations for incidentally detected lung nodule tracking and management protocols to complement programmatic lung cancer screening; (4) Integrate artificial intelligence and biomarkers to increase the prediction of malignancy in suspicious CT screen-detected lesions; and (5) standardize high-quality performance artificial intelligence protocols that lead to substantial reductions in costs, resource utilization and radiologist reporting time; (6) personalize CT screening intervals on the basis of an individual's lung cancer risk; (7) develop evidence to support clinical management and cost-effectiveness of other identified abnormalities on a lung cancer screening CT; (8) develop publicly accessible, easy-to-use geospatial tools to plan and monitor equitable access to screening services; and (9) establish a global shared education resource for lung cancer screening CT to ensure high-quality reading and reporting.

Development and Validation of LC-MS/MS Method for Determination of Cytisine in Human Serum and Saliva

Cytisine (CYT) is a quinolizidine alkaloid used for nicotine addiction treatment. Recent clinical trial data regarding cytisine confirm its high effectiveness and safety as a smoking cessation treatment. CYT's popularity is growing due to its increased availability and licensing in more countries worldwide. This increased use by smokers has also resulted in an urgent need for continued drug research, including developing appropriate analytical methods for analyzing the drug in biological samples. In this study, a simple, fast, and reliable method combining hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography and electrospray ionization quadrupole time of flight mass spectrometry (HILIC/ESI-QTOF-MS) for the determination of CYT in human serum and saliva was developed and validated. This was undertaken after the previous pre-treatment of the sample using solid-phase extraction (SPE). A hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column with a silica stationary phase was used for chromatographic analysis. In a linear gradient, the mobile phase consisted of acetonitrile (ACN) and formate buffer at pH 4.0. The proposed method was fully validated and demonstrated its sensitivity, selectivity, precision, and accuracy. The method was successfully applied to determine CYT in serum and, for the first time, in saliva. The findings indicate that saliva could be a promising non-invasive alternative to measure the free concentration of CYT.

Cytisine for smoking cessation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cytisine is a smoking cessation medication. This systematic review incorporates recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide an updated evidence-based assessment of cytisine's efficacy and safety.

METHODS

We searched Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, for RCTs comparing cytisine to other smoking cessation treatments in adults who smoke.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

6-month biochemically verified continuous abstinence. Other outcomes: abstinence at longest follow-up, adverse events, mortality, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess evidence certainty.

RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs involving 9953 adults. Cytisine was superior to placebo (risk ratio [RR] 2.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-4.47; 5 RCTs, 4325 participants), but not varenicline (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.65-1.95; 2 RCTs, 2131 participants) for the primary outcome. Cytisine was superior to placebo (RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.64-4.70; 8 RCTs, 5762 participants) and nicotine replacement therapy [NRT] (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.12-1.73; 2 RCTs, 1511 participants), but not varenicline (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.72-1.44; 4 RCTs, 2708 participants) for abstinence at longest follow-up. Cytisine increased mostly gastrointestinal adverse events compared to placebo (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.06-1.25; 8 RCTs, 5520 participants) and NRT (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.26-1.84; 1 RCT, 1310 participants) but less adverse events compared to varenicline (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.48-0.95; 3 RCTs, 2484 participants).

CONCLUSION

Cytisine shows greater efficacy than placebo and NRT, but more adverse events. It is comparable to varenicline, with fewer adverse events. This can inform clinicians and guidelines on cytisine for smoking cessation.

Cytisine Versus Varenicline for Smoking Cessation in a Primary Care Setting: A Randomized Non-inferiority Trial

INTRODUCTION

A smoking-cessation program was implemented as a randomized non-inferiority trial in primary care practices in Croatia and Slovenia to investigate whether a standard 4-week treatment with cytisine was at least as effective and feasible as a standard 12-week treatment with varenicline in helping smokers quit.

AIMS AND METHODS

Out of 982 surveyed smokers, 377 were recruited to the non-inferiority trial: 186 were randomly assigned to cytisine and 191 to varenicline treatment. The primary cessation outcome was 7-day abstinence after 24 weeks, while the primary feasibility outcome was defined by adherence to the treatment plan. We also compared the rates of adverse events between the two treatment groups.

