Adjunctive varenicline treatment for smoking reduction in patients with schizophrenia: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial

Smoking reduction interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The standard way most people are advised to stop smoking is by quitting abruptly on a designated quit day. However, many people who smoke have tried to quit many times and may like to try an alternative method. Reducing smoking behaviour before quitting could be an alternative approach to cessation. However, before this method can be recommended it is important to ensure that abrupt quitting is not more effective than reducing to quit, and to determine whether there are ways to optimise reduction methods to increase the chances of cessation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of reduction-to-quit interventions on long-term smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO for studies, using the terms: cold turkey, schedul*, cut* down, cut-down, gradual*, abrupt*, fading, reduc*, taper*, controlled smoking and smoking reduction. We also searched trial registries to identify unpublished studies. Date of the most recent search: 29 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which people who smoked were advised to reduce their smoking consumption before quitting smoking altogether in at least one trial arm. This advice could be delivered using self-help materials or behavioural support, and provided alongside smoking cessation pharmacotherapies or not. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of less than six months, where participants spontaneously reduced without being advised to do so, where the goal of reduction was not to quit altogether, or where participants were advised to switch to cigarettes with lower nicotine levels without reducing the amount of cigarettes smoked or the length of time spent smoking. We also excluded trials carried out in pregnant women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking cessation was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison (no smoking cessation treatment, abrupt quitting interventions, and other reduction-to-quit interventions) and carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. We also extracted data on quit attempts, pre-quit smoking reduction, adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, and meta-analysed these where sufficient data were available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 51 trials with 22,509 participants. Most recruited adults from the community using media or local advertising. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked an average of 23 cigarettes a day. We judged 18 of the studies to be at high risk of bias, but restricting the analysis only to the five studies at low or to the 28 studies at unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results.We identified very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision, comparing the effect of reduction-to-quit interventions with no treatment on cessation rates (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.38; I2 = 45%; 6 studies, 1599 participants). However, when comparing reduction-to-quit interventions with abrupt quitting (standard care) we found evidence that neither approach resulted in superior quit rates (RR 1. 01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.17; I2 = 29%; 22 studies, 9219 participants). We judged this estimate to be of moderate certainty, due to imprecision. Subgroup analysis provided some evidence (P = 0.01, I2 = 77%) that reduction-to-quit interventions may result in more favourable quit rates than abrupt quitting if varenicline is used as a reduction aid. Our analysis comparing reduction using pharmacotherapy with reduction alone found low-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency and imprecision, that reduction aided by pharmacotherapy resulted in higher quit rates (RR 1. 68, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.58; I2 = 78%; 11 studies, 8636 participants). However, a significant subgroup analysis (P < 0.001, I2 = 80% for subgroup differences) suggests that this may only be true when fast-acting NRT or varenicline are used (both moderate-certainty evidence) and not when nicotine patch, combination NRT or bupropion are used as an aid (all low- or very low-quality evidence). More evidence is likely to change the interpretation of the latter effects.Although there was some evidence from within-study comparisons that behavioural support for reduction to quit resulted in higher quit rates than self-help resources alone, the relative efficacy of various other characteristics of reduction-to-quit interventions investigated through within- and between-study comparisons did not provide any evidence that they enhanced the success of reduction-to-quit interventions. Pre-quit AEs, SAEs and nicotine withdrawal symptoms were measured variably and infrequently across studies. There was some evidence that AEs occurred more frequently in studies that compared reduction using pharmacotherapy versus no pharmacotherapy; however, the AEs reported were mild and usual symptoms associated with NRT use. There was no clear evidence that the number of people reporting SAEs, or changes in withdrawal symptoms, differed between trial arms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that neither reduction-to-quit nor abrupt quitting interventions result in superior long-term quit rates when compared with one another. Evidence comparing the efficacy of reduction-to-quit interventions with no treatment was inconclusive and of low certainty. There is also low-certainty evidence to suggest that reduction-to-quit interventions may be more effective when pharmacotherapy is used as an aid, particularly fast-acting NRT or varenicline (moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence for any adverse effects of reduction-to-quit interventions was sparse, but available data suggested no excess of pre-quit SAEs or withdrawal symptoms. We downgraded the evidence across comparisons due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. Future research should aim to match any additional components of multicomponent reduction-to-quit interventions across study arms, so that the effect of reduction can be isolated. In particular, well-conducted, adequately-powered studies should focus on investigating the most effective features of reduction-to-quit interventions to maximise cessation rates.

Patient-Informed Treatment Development of Behavioral Smoking Cessation for People With Schizophrenia

The objective of this study was to use qualitative methodology to tailor and refine an existing smoking cessation intervention for the population of people who use cigarettes and are diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or psychotic disorder. Successive cohort design methodology was used to iteratively modify the treatment in response to qualitative participant, therapist, and consultant feedback on the intervention. Qualitative methodology for participant feedback included analysis of semistructured interviews with participants, visualization of app utilization data, and stakeholder feedback from study therapists and consultants. Using the successive cohort design, a tailored multicomponent mobile health smoking cessation intervention was developed. The intervention included mobile contingency management (i.e., financial compensation for confirmed abstinence from smoking), pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation, cognitive-behavioral counseling sessions, and the Stay Quit app for relapse prevention. Two cohorts (N = 13) were completed in the study; after each cohort, the treatment protocol was revised. The intervention is described, as well as the qualitative findings from each cohort and subsequent changes made to the intervention based upon patient and provider feedback. Metrics of patient engagement included treatment adherence (40% in Cohort 1 and 63% in Cohort 2). Both participants and therapists reported that the intervention was helpful. Over one third of participants self-reported abstinence at posttreatment. Since qualitative methodology is often underutilized in mental health treatment development, this study demonstrates the utility of the successive cohort design for treatment development of behavior change interventions for at-risk, vulnerable populations.

Designing selective modulators for the nicotinic receptor subtypes: challenges and opportunities

Nicotinic receptors are membrane proteins involved in several physiological processes. They are considered suitable drug targets for various CNS disorders or conditions, as shown by the large number of compounds which have entered clinical trials. In recent years, nonconventional agonists have been discovered: positive allosteric modulators, allosteric agonists, site-specific agonists and silent desensitizers are compounds able to modulate the receptor interacting at sites different from the orthodox one, or to desensitize the receptor without prior opening. While these new findings can further complicate the pharmacology of these proteins and the design and optimization of ligands, they undoubtedly offer new opportunities to find drugs for the many therapeutic indications involving nicotinic receptors.

Efficacy and Safety of Varenicline for Smoking Cessation in Schizophrenia: A Meta-Analysis

Objective: Smoking represents a major public health problem among patients with schizophrenia. To this end, some studies have investigated the efficacy of varenicline for facilitating smoking cessation in schizophrenia patients. The present review seeks to synthesize the results of these studies as well as document the reported side effects of using this medication. Methods: An electronic search was performed using five major databases: PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Included in the current analysis were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that have investigated the effect of varenicline in promoting smoking cessation in patients with schizophrenia. Risk of bias among included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's quality assessment tool. Results: Among the 828 screened articles, only four RCTs, which involved 239 participants, were eligible for meta-analysis. In patients with schizophrenia, varenicline treatment when compared to placebo significantly reduced the number of cigarettes consumed per day [SMD (95% CI) = 0.89(0.57-1.22)] and expired carbon monoxide levels [SMD (95% CI) = 0.50 (0.06-0.94)] respectively. Conclusion: Despite a limited number of studies included in the meta-analysis, our results suggest that varenicline is an effective and safe drug to assist smoking cessation in patients with schizophrenia. Future large-scale well-designed RCTs are required to validate these findings.