Lung function and respiratory symptoms in a 1-year randomized smoking cessation trial of varenicline in COPD patients

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

Background

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. 

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e‐cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow‐up period of six months from baseline.

Data collection and analysis

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow‐up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel‐Haenszel fixed‐effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs).

Main results

We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk.

We found moderate‐certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I2 = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low‐certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I2 = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate‐certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I2 = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I2 = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low‐certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm.

Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline found no clear evidence of difference in quit rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.26; I2 = 65%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I2 = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low‐certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I2 = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I2 = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low‐certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I2 = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual‐form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low‐certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit.

Authors' conclusions

Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual‐form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be no difference or a benefit from either medication for quitting smoking.

Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard‐dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e‐cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Can medications like varenicline and cytisine (nicotine receptor partial agonists) help people to stop smoking and do they cause unwanted effects?

Key messages

· Varenicline can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. Evidence shows it works better than bupropion and using only one type of nicotine replacement therapy (e.g. only patches). Quit rates might be similar to using more than one type of nicotine replacement therapy at the same time (e.g. patches and gum together).

· Cytisine can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. It may work as well as varenicline, but future evidence may show that while it helps, it is not quite as helpful as varenicline.

· Future studies should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other stop‐smoking medications, and should also  investigate giving cytisine or varenicline at different doses and for different lengths of time.

What are 'nicotine receptor partial agonists'?

Smoking tobacco is extremely bad for people’s health. For people who smoke, quitting is the best thing they can do to improve their health. Many people find it difficult to quit smoking. Nicotine receptor partial agonists (NRPAs) are a type of medication used to help people to stop smoking. They help to reduce the withdrawal symptoms people experience when they stop smoking, like cravings and unpleasant mood changes. They also reduce the pleasure people usually experience when they smoke. The most widely‐available treatment in this drug type is varenicline. Cytisine is another, similar medication. They may cause unwanted effects such as feeling sick (nausea) and other stomach problems, difficulties sleeping, abnormal dreams, and headache. They may also lead to potentially serious unwanted effects, such as suicidal thoughts, heart problems and raised blood pressure.

What did we want to find out?

We wanted to find out if using NRPAs can help people to quit smoking, and if they cause unwanted effects. We wanted to know:

· how many people stopped smoking for at least 6 months; and

· how many people had unwanted effects.

What did we do?

We searched for studies that investigated NRPAs used to help people quit smoking. People in the studies had to be chosen at random to receive an NRPA, or another NRPA, placebo (medication like the NRPA but with no active ingredients) or no treatment. They had to be adult tobacco smokers who wanted to stop smoking.

What did we find?

We found 75 studies that compared NRPAs with:

· placebo or no medicine;

· nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches or gum;

· bupropion (another medicine to help people stop smoking);

· another NRPA;

· e‐cigarettes.

The USA hosted the most studies (28 studies). Other studies took place in a range of countries across the world, some in several countries.

Main results

People are more likely to stop smoking for at least six months using varenicline than using placebo (41 studies, 17,395 people), bupropion (9 studies, 7560 people), or just one type of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches alone (11 studies, 7572 people). They may be just as likely to quit as people using two or more kinds of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches and gum together (5 studies, 2344 people).

Cytisine probably helps more people to stop smoking than placebo (4 studies, 4623 people) and may be just as effective as varenicline (2 studies, 2131 people).

For every 100 people using varenicline to stop smoking, 21 to 25 might successfully stop, compared with only 18 of 100 people using bupropion, 18 of 100 people using a single form of nicotine‐replacement therapy, and 20 of 100 using two or more kinds of nicotine‐replacement therapy. For every 100 people using cytisine to stop smoking, 18 to 23 might successfully stop.

The most common unwanted effect of varenicline is nausea, but this is mostly at mild or moderate levels and usually clears over time. People taking varenicline likely have an increased chance of a more serious unwanted effect that could result in going to hospital, however these are still rare (2.7% to 4% of people on varenicline, compared with 2.7% of people without) and may include many that are unrelated to varenicline. People taking cytisine may also have a slightly increased chance of serious unwanted effects compared with people not taking it, but this may be less likely compared with varenicline.

What are the limitations of the evidence?

The evidence for some of our results is very reliable. We’re very confident that varenicline helps people to quit smoking better than many alternatives. We’re less sure of some other results because fewer or smaller studies provided evidence.

Several results suggest one treatment is better or less harmful than another, but the opposite could still be true.

How up to date is the evidence?

The evidence is up to date to 29 April 2022.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e-cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from baseline.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk. We found moderate-certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I2 = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low-certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I2 = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I2 = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low-certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I2 = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low-certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm. Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline showed that more people in the varenicline arm quit smoking (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I2 = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I2 = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I2 = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I2 = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual-form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low-certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual-form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be a benefit from varenicline for quitting smoking, however further evidence could strengthen this finding or demonstrate a benefit from cytisine. Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard-dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Smoking cessation and vaccination

A significant proportion of COPD patients (∼40%) continue smoking despite knowing that they have the disease. Smokers with COPD exhibit higher levels of nicotine dependence, and have lower self-efficacy and self-esteem, which affects their ability to quit smoking. Treatment should be adapted to the needs of individual patients with different levels of tobacco dependence. The combination of counselling plus pharmacotherapy is the most effective cessation treatment for COPD. In patients with severe COPD, varenicline and bupropion have been shown to have the highest abstinence rates compared with nicotine replacement therapy. There is a lack of evidence to support that smoking cessation reduction or harm reduction strategies have benefits in COPD patients. The long-term efficacy and safety of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation need to be evaluated in high-risk populations; therefore, it is not possible to recommend their use for smoking cessation in COPD. Future studies with the new generation of nicotine vaccines are necessary to determine their effectiveness in smokers in general and in COPD patients.

