Cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric risks of varenicline: a retrospective cohort study

Association of smoking cessation patterns and untreated smoking with glaucoma, cataract, and macular degeneration: a population-based retrospective study

This study aims to assess the association between nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline, and untreated smoking with the risk of developing eye disorders. We employed a new-user design to investigate the association between NRT use and the incidence of eye disorders by the Taiwan National Health Insurance program. This study included 8416 smokers who received NRT and 8416 smokers who did not receive NRT (control group) matched using propensity scores between 2007 and 2018. After adjustment for relevant factors, a multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed that compared with untreated smokers, NRT use was associated with a significantly reduced risk of macular degeneration (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.87, P = 0.024). When stratified by dose, short-term NRT use (8-28 defined daily doses) was associated with significantly lower risk of glaucoma (HR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.16-0.80, P = 0.012) and a trend toward reduced risk of cataract (HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.36-1.01, P = 0.053) compared to no treatment. However, these associations were not observed with long-term NRT use. The results of this real-world observational study indicate that NRT use, particularly short-term use, was associated with a lower risk of certain eye disorders compared to no treatment for smoking cessation. Long-term NRT use did not demonstrate the same benefits. Thus, short-term NRT may be a beneficial treatment strategy for reducing the risk of eye disorders in smokers attempting to quit. However, further evidence is required to verify these findings and determine the optimal duration of NRT use.

[Tobacco cessation: one of the most effective medical measures]

Tobacco smoking is widespread in Germany. An increase in the number of teenagers and young adults that smoke has recently been a cause for concern. The high prevalence in Germany is contrasted by inadequate preventive measures compared to international standards. Smoking behavior should always be inquired about and documented in the same way as vital signs. All smokers, regardless of the reason for contact and motivation, should receive short, low-threshold advice, e.g. using the ABC approach (ask, brief advice, cessation). In addition to repeated advice and referral to further services, the use of nicotine replacement or drug therapy is essential for the success of quitting. The combination of long- and short-acting nicotine replacement products doubles the success rate. Electronic nicotine delivery systems are not recommended for smoking cessation.

Anti-smoking drugs cytisine and varenicline reduce cardiac reperfusion injury in rat model of myocardial ischemia

Evidence to date indicates that activation of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) can reduce cardiac injury from ischemia and subsequent reperfusion. The use of nAChR agonists in various animal models leads to a reduction in reperfusion injury. Earlier this effect was shown for the agonists of α7 nAChR subtype. In this work, we demonstrated the expression of mRNA encoding α4, α6 and β2 nAChR subunits in the left ventricle of rat heart. In a rat model of myocardial ischemia, we studied the effect of α4β2 nAChR agonists cytisine and varenicline, medicines used for the treatment of nicotine addiction, and found them to significantly reduce myocardium ischemia-reperfusion injury, varenicline manifesting a higher protection. Dihydro-β-erythroidine, antagonist of α4β2 nAChR, as well as methyllycaconitine, antagonist of α7 and α6β2-containing nAChR, prevented protective effect of varenicline. This together with the presence of α4, α6 and β2 subunit mRNA in the left ventricule of rat heart raises the possibility that the varenicline effect is mediated by α4β2 as well as by α7 and/or α6β2-containing receptors. Our results point to a new way for the use of cytisine and varenicline as cardioprotective agents.

Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Smoking Increase the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapy

Tobacco smoking has been a recognized risk factor for cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Smoking is a chronic relapsing disease and pharmacotherapy is a main component of smoking cessation. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and smoking both increase the risk of CVD and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There are few existing data examining how pharmacological treatment, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, and varenicline, affect smokers suffering with OSA and especially their cardiovascular effects. The aim of this review was to evaluate the effects of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy on OSA with a special emphasis on the cardiovascular system. Results: Only small studies have assessed the effect of NRTs on OSA. Nicotine gum administration showed an improvement in respiratory events but with no permanent results. No specific studies were found on the effect of bupropion on OSA, and a limited number evaluated varenicline's effects on sleep and specifically OSA. Varenicline administration in smokers suffering from OSA reduced the obstructive respiratory events, especially during REM. Studies on second-line medication (nortriptyline, clonidine, cytisine) are even more limited. There are still no studies evaluating the cardiovascular effects of smoking cessation medications on OSA patients. Conclusions: Sleep disturbances are common withdrawal effects during smoking cessation but could be also attributed to pharmacotherapy. Smokers should receive personalized treatment during their quitting attempts according to their individual needs and problems, including OSA. Future studies are needed in order to evaluate the efficacy and safety of smoking cessation medications in OSA patients.

Safety and efficacy of early varenicline prescription in hospitalized patients with acute myocardial infarction: East Asian population

BACKGROUND

Smoking is a strong risk factor for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Varenicline is commonly used as a smoking cessation medication, but little is known about its usage in patients with AMI, particularly in hospitalized patients.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational, single-center study collected from May 2018 to July 2021. Study patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for AMI. The primary end point was set as safety of varenicline, focusing on any serious adverse cardiac events within 24 weeks after treatment. Efficacy of smoking abstinence was also assessed through self-reports of complete abstinence over a week before the 24- week clinic visit.