RESULTS

The cessation rate after 24 weeks was 32.46% (62/191) in the varenicline group and 23.12% (43/186) in the cytisine group (odds ratio [OR]: 95%, credible interval [CI]: 0.39 to 0.98). Of 191 participants assigned to varenicline treatment 59.16% (113) were adherent, while 70.43% (131 of 186) were adherent in the cytisine group (OR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.07 to 2.56). Participants assigned to cytisine experienced fewer total (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.81) and fewer severe or more extreme adverse events (IRR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.47).

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized non-inferiority trial (n = 377) found the standard 4-week cytisine treatment to be less effective than the standard 12-week varenicline treatment for smoking cessation. However, adherence to the treatment plan, ie, feasibility, was higher, and the rate of adverse events was lower among participants assigned to cytisine treatment.

IMPLICATIONS

The present study found the standard 12 weeks of varenicline treatment to be more effective than the standard 4 weeks of cytisine treatment for smoking cessation in a primary care setting in Croatia and Slovenia. Participants assigned to cytisine, however, had a higher adherence to the treatment plan and a lower rate of adverse events. Estimates from the present study may be especially suitable for generalizations to high-smoking prevalence populations in Europe. Given the much lower cost of cytisine treatment, its lower rate of adverse events, and higher feasibility (but its likely lower effectiveness with the standard dosage regimen), future analyses should assess the cost-effectiveness of the two treatments for health policy considerations.

Cytisinicline for Smoking Cessation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Cytisinicline (cytisine) is a plant-based alkaloid that, like varenicline, binds selectively to α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, which mediate nicotine dependence. Although not licensed in the US, cytisinicline is used in some European countries to aid smoking cessation, but its traditional dosing regimen and treatment duration may not be optimal.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of cytisinicline for smoking cessation when administered in a novel pharmacokinetically based dosing regimen for 6 or 12 weeks vs placebo.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A 3-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial (ORCA-2) compared 2 durations of cytisinicline treatment (6 or 12 weeks) vs placebo, with follow-up to 24 weeks, among 810 adults who smoked cigarettes daily and wanted to quit. It was conducted at 17 US sites from October 2020 to December 2021.

Interventions

Participants were randomized (1:1:1) to cytisinicline, 3 mg, 3 times daily for 12 weeks (n = 270); cytisinicline, 3 mg, 3 times daily for 6 weeks then placebo 3 times daily for 6 weeks (n = 269); or placebo 3 times daily for 12 weeks (n = 271). All participants received behavioral support.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Biochemically verified continuous smoking abstinence for the last 4 weeks of cytisinicline treatment vs placebo (primary) and from end of treatment to 24 weeks (secondary).

Results

Of 810 randomized participants (mean age, 52.5 years; 54.6% female; mean of 19.4 cigarettes smoked daily), 618 (76.3%) completed the trial. For the 6-week course of cytisinicline vs placebo, continuous abstinence rates were 25.3% vs 4.4% during weeks 3 to 6 (odds ratio [OR], 8.0 [95% CI, 3.9-16.3]; P < .001) and 8.9% vs 2.6% during weeks 3 to 24 (OR, 3.7 [95% CI, 1.5-10.2]; P = .002). For the 12-week course of cytisinicline vs placebo, continuous abstinence rates were 32.6% vs 7.0% for weeks 9 to 12 (OR, 6.3 [95% CI, 3.7-11.6]; P < .001) and 21.1% vs 4.8% during weeks 9 to 24 (OR, 5.3 [95% CI, 2.8-11.1]; P < .001). Nausea, abnormal dreams, and insomnia occurred in less than 10% of each group. Sixteen participants (2.9%) discontinued cytisinicline due to an adverse event. No drug-related serious adverse events occurred.

Conclusions and Relevance

Both 6- and 12-week cytisinicline schedules, with behavioral support, demonstrated smoking cessation efficacy and excellent tolerability, offering new nicotine dependence treatment options.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04576949.

Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT: What We Have Learned in Two Decades of ITALUNG and What Is Yet to Be Addressed

The ITALUNG trial started in 2004 and compared lung cancer (LC) and other-causes mortality in 55-69 years-aged smokers and ex-smokers who were randomized to four annual chest low-dose CT (LDCT) or usual care. ITALUNG showed a lower LC and cardiovascular mortality in the screened subjects after 13 years of follow-up, especially in women, and produced many ancillary studies. They included recruitment results of a population-based mimicking approach, development of software for computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) and lung nodules volumetry, LDCT assessment of pulmonary emphysema and coronary artery calcifications (CAC) and their relevance to long-term mortality, results of a smoking-cessation intervention, assessment of the radiations dose associated with screening LDCT, and the results of biomarkers assays. Moreover, ITALUNG data indicated that screen-detected LCs are mostly already present at baseline LDCT, can present as lung cancer associated with cystic airspaces, and can be multiple. However, several issues of LC screening are still unaddressed. They include the annual vs. biennial pace of LDCT, choice between opportunistic or population-based recruitment. and between uni or multi-centre screening, implementation of CAD-assisted reading, containment of false positive and negative LDCT results, incorporation of emphysema. and CAC quantification in models of personalized LC and mortality risk, validation of ultra-LDCT acquisitions, optimization of the smoking-cessation intervention. and prospective validation of the biomarkers.

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.

How Does Environmental and Occupational Exposure Contribute to Carcinogenesis in Genitourinary and Lung Cancers?

Environmental and occupational exposures have been associated with an increased risk of different types of cancers, although the exact mechanisms of higher carcinogenesis risk are not always well understood. Lung cancer is the leading cause of global cancer mortality, and, also, genitourinary neoplasms are among the main causes of cancer-related deaths in Western countries. The purpose of this review is to describe the main environmental and occupational factors that increase the risk of developing lung and genitourinary cancers and to investigate carcinogenesis mechanisms that link these agents to cancer onset. Further objectives are to identify methods for the prevention or the early detection of carcinogenic agents and, therefore, to reduce the risk of developing these cancers or to detect them at earlier stages.

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.

Secondary prevention and treatment innovation of early stage non-small cell lung cancer: Impact on diagnostic-therapeutic pathway from a multidisciplinary perspective

Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, mostly because the lack of a screening program so far. Although smoking cessation has a central role in LC primary prevention, several trials on LC screening through low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in a high risk population showed a significant reduction of LC related mortality. Most trials showed heterogeneity in terms of selection criteria, comparator arm, detection nodule method, timing and intervals of screening and duration of the follow-up. LC screening programs currently active in Europe as well as around the world will lead to a higher number of early-stage Non Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) at the diagnosis. Innovative drugs have been recently transposed from the metastatic to the perioperative setting, leading to improvements in terms of resection rates and pathological responses after induction chemoimmunotherapy, and disease free survival with targeted agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors. The present review summarizes available evidence about LC screening, highlighting potential pitfalls and benefits and underlining the impact on the diagnostic therapeutic pathway of NSCLC from a multidisciplinary perspective. Future perspectives in terms of circulating biomarkers under evaluation for patients' risk stratification as well as a focus on recent clinical trials results and ongoing studies in the perioperative setting will be also presented.

Evaluation of Simplified Diet Scores Related to C-Reactive Protein in Heavy Smokers Undergoing Lung Cancer Screening

The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between adherence to a healthy diet, such as the Mediterranean diet (MedDiet), and C-reactive protein (CRP) in Italian heavy smokers undergoing an LDCT screening program (bioMILD trial), using scores calculated by simple questionnaires. Simple formats of food frequency questionnaires were administered to a sample of 2438 volunteers, and the adherence to a healthy diet was measured by the validated 14-point MEDAS and by two adaptations proposed by us: 17-item revised-MEDAS and 18-item revised-MEDAS. The OR of CRP ≥ 2 mg/L for 1-point increase in 14-point MEDAS score was 0.95 (95% CI 0.91–0.99), for 17-point score was 0.94 (95% CI 0.91–0.98), and for 18-point score was 0.92 (95% CI 0.88–0.97). These inverse associations remained statistically significant also after further adjustment for body mass index. These results showed the efficacy of simplified scores and their relationship with lower levels of CRP in a population of heavy smokers. This suggests that a targeted nutritional intervention might achieve a substantial reduction in CRP levels. The findings will be prospectively tested in a new randomized study on primary prevention during lung cancer screening.