Taking Charge After Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial of a Psychologically Informed Self-Management Intervention

Purpose

Few interventions improve outcomes for people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), particularly higher risk groups such as those admitted to hospital with an acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD). The aim of the study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of a modified version of the Take Charge program in people after AECOPD and to determine the potential to improve self-reported limitations, health-related quality of life and reduce future hospitalizations.

Patients and Methods

A prospective, parallel group randomized trial with blinded endpoint assessment. Participants had been discharged from hospital with a diagnosis of AECOPD and were randomized to receive either a single 60-90 minute session of "Take Charge for COPD" from a trained facilitator in their own home or usual care. Take Charge is a "talking therapy" that encourages a sense of purpose, autonomy, mastery, and connectedness with others. The primary outcome was the rate of moderate or severe episodes of AECOPD in the subsequent 12 months.

Results

Fifty-six people were randomized (study target 60): predominantly European (71%), female (61%), older (mean [SD] age 70 [11] years), and non-smokers (89%). Charlson Comorbidity Index mean (SD) score was 2.3 (1.6) indicating mild to moderate comorbidity severity. There were 85 moderate or severe AECOPD episodes in the 12 months after the index admission for the Take Charge participants and 84 episodes in the control group (relative rate 0.93; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.26). COPD Clinical Questionnaire (CCQ) scores were significantly lower (better) in the Take Charge group (mean difference -1.26; 95% CI -2.06 to -0.45).

Conclusion

The Take Charge intervention proved feasible with a population of people recently discharged from hospital with AECOPD. The direction of change in the primary outcome and some secondary outcomes suggest that an adequately powered study is justified.

Association between smoking cessation and alterations in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). A Follow-Up Study from a Greek Tobacco Cessation Clinic

Background

Cigarette smoking is the most important preventable cause of several diseases such as malignancies, pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases. Smoking cessation is now supported by both behavioral counseling and medical pharmacotherapy and is the only effective approach for slowing down an accelerated decline in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). Our study aims to examine changes in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) after smoking cessation for smokers attending our smoking cessation clinic their correlation to smokers' demographic characteristics.

Methods

114 smokers (48 males and 66 females), with a mean age of 48.36±10.49 years, were enrolled. They were classified in 4 groups, according to their age; <40 years (Group Α), 41-50 years (Group Β), 51-60 years (Group C), >60 years (Group D) and underwent Spirometry on the 1st day of visit, one month (2nd visit) and, 3 months later (3rd visit).

Findings

Statistically significant increase in FEV1 values at the 2^nd and 3^rd visit compared to the 1^st visit was observed in smokers who quit smoking in Group Α, B and C (p<0.05). In addition, a statistically significant decrease in FEV1 values at the 2^nd and 3^rd visit compared to the 1^st visit was noticed in smokers who continued smoking in Group B, C and D (p<0.05).

Conclusion

Smoking cessation achieved through smoking cessation support led to the improvement of FEV1 values within 3 months. The greatest benefit was observed in smokers under the age of 60.

Health outcomes in COPD smokers using heated tobacco products: a 3-year follow-up

Given that many patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) smoke despite their symptoms, it is important to understand the long-term health impact of cigarette substitution with heated tobacco products (HTPs). We monitored health parameters for 3 years in COPD patients who substantially attenuated or ceased cigarette consumption after switching to HTPs. Changes in daily cigarette smoking, annualized disease exacerbations, lung function indices, patient-reported outcomes (CAT scores) and 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) from baseline were measured in COPD patients using HTPs at 12, 24 and 36 months. These were compared to a group of age- and sex-matched COPD patients who continued smoking. Complete data sets were available for 38 patients (19 in each group). Subjects using HTPs had a substantial decrease in annualized COPD exacerbations within the group mean (± SD) from 2.1 (± 0.9) at baseline to 1.4 (± 0.8), 1.2 (± 0.8) and 1.3 (± 0.8) at 12-, 24- and 36-month follow-up (p < 0.05 for all visits). In addition, substantial and clinically significant improvements in CAT scores and 6MWD were identified at all three time points in the HTP cohort. No significant changes were observed in COPD patients who continued smoking. This study is the first to describe the long-term health effects of HTP use in COPD patients. Consistent improvements in respiratory symptoms, exercise tolerance, quality of life, and rate of disease exacerbations were observed in patients with COPD who abstained from smoking or substantially reduced their cigarette consumption by switching to HTP use.

TOB-STOP-COP (TOBacco STOP in COPd trial): study protocol-a randomized open-label, superiority, multicenter, two-arm intervention study of the effect of "high-intensity" vs. "low-intensity" smoking cessation intervention in active smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and it contributes to the development of many other serious diseases. Smoking cessation in COPD patients is known to improve survival and reduce the number of hospitalization-requiring acute exacerbations of COPD. However, smoking cessation interventions in these patients have only been successful for approximately 15-20% for consistent smoking abstinence in 12 months. Thus, more effective interventions are needed for this patient group. The aim of this study is to determine whether a high-intensity intervention compared to a low-intensity intervention can increase the proportion of persistent (> 12 months) anamnestic and biochemical smoking cessation in active smokers with COPD.

METHODS

This study is a randomized controlled trial. A total of 600 active smokers with COPD will be randomly assigned 1:1 to either a standard treatment (guideline-based municipal smoking cessation program, "low intensity" group) or an intervention ("high-intensity" group) group, which consists of group sessions, telephone consultations, behavior design, hotline, and "buddy-matching" (smoker matched with COPD patient who has ceased smoking). Both groups will receive pharmacological smoking cessation. The primary endpoint is anamnestic and biochemical (cotinine analysis in urine) validated smoking cessation after 12 months.

DISCUSSION

The potential benefit of this project is to improve smoking cessation rates and thereby reduce smoking-related exacerbations of COPD. In addition, the project can potentially benefit from increasing the quality of life and longevity of COPD patients and reducing the risk of other smoking-related diseases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04088942 . Registered on 13 September 2019.

Smoking Cessation/Vaccinations

More than one-third of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) continue to smoke cigarettes despite knowing they have the disease. This behavior has a negative impact on prognosis and progression, as repeated injury enhances the pathobiological mechanisms responsible for the disease. A combination of counseling plus pharmacotherapy is the most effective cessation treatment of smokers with COPD, and varenicline seems to be the most effective pharmacologic intervention. Preventing exacerbations in patients with COPD is a major goal of treatment, and vaccination against influenza and pneumococcus is an effective preventive strategy to achieve this goal.

Effects of varenicline on lung tissue in the animal model

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate acute and chronic effects of varenicline on lung tissue in an experimental study.

METHODS

A total of 34 rats were randomly allocated into study (varenicline) and control groups. The rats were divided into two groups (i) control group, (ii) varenicline group. Then, the rats in the each group were sub-divided equally in turn as acute (C1; V1) and chronic (C2; V2) ; all rats of acute and chronic groups were sacrificed under the anesthesia on the 45th day for acute group [C1 (n=5) and V1 (n=12)] and the 90th day for chronic group [C2 (n=5) and V2 (n=12)], respectively. Thus, biochemical and histopathological analysis were carried out.

RESULTS

Thirty four rats completed the study, 24 were in varenicline group and 10 were in control group. In chronic exposure to varenicline, oxidant levels comprising of malondialdehyde (MDA), and myeloperoxidase (MPO) increased and superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), glutathione (GSH) and glutathione peroxidase (GPx) levels, named as antioxidants, decreased significantly when compared to the control group. MDA and MPO levels were also significantly higher and SOD, CAT, GPx, GSH levels were also significantly lower in chronic varenicline group when compared to acute varenicline group. These findings were also supported by histopathological observations.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study, which evaluated pulmonary effects of varenicline experimentally on an animal model. It was observed that chronic varenicline treatments cause inflammation and lung cell injury.

Smoking cessation and incident dementia in elderly Japanese: the Ohsaki Cohort 2006 Study

To investigate the association of smoking status and years since smoking cessation with the risk of incident dementia among elderly Japanese. We conducted a longitudinal analysis of smoking status and smoking cessation with dementia in prospective cohort study of 12,489 Japanese individuals aged ≥ 65 years who were followed up for 5.7 years. Information on smoking status and other lifestyle factors was collected via a questionnaire in 2006. Data on incident dementia were retrieved from the public Long-term Care Insurance Database. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for incident dementia. During 61,613 person-years of follow-up, 1110 cases (8.9%) of incident dementia were documented. Compared with individuals who had never smoked, current smokers showed a higher risk of dementia (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17, 1.80). Among ex-smokers, the risk for those who had stopped smoking for ≤ 2 years was still high (HR 1.39, 95% CI 0.96, 2.01), however, quitting smoking for 3 years or longer mitigated the increased risk incurred by smokers; the multivariable HRs (95% CIs) were 1.03 (0.70, 1.53) for those who had stopped smoking for 3–5 years, 1.04 (0.74, 1.45) for 6–10 years, 1.19 (0.84, 1.69) for 11–15 years, and 0.92 (0.73, 1.15) for > 15 years. Our study suggests that the risk of incident dementia among ex-smokers becomes the same level as that of never smokers if they maintain abstinence from smoking for at least 3 years.

Efficacy of guided self-change for smoking cessation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: A randomized controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of guided self-change (GSC), nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and their combination, on smoking cessation among patients with COPD.

METHODS

A total of 60 participants were randomly assigned to three groups for GSC (n=20), nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (n=20) or their combination (n=20), from December 2016 to November 2017. The quality of life (QoL) questionnaire, clinical assessment test (CAT) and exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), were measured at baseline and post-treatment.

RESULTS

At 6, 12, and 29 weeks, the abstinence rate in the NRT group was 5.3%, 15.8% and 21.1%, in the GSC group 21.1%, 31.6% and 47.4%, and in the combined group 36.8%, 36.8% and 47.4%, respectively. The exhaled CO in the NRT group was greater than the GSC group, however this difference was not statistically significant (3.4; 95% CI: -0.24–7.0; p=0.067), CO levels in the combined group were less than the GSC group, while this difference was also not significant (-0.75; 95% CI : -4.2–2.7; p=0.68). CAT and QoL recovery in the GSC and combined groups were higher than in the NRT group (9.2; 95% CI: 5.0–13.4; p=0.001) and (-4.5; 95% C: -8.1– -0.6; p=0.02), respectively. However, differences between combined and GSC groups were not significant (p=0.24 and p=0.41, respectively). There was a statistically significant difference between the abstinence rate in the GSC or combined group and the NRT group (p=0.001). The GEE model showed that GSC reduced the odds of smoking compared with the NRT group (interaction group effect) (OR=0.31, 95% CI: 0.022–0.545; p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In our context among COPD patients, GSC was more effective in decreasing smoking than NRT alone. Moreover, the recovery of exhaled carbon monoxide, CAT and QoL in GSC was more than in the NRT group. Moreover, since GSC was as effective as GSC plus NRT, the effectiveness of the combination method for smoking cessation in COPD patients may be attributed to GSC.

Clinical trial registration details: IRCT201609271457N11; www.irct.ir

Functional benefit of smoking cessation in severe COPD patients undergoing bronchial valve implantation

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco smoke is the leading cause of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The aim of this study is to highlight the effectiveness of smoking cessation along with bronchial valve implantation in subjects with severe COPD.

METHODS

A sample of 25 patients, current smokers, affected by severe COPD and heterogeneous emphysema who quit smoking were compared with a group of 15 patients who did not quit smoking.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patients performed plethysmography, 6 minute walking test (WT), haemogasanalysis, exhaled CO test (eCO), COPD assessment test (CAT) together with the mMRC test. A clearer improvement of examined parameters was registered in the group of patients who quit smoking by varenicline and counselling. In particular, we observed a significant increase of FEV1 by 350 ml in the abstainers group compared with 100 ml increase in the non-abstainers(p < .05) group. We noticed that the RV% decreased by 30% compared with the 10% in the non-abstainers(p < .001). The CAT value decreased by 20 compared with 10 in current smokers(p < .001) as well as the mMRC score (p < .001) was more improved in abstainers. The total resistances were reduced by 30% versus 10% (p < .01)and notably there was a higher improvement of walking test (30 m versus 5) (p < .001). The eCO was clearly reduced in abstainers, 14 versus 8 (p < .002),. PaO2 increased by 4 mmHg versus 1(p < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking cessation treatment by varenicline strengthens the effects of bronchial valve implantation and shows up its crucial therapeutic role in severe COPD.

The effect of e-cigarette aerosol emissions on respiratory health: a narrative review

Introduction: Due to the uptake in the use of e-cigarettes (ECs), evidence on their health effects is needed to inform health care and policy. Some regulators and health professionals have raised concerns that the respirable aerosols generated by ECs contain several constituents of potential toxicological and biological relevance to respiratory health. Areas covered: We critically assess published research on the respiratory system investigating the effects of ECs in preclinical models, clinical studies of people who switched to ECs from tobacco cigarettes, and population surveys. We assess the studies for the quality of their methodology and accuracy of their interpretation. To adequately assess the impact of EC use on human health, addressing common mistakes and developing robust and realistic methodological recommendations is an urgent priority. The findings of this review indicate that ECs under normal conditions of use demonstrate far fewer respiratory risks than combustible tobacco cigarettes. EC users and smokers considering ECs have the right to be informed about the relative risks of EC use, and to be made aware that findings of studies published by the media are not always reliable. Expert opinion: Growing evidence supports the relative safety of EC emission aerosols for the respiratory tract compared to tobacco smoke.

Effect of smoking status on lung function, patient-reported outcomes, and safety among patients with COPD treated with indacaterol/glycopyrrolate: Pooled analysis of the FLIGHT1 and FLIGHT2 studies

BACKGROUND

Smoking continues to be a major risk factor for COPD and may impact the efficacy of COPD treatments, with guidelines supporting the crucial importance for current smokers of smoking cessation. A post-hoc analysis of the FLIGHT1 and FLIGHT2 studies assessed the impact of smoking status on the efficacy and safety of indacaterol/glycopyrrolate (IND/GLY) 27.5/15.6 μg twice daily versus its monocomponents or placebo in patients with COPD.

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis of pooled data from the replicate, 12-week, placebo-controlled FLIGHT1 and FLIGHT2 studies compared the efficacy and safety of IND/GLY with that of IND, GLY, and placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Baseline data from 2038 patients were pooled and grouped by smoking status (52% were current smokers and 48% were ex-smokers). The effects of treatment on lung function, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and safety were evaluated by baseline smoking status.

RESULTS

Treatment with IND/GLY resulted in significant improvements in lung function measurements compared with placebo, irrespective of smoking status. Improvements in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire and transition dyspnea index were significantly greater than placebo in both current and ex-smokers, whereas changes in COPD assessment test were significant only among current smokers. Improvements in lung function and PROs were greater with IND/GLY compared with its monocomponents in current and ex-smokers. The incidences of AEs and SAEs were similar between current and ex-smokers.

CONCLUSIONS

IND/GLY demonstrated significant improvements in lung function and PROs, independent of baseline smoking status. The safety profile of IND/GLY did not differ between current and ex-smokers.

Health effects in COPD smokers who switch to electronic cigarettes: a retrospective-prospective 3-year follow-up

Background

Health effects of electronic cigarette (EC) use in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are largely unexplored.

Aim

We present findings from a long-term prospective assessment of respiratory parameters in a cohort of COPD patients who ceased or substantially reduced conventional cigarette use with ECs.

Methods

We prospectively re-evaluated COPD exacerbations, spirometric indices, subjective assessments (using the COPD Assessment Tool [CAT] scores), physical activity (measured by the 6-minute walk distance [6MWD]), and conventional cigarette use in EC users with COPD who were retrospectively assessed previously. Baseline measurements prior to switching to EC use were compared to follow-up visits at 12, 24, and 36 months. Age- and sex-matched regularly smoking COPD patients who were not using ECs were included as reference (control) group.

Results

Complete data were available from 44 patients. Compared to baseline in the EC-user group, there was a marked decline in the use of conventional cigarettes. Although there was no change in lung function, significant improvements in COPD exacerbation rates, CAT scores, and 6MWD were observed consistently in the EC user group over the 3-year period (p<0.01). Similar findings were noted in COPD EC users who also smoked conventional cigarettes (“dual users”).

Conclusion

The present study suggests that EC use may ameliorate objective and subjective COPD outcomes and that the benefits gained may persist long-term. EC use may reverse some of the harm resulting from tobacco smoking in COPD patients.

Short-term benefit of smoking cessation along with glycopirronium on lung function and respiratory symptoms in mild COPD patients: a retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco smoke is the leading cause of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Smoking cessation can change the natural history of COPD, as we know from the GOLD guidelines. Little is known about the short-term clinical and functional effects of smoking cessation treatment combined with anti-muscarinic bronchodilators.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether quitting smoking, obtained by smoking cessation treatment combined with the use of a new long-acting muscarinic antagonist bronchodilator (LAMA), can improve lung function tests and respiratory symptoms more than the use of LAMA alone.

METHODS

We evaluated, in a retrospective analysis, the functional and clinical data, collected in one year, of 120 patients who were current smokers affected by mild COPD and who quit smoking using smoking cessation treatment combined with glycopirronium. We compared them with a group of 80 patients with mild COPD undergoing the same treatment but who did not quit smoking. All patients underwent functional and clinical tests at baseline and at a third-month check.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The two groups were homogeneous in terms of demographic data without significant differences. All patients used varenicline for smoking cessation. They all performed the following tests: a spirometry with detection of resistances, the 6 min walking test, haemogasanalysis, the exhaled CO test, the COPD assessment test (CAT) and finally the modified Medical Research Council test (mMRC). A significant improvement in the functional tests at the third-month check was found in both groups-quitters and non-quitters. However, a notable increase in the examined parameters was registered in the group of patients who quit smoking, in particular, we observed a significant increase at the third-month check of the parameter forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of more than 200 ml with p < 0.001. A comparison between quitters and non-quitters revealed a major benefit derived from smoking cessation in terms of functional changes and symptom relief. In particular, not only FEV1 but also forced expiratory flow at 25%-75% of vital capacity (FEF 25-75) (p < 0.01) and CAT (p < 0.001) were found to be significantly improved in patients who quit than in patients who did not at the check time point.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking cessation treatment obtained by varenicline was confirmed as a crucial therapeutic option, especially when combined with bronchodilator in mild COPD. Patients who quit smoking could already benefit from both treatments in the short term, improving lung function and respiratory symptoms and therefore improving their quality of life.

E-cigarettes in patients with COPD: current perspectives

Conventional cigarette smoking is known to result in significant COPD morbidity and mortality. Strategies to reduce and/or stop smoking in this highly vulnerable patient group are key public health priorities to reduce COPD morbidity and mortality. Unfortunately, smoking cessation efforts in patients with COPD are poor and there is a compelling need for more efficient approaches to cessation for patients with COPD. Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are devices that use batteries to vaporize nicotine. They may facilitate quit attempts and cessation in many smokers. Although they are not risk free, ECs are much less harmful than tobacco smoking. Hence, the use of ECs in vulnerable groups and in patients with challenges to abstain or multiple relapses to this habit may be promising. To date, little is known about health consequences of EC use among COPD smokers and whether their regular use has any effects on subjective and objective COPD outcomes. In the current review, we discuss the current perspectives and literature on the role of ECs in abstaining from conventional smoking and the effects of ECs on the respiratory tract in patients with COPD.

Pharmacological Management of People Living with End-Stage Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Supportive care and pharmacological treatment can improve the quality of life of people with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who cope on a daily basis with substantial physical, psychological, social and spiritual morbidity. Smoking cessation is the only intervention that reduces the rate of progression of COPD, but evidence-based drug treatments and non-pharmacological strategies can relieve symptoms and reduce the impact of exacerbations. People with severe COPD live with increasingly troublesome breathlessness and other symptoms such as fatigue, pain, sputum production and weight loss. As breathlessness increases, treatment is stepped up from short-acting to long-acting bronchodilators supplemented by non-pharmacological interventions such as pulmonary rehabilitation. Opiates relieve breathlessness, and referral to a multidisciplinary breathlessness service is an option for those with intractable symptoms. Other smoking-related conditions, such as coronary heart disease and lung cancer as well as depression and anxiety are common and should be treated with conventional pharmacotherapy. Acute exacerbations become more frequent and more severe as the disease reaches end-stage. Inhaled corticosteroids in combination with long-acting bronchodilators can reduce the frequency of exacerbations, and supported self-management aims to facilitate timely treatment of deterioration. Palliative care services have traditionally been predicated on identifying people with end-stage disease-a model that does not resonate with the unpredictable, relapsing trajectory of COPD. Approaches to care that promote a flexible approach to palliation alongside curative care could do much to improve the burden of living with severe COPD.

Reversal of Smoking Effects on Chronic Rhinosinusitis after Smoking Cessation

Objective

To understand whether the impact of smoking on chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is reversible after smoking cessation.

Study Design

Cross-sectional study.

Setting

Academic tertiary care rhinology clinic.

Subjects and Methods

A total of 103 former-smoker CRS patients and 103 nonsmoker CRS patients were prospectively recruited. The primary outcome measure was sinonasal symptom severity measured with the 22-item Sinonasal Outcomes Test (SNOT-22), and secondary outcome measures were general health-related quality of life (QOL) measured with the 5-dimensional EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-5D VAS) and patient-reported CRS-related antibiotic and oral corticosteroid usage in the past year. Outcome measures were compared between cohorts and checked for association with time since cessation of smoking for former smokers.

Results

Compared with nonsmokers, former smokers had worse SNOT-22 score ( P = .019) and EQ-5D VAS score ( P = .001) and reported using more CRS-related antibiotics ( P = .003) and oral corticosteroids in the past year ( P = .013). In former smokers, every year was associated with a statistically significant improvement in SNOT-22 score (β = −0.48; 95% CI, −0.91 to −0.05; P = .032), EQ-5D VAS score (β = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.02-0.91; P = .046), and CRS-related oral corticosteroid use (relative risk = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98; P = .001). Given the differences in our study outcome measures between former smokers and nonsmokers, we estimate that the reversible impacts of smoking on CRS may resolve after 10 to 20 years.

Conclusions

CRS patients who are former smokers have worse sinonasal symptomatology, QOL, and CRS-related medication usage than nonsmokers. Every year since cessation of smoking is associated improvements in sinonasal symptomatology, QOL, and CRS-related oral corticosteroid use, potentially reaching nonsmoker levels after 10 to 20 years.

Evidence for harm reduction in COPD smokers who switch to electronic cigarettes

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are battery-operated devices designed to vaporise nicotine, which may help smokers quitting or reducing their tobacco consumption. There is a lack of data on the health effects of EC use among smokers with COPD and whether regular use results in improvement in subjective and objective COPD outcomes. We investigated long-term changes in objective and subjective respiratory outcomes in smokers with a diagnosis of COPD who quit or reduced substantially their tobacco consumption by supplementing with or converting only to ECs use.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with COPD to identify those reporting regular daily use of ECs on at least two follow-up visits at 12- (F/up1) and 24-months (F/up2). Regularly smoking COPD patients were included as a reference group.

RESULTS

A marked reduction in cigarette consumption was observed in ECs users. A significant reduction in COPD exacerbations was reported in the COPD EC user group, their mean (±SD) decreasing from 2.3 (±1) at baseline to 1.8 (±1; p = 0.002) and 1.4 (±0.9; p < 0.001) at F/up1 and F/up2 respectively. A significant reduction in COPD exacerbations was also observed in ECs users who also smoked conventional cigarettes (i.e. 'dual users'). COPD symptoms and ability to perform physical activities improved statistically in the EC group at both visits, with no change in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that ECs use may aid smokers with COPD reduce their cigarette consumption or remain abstinent, which results in marked improvements in annual exacerbation rate as well as subjective and objective COPD outcomes.

Smoking cessation for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation is the most important treatment for smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but little is known about the effectiveness of different smoking cessation interventions for this particular group of smokers.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of behavioural or pharmacological smoking cessation interventions, or both, in smokers with COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched all records in the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials. In addition to this electronic search, we searched clinical trial registries for planned, ongoing, and unpublished trials. We searched all databases from their inception. We checked the reference lists of all included studies and of other systematic reviews in relevant topic areas. We searched for errata or retractions from eligible trials on PubMed. We conducted our most recent search in March 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of any behavioural or pharmacological treatment, or both, in smokers with COPD reporting at least six months of follow-up abstinence rates.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data and performed the methodological quality assessment for each study. We resolved any disagreements by consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies (involving 13,123 participants) in this systematic review, two of which were of high quality. These two studies showed that nicotine sublingual tablet and varenicline increased the quit rate over placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.60 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 5.24) and RR 3.34 (95% CI 1.88 to 5.92)). Pooled results of two studies also showed a positive effect of bupropion compared with placebo (RR 2.03 (95% CI 1.26 to 3.28)). When pooling these four studies, we found high-quality evidence for the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy plus high-intensity behavioural treatment compared with placebo plus high-intensity behavioural treatment (RR 2.53 (95% CI 1.83 to 3.50)). Furthermore, we found some evidence that high-intensity behavioural treatment increased abstinence rates when compared with usual care (RR 25.38 (95% CI 8.03 to 80.22)) or low-intensity behavioural treatment (RR 2.18 (95% CI 1.05 to 4.49)). Finally, the results showed effectiveness of various combinations of psychosocial and pharmacological interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found high-quality evidence in a meta-analysis including four (1,540 participants) of the 16 included studies that a combination of behavioural treatment and pharmacotherapy is effective in helping smokers with COPD to quit smoking. Furthermore, we conclude that there is no convincing evidence for preferring any particular form of behavioural or pharmacological treatment.

Lung function and respiratory symptoms in a randomized smoking cessation trial of electronic cigarettes

Quitting smoking is the most important step smokers can take to improve their health. Nonetheless, there is little information on long-term improvements in lung function and/or respiratory symptoms after smoking cessation. Here we illustrate long-term changes in spirometric indices as well as in respiratory symptoms in smokers invited to quit or reduce their cigarette consumption by switching to electronic cigarettes (ECs). Prospective evaluation of cigarette consumption, spirometry and symptoms was performed in a 1-year randomized controlled trial of smokers receiving EC containing 2.4%, 1.8% or 0% nicotine. Spirometric data are presented on the basis of participants' pooled continuous smoking phenotype classification (Quitters, Reducers, Failures), whereas respiratory symptoms on the basis of their point prevalence-smoking phenotype. Smoking phenotype classification (Quitters, Reducers, Failures) had no significant effect on spirometric indices (FEV1, FVC and FEV1/FVC) with the exception of FEF25-75%, which significantly (P  =0.034) increased over the time among Quitters; their FEF25-75% (% predicted) improving from (means±S.D.) 85.7±15.6% at baseline (BL) to 100.8±14.6%. High prevalence of cough/phlegm (43.1%) and shortness of breath (SoB; 34.8%) was reported at BL with substantial reduction in their frequency at subsequent follow-up visits. These symptoms virtually disappeared very quickly in both quitters and reducers. Smokers invited to switch to ECs who completely abstained from smoking showed steady progressive improvements in their FEF25-75% Normalization of peripheral airways function was associated with improvement in respiratory symptoms, adding to the notion that abstaining from smoking can reverse tobacco harm in the lung.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist).

OBJECTIVES

To review the efficacy of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register for trials, using the terms ('cytisine' or 'Tabex' or 'dianicline' or 'varenicline' or 'nicotine receptor partial agonist') in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO using MeSH terms and free text to identify controlled trials of interventions for smoking cessation and prevention. We contacted authors of trial reports for additional information where necessary. The latest update of the specialised register was in May 2015, although we have included a few key trials published after this date. We also searched online clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials which compared the treatment drug with placebo. We also included comparisons with bupropion and nicotine patches where available. We excluded trials which did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from start of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on the type of participants, the dose and duration of treatment, the outcome measures, the randomisation procedure, concealment of allocation, and completeness of follow-up.The main outcome measured was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, and preferred biochemically validated rates where they were reported. Where appropriate we pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials of cytisine (937 people) found that more participants taking cytisine stopped smoking compared with placebo at longest follow-up, with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 3.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.01 to 7.87; low-quality evidence). One recent trial comparing cytisine with NRT in 1310 people found a benefit for cytisine at six months (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.80).One trial of dianicline (602 people) failed to find evidence that it was effective (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.75). This drug is no longer in development.We identified 39 trials that tested varenicline, 27 of which contributed to the primary analysis (varenicline versus placebo). Five of these trials also included a bupropion treatment arm. Eight trials compared varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Nine studies tested variations in varenicline dosage, and 13 tested usage in disease-specific subgroups of patients. The included studies covered 25,290 participants, 11,801 of whom used varenicline.The pooled RR for continuous or sustained abstinence at six months or longer for varenicline at standard dosage versus placebo was 2.24 (95% CI 2.06 to 2.43; 27 trials, 12,625 people; high-quality evidence). Varenicline at lower or variable doses was also shown to be effective, with an RR of 2.08 (95% CI 1.56 to 2.78; 4 trials, 1266 people). The pooled RR for varenicline versus bupropion at six months was 1.39 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.54; 5 trials, 5877 people; high-quality evidence). The RR for varenicline versus NRT for abstinence at 24 weeks was 1.25 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; 8 trials, 6264 people; moderate-quality evidence). Four trials which tested the use of varenicline beyond the 12-week standard regimen found the drug to be well-tolerated during long-term use. The number needed to treat with varenicline for an additional beneficial outcome, based on the weighted mean control rate, is 11 (95% CI 9 to 13). The most commonly reported adverse effect of varenicline was nausea, which was mostly at mild to moderate levels and usually subsided over time. Our analysis of reported serious adverse events occurring during or after active treatment suggests there may be a 25% increase in the chance of SAEs among people using varenicline (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.49; 29 trials, 15,370 people; high-quality evidence). These events include comorbidities such as infections, cancers and injuries, and most were considered by the trialists to be unrelated to the treatments. There is also evidence of higher losses to follow-up in the control groups compared with the intervention groups, leading to a likely underascertainment of the true rate of SAEs among the controls. Early concerns about a possible association between varenicline and depressed mood, agitation, and suicidal behaviour or ideation led to the addition of a boxed warning to the labelling in 2008. However, subsequent observational cohort studies and meta-analyses have not confirmed these fears, and the findings of the EAGLES trial do not support a causal link between varenicline and neuropsychiatric disorders, including suicidal ideation and suicidal behaviour. The evidence is not conclusive, however, in people with past or current psychiatric disorders. Concerns have also been raised that varenicline may slightly increase cardiovascular events in people already at increased risk of those illnesses. Current evidence neither supports nor refutes such an association, but we await the findings of the CATS trial, which should establish whether or not this is a valid concern.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cytisine increases the chances of quitting, although absolute quit rates were modest in two recent trials. Varenicline at standard dose increased the chances of successful long-term smoking cessation between two- and three-fold compared with pharmacologically unassisted quit attempts. Lower dose regimens also conferred benefits for cessation, while reducing the incidence of adverse events. More participants quit successfully with varenicline than with bupropion or with NRT. Limited evidence suggests that varenicline may have a role to play in relapse prevention. The most frequently recorded adverse effect of varenicline is nausea, but mostly at mild to moderate levels and tending to subside over time. Early reports of possible links to suicidal ideation and behaviour have not been confirmed by current research.Future trials of cytisine may test extended regimens and more intensive behavioural support.

Long-term safety of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate fixed-dose combination: Results of a randomized 1-year trial in patients with COPD

TRIAL DESIGN

This was a one-year, Phase III randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active-control study investigating the long-term safety and tolerability of twice-daily aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg versus formoterol 12 μg.

METHODS

Eligible patients were male or female, current or ex-smokers (history of ≥10 pack-years) aged ≥40 years with a diagnosis of moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio <70%, and post-bronchodilator FEV1≥30% and <80% predicted. Patients were randomized 2:1 to twice-daily aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg or formoterol 12 μg, administered via a multidose dry powder inhaler (Genuair™/Pressair(®))(1). The objective was to evaluate the one-year safety of aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg versus formoterol 12 μg.

RESULTS

All 590 patients were included in the safety population; 392 patients received aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg and 198 patients received formoterol 12 μg. Of these, 581 patients were included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (385 patients received aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg; 196 patients received formoterol 12 μg). In the safety population, the percentage of patients with ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event was similar between aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg (71.4%) and formoterol 12 μg (65.7%). Mean baseline post-bronchodilator FEV1 was 51.3% of predicted (ITT population). Aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg significantly improved morning pre-dose (trough) FEV1 and trough FVC versus formoterol 12 μg at each assessment, with improvements at Week 1 (least squares mean difference [LSMD]: 87.4 mL and 157.8 mL, respectively) maintained at study end (LSMD: 81.5 mL and 185.4 mL, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to formoterol 12 μg and consistent with that seen in two Phase III studies. Additionally, aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg improved lung function versus formoterol 12 μg, with a sustained effect over one year.

[Smoking cessation in smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]

One out of two smokers who smoke throughout their lifetime will die from a disease related to smoking. Tobacco smoking therefore represents a major global public health issue. Smoking is the leading cause of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Projections for 2020 indicate that by then, COPD will have become the third cause of death and the fifth cause of disability worldwide. Stopping smoking reduces the risk of developing COPD and is an essential treatment for this inflammatory disease. Smoking cessation decreases the prevalence of respiratory symptoms, number of hospitalizations, and decline in FEV1, as well as exacerbation frequency and overall mortality. Among the patients, 38-77% with COPD are smokers. Their daily cigarette consumption and level of nicotine dependence are often high. The combination of high intensity behavioral interventions and medication treatments (nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline, bupropion) is the most effective strategy for smokers with COPD. In contrast, behavioral interventions without medication are not more effective than simple advice to stop. Two factors seem to predict the success of the attempt to quit in smokers with COPD: a strong motivation to quit and the use of smoking cessation medications.

Smoking cessation in COPD causes a transient improvement in spirometry and decreases micronodules on high-resolution CT imaging

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation is of major importance for all smokers; however, in patients with COPD, little information exists on how smoking cessation influences lung function and high-resolution CT (HRCT) scan appearances.

METHODS

In this single-center study, we performed screening spirometry in a group of heavy smokers aged 40 to 80 years (N = 358). We then studied the effects of smoking cessation in two groups of selected subjects: smokers with COPD (n = 38) and smokers with normal spirometry (n = 55). In parallel to subjects undergoing smoking cessation, we studied a control group of nonsmokers (n = 19).