RESULTS

A total of 162 patients hospitalized with AMI were enrolled in our study. Mean age was 56.7 ± 9.95 years and 97% of the patients were male. Most patients (93.2%) received their first dose of varenicline during hospitalization. Time from admission to first dose of study medication was 2.31 ± 2.73 days and duration of drug intake was 7.41 ± 5.18 weeks. At week 24, only one patient had recurrent myocardial infarction, five patients had undergone revascularization for target lesion failure, and no additional patients developed stroke or died. In terms of efficacy, the rate of smoking abstinence was 79%. Light smokers found it easier to quit smoking than heavy smokers.

CONCLUSION

This study may represent the first report on the safety and efficacy of early initiation of varenicline treatment in East Asian population hospitalized due to AMI who recently underwent percutaneous coronary intervention.

Abstinence Rate, Adverse Events and Withdrawal Symptoms after Varenicline Use and Predicting Factors of Smoking Abstinence: A Multicentre Single-State Study in Malaysia

(1) Background: Varenicline is a widely prescribed agent in smoking cessation. However, the abstinence rate, the incidence of adverse events and withdrawal symptoms, have not been widely studied locally. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of smoking abstinence, adverse events and withdrawal symptoms associated with varenicline use, as well as possible factors contributing to successful smoking abstinence. (2) Methods: This was a retrospective, cohort study conducted in twenty-two government-operated smoking cessation clinics across the state of Perak, Malaysia. The medical records of adult smokers (age ≥ 18 years old) who were prescribed with varenicline between January 2017 and June 2018 were traced. The medical records of smokers who used pharmacotherapy other than varenicline, those who received less than four weeks of varenicline treatment, and with missing data were excluded. (3) Results: Sixty-eight out of 114 subjects (59.6%) successfully achieved smoking abstinence. Probable varenicline-induced chest pain was documented in three subjects. Altered behaviour (n = 2) and auditory hallucinations (n = 1) were also reported. Varenicline treatment duration is a significant predictive factor for successful smoking abstinence (odds ratio (OR) = 2.45; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.74−3.45; p < 0.001), followed by age (OR = 1.25; 95% CI 1.005−1.564; p = 0.045), the presence of adverse events (OR = 0.096; 95% CI 0.014−0.644; p = 0.016) and withdrawal symptoms (OR = 0.032; 95% CI 0.016−0.835; p = 0.032). (4) Conclusion: Almost two-thirds of the subjects achieved smoking abstinence with varenicline. The duration of the treatment, as well as the patients’ ages had a significant influence on successful smoking abstinence. Rare cases of cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric-related adverse events were reported, warranting continuous surveillance and adverse drug reaction reporting.

Using primary care databases for addiction research: An introduction and overview of strengths and weaknesses

Primary care databases extract and combine routine data from the electronic patient records of various participating practices on a regular basis. These databases can be used for innovative and relevant addiction research, but such use requires a thorough understanding of how data were originally collected and how they need to be processed and statistically analysed to produce sound scientific evidence. The aims of this paper are therefore to (1) make a case for why primary care databases should be considered more frequently for addiction research; (2) provide an overview of how primary care databases are constructed; (3) highlight important methodological and statistical strengths and weaknesses of using primary care databases for research; and (4) give practical advice about how a researcher can get access to databases. Three major primary care databases from the UK serve as examples: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), The Health Improvement Network (THIN), and QResearch.

Comorbidity patterns in depression: A disease network analysis using regional hospital discharge records

BACKGROUND

Depression is a psychiatric disorder with a high comorbidity burden; however, previous comorbidity studies predominately focused on a few common diseases and relied on self-reported data. We aimed to investigate the comorbid status of depression concerning the entire spectrum of chronic diseases using network analysis.

METHOD

Totally, 22,872 depressed inpatients and one-to-one matched controls were enrolled in the retrospective study. Hospital discharge records were aggregated to measure the comorbidities, where those with a prevalence ≥ 1% were selected for further analysis. Based on the co-occurrence frequency, sex- and age-specific comorbidity networks in depressed patients were constructed and the results were compared with the controls. Louvain algorithm was used to detect the highly interlinked communities.

RESULTS

Depressed patients had 4 comorbidities on average, and 84.4% had at least one comorbidity. The comorbidity network in depression cases was more complex than controls (connections of 839 vs. 369). Intricate but distinct communities appeared within the comorbidity network in depressed patients, where the largest community included cerebrovascular diseases, chronic ischaemia heart disease, atherosclerosis and osteoporosis. Sex-specific central diseases existed, and cardiovascular diseases were the major central diseases to both gender. The older the depressed patients, the more severe the central diseases in the comorbidity network.