RESULTS

Subjects with COPD who quit smoking had a marked, but transient improvement in FEV1 at 6 weeks (184 mL, n = 17, P < .01) that was still present at 12 weeks (81 mL, n = 17, P < .05) and only partially maintained at 1 year. In contrast, we saw improvement in the transfer factor of lung for carbon monoxide at 6 weeks in both subjects with COPD who quit smoking (0.47 mmol/min/kPa, n = 17, P < .01) and subjects who quit smoking with normal spirometry (0.40 mmol/min/kPa, n = 35, P < .01). An upper-zone single HRCT image slice reliably identified emphysema at baseline in 74% of smokers with COPD (28 of 38) and 29% of healthy smokers (16 of 55). Smoking cessation had no significant effect on the appearances of emphysema but decreased the presence of micronodules on HRCT imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Cigarette smoking causes extensive lung function and HRCT image abnormalities, even in patients with normal spirometry. Smoking cessation has differential effects on lung function (FEV1 and gas transfer) and features on HRCT images (emphysema and micronodules). Cessation of smoking in patients with COPD causes a transient improvement in FEV1 and decreases the presence of micronodules, offering an opportunity for concomitant therapy during smoking cessation to augment these effects. Smoking cessation at the earliest possible opportunity is vital to minimize permanent damage to the lungs.

The Clinical COPD Questionnaire: response to pulmonary rehabilitation and minimal clinically important difference

BACKGROUND

The Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) is a simple 10-item, health-related quality of life questionnaire (HRQoL) with good psychometric properties. However, little data exists regarding the responsiveness of the CCQ to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) or the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). The study aims were to assess the responsiveness of the CCQ to PR, to compare the responsiveness of the CCQ to other HRQoL questionnaires and to provide estimates for the MCID.

METHODS

The CCQ, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) and COPD Assessment Test (CAT) were measured in 261 patients with COPD before and after outpatient PR. Pre to post PR changes and Cohen's effect size were calculated. Changes in CCQ were compared with changes in other HRQoL questionnaires. Using an anchor-based approach and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, the CCQ change cutoffs that identified patients achieving the known MCID for other health status questionnaires with PR were identified.

RESULTS

The CCQ, SGRQ, CRQ and CAT all significantly improved with PR with an effect size of -0.39, -0.33, 0.62 and -0.25, respectively. CCQ change correlated significantly with change in SGRQ, CRQ and CAT (r=0.48, -0.56, 0.54, respectively; all p<0.001). ROC curves consistently identified a CCQ change cutoff of -0.4 as the best discriminating value to identify the MCID for the SGRQ, CRQ and CAT (area under curve: 0.71, 0.75 and 0.77, respectively; all p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The CCQ is responsive to PR with an estimated clinically important improvement of -0.4 points. The CCQ is a practical alternative to more time-consuming measures of HRQoL.

Short-term effectiveness of smoking-cessation treatment on respiratory function and CEA level

Aim: Tobacco smoke contains many chemicals that are harmful and cause carcinogenesis. The aim of this study was to confirm the relationship between smoking and changes in respiratory functional and laboratory parameters comparing, in particular, smoking-cessation treatment’s outcomes between smokers who reduce tobacco consumption (reducers) and smokers who quit completely (quitters). Materials & methods: A total of 181 current smokers were prospectively enrolled. All of the participants completed a sociodemographic questionnaire and underwent 3 months of varenicline plus nicotine-replacement therapy combined with basic counseling. Laboratory tests and clinical and lung-function parameters were evaluated at entry and after 3 months of therapy. After 3 months of smoking-cessation treatment, subjects were sorted into two subgroups: quitters and reducers. Results: After 3 months of combined therapy, 56% of the subjects (101 patients) stopped smoking; the remaining patients reduced. Significant improvements in pulmonary-function tests (especially in the 25–75% forced expiratory volume testing) were recorded. The most significant improvements were obtained in quitters: carboxyhemoglobin was reduced by 1.06%, the average expiratory flow between 25 and 75% of vital capacity increased by 16% from predicted, mean serum CEA level decreased by 1.83 ng/ml, heart rate decreased by approximately 16 beats/min on average and forced 1 s expiratory flow increased by 2.57% from predicted. The Fagerström scores showed a positive correlation with the corresponding blood carboxyhemoglobin levels. Conclusion: Just 3 months of smoking-cessation treatment achieved significant improvements in lung-function parameters and a decrease in serum CEA, mostly in subjects who totally quit smoking. This result confirms the effectiveness of our smoking-cessation treatment and suggests the utility of the selected parameters as tools to motivate and monitor patients.

Health effects of the Federal Bureau of Prisons tobacco ban

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in America, claiming 450,000 lives annually. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, caused by smoking in the vast majority of cases, became the third leading cause of death in the U.S. in 2008. The burden of asthma, often exacerbated by tobacco exposure, has widespread clinical and public health impact. Despite this considerable harm, we know relatively little about the natural history of lung disease and respiratory impairment in adults, especially after smoking cessation.

METHODS/DESIGN

Our paper describes the design and rationale for using the 2004 Federal Bureau of Prisons tobacco ban to obtain insights into the natural history of respiratory diseases in adult men and women of different races/ethnicities who are imprisoned in federal medical facilities. We have developed a longitudinal study of new prison arrivals, with data to be collected from each participant over the course of several years, through the use of standardized questionnaires, medical chart reviews, lung function tests, six-minute walk tests, and stored serum for the analysis of present and future biomarkers. Our endpoints include illness exacerbations, medication and health services utilization, lung function, serum biomarkers, and participants' experience with their health and nicotine addiction.

DISCUSSION

We believe the proposed longitudinal study will make a substantial contribution to the understanding and treatment of respiratory disease and tobacco addiction.

Smoking cessation and environmental hygiene

Although there are nonmodifiable genetic risk factors for COPD, most known risk factors for development and progression of COPD can be corrected. Continued efforts to encourage smoking cessation and measures to reduce exposure to SHS, outdoor air pollution, biomass smoke, and occupational and related amateur exposures will have a significant impact on worldwide health.