LIMITATIONS

The causality of the observed interactions could not be determined.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of network analysis on longitudinal healthcare datasets to assess comorbidity patterns can supplement the traditional clinical study approaches. The findings would improve our understanding of depression-related comorbidities and enhance the integrated management of depression.

Use of Contrave, Naltrexone with Bupropion, Bupropion, or Naltrexone and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events: A Systematic Literature Review

Naltrexone/Bupropion extended release (ER; Contrave) is an extended-release, fixed-dose combination medication of naltrexone (8 mg) and bupropion (90 mg) for patients with obesity or overweight with at least one weight-related comorbidity. Obese and overweight patients with or without comorbidities are at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk. Due to the increased CV risk profile in this patient population, this systematic literature review was conducted to assess human studies reporting major adverse CV events (MACE) and other CV events. A priori eligibility criteria included clinical studies (randomized and observational) published from January 1, 2012, to September 30, 2021, with data comparing users of naltrexone/bupropion ER, naltrexone with bupropion, bupropion without naltrexone, or naltrexone without bupropion versus comparator groups (placebo or other treatments), and with sufficient information to determine the frequency of MACE or other CV adverse events by treatment group. Among 2539 English-language articles identified, 70 articles met the eligibility criteria: seven studies of naltrexone/bupropion ER or naltrexone with bupropion, 32 studies of bupropion, and 31 studies of naltrexone. No studies reported an increased risk of MACE among users of naltrexone/bupropion ER, naltrexone with bupropion, or bupropion or naltrexone individually compared with nonusers. One-half of the available studies (n = 35) reported no (zero) CV events and the other half (n = 35) reported that a non-zero frequency of CV events occurred. Four studies reported data on MACE, including three studies of bupropion and one study of naltrexone/bupropion ER. For composite MACE and its components, the difference in proportions between naltrexone/bupropion ER-, bupropion-, or naltrexone-treated patients compared with active comparators or placebo-treated patients did not exceed 2.5%. In conclusion, the available human evidence does not indicate an increased risk of CV events or MACE following use of naltrexone/bupropion ER, naltrexone with bupropion, or the individual components.

Comparison of Cardiovascular Safety for Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapies in a Population-Based Cohort in Australia

IMPORTANCE

Although concerns exist regarding a potential increased risk of cardiovascular events for smoking cessation pharmacotherapies, there is general consensus that any increased risk associated with their use would be outweighed by the benefits of smoking cessation; thus, clinical guidelines recommend that such pharmacotherapies be offered to everyone who wants to quit smoking. In the interest of minimizing risk to patients, prescribers need evidence indicating how these pharmacotherapies compare with one another in terms of cardiovascular safety.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among individuals initiating varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) patches, or bupropion.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective, population-based cohort study using linked pharmaceutical dispensing, hospital admissions, and death data was conducted in New South Wales, Australia. Participants included adults who were dispensed a prescription smoking cessation pharmacotherapy between 2008 and 2015 or between 2011 and 2015, depending on the availability of the pharmacotherapies being compared. Pairwise comparisons were conducted for risk of MACE among 122 932 varenicline vs 92 148 NRT initiators; 342 064 varenicline vs 10 457 bupropion initiators; and 102 817 NRT vs 6056 bupropion initiators.

EXPOSURE

First course of the smoking cessation pharmacotherapy of interest.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was MACE, defined as a composite of acute coronary syndrome, stroke, and cardiovascular death. Secondary outcomes were the individual components of MACE. Inverse probability of treatment weighting with high-dimensional propensity scores was used to account for potential confounding. Cox proportional hazards regression models with robust variance were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. Data were analyzed January 24, 2019, to September 1, 2021.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) age of included individuals ranged from 41.9 (14.2) to 49.8 (14.9) years, and the proportion of women ranged from 42.8% (52 702 of 123 128) to 52.2% (53 693 of 102 913). The comparison of 122 932 varenicline initiators and 92 148 NRT patch initiators showed no difference in the risk of MACE (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72-1.07) nor in the risk of the secondary outcomes of acute coronary syndrome (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76-1.21) and stroke (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.45-1.14). However, decreased risk of cardiovascular death was found among varenicline initiators (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.79). The results of comparisons involving bupropion were inconclusive owing to wide confidence intervals (eg, risk of MACE: 342 064 varenicline vs 10 457 bupropion initiators, HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.53-1.41]; 102 817 NRT patch vs 6056 bupropion initiators, HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.39-1.62]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The finding of this cohort study that varenicline and NRT patch use have similar risk of MACE suggests that varenicline, the most efficacious smoking cessation pharmacotherapy, may be prescribed instead of NRT patches without increasing risk of major cardiovascular events. Further large-scale studies of the cardiovascular safety of varenicline and NRT relative to bupropion are needed.

Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes.

DESIGN

Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results.

SETTING

Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events.

DATA SOURCES

Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model.

RESULTS

Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard.

LIMITATIONS

Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK.

FUTURE WORK

Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events associated with varenicline treatment for smoking cessation among Dutch population: A sequence symmetry analysis

Purpose

Varenicline is an effective treatment for smoking cessation. While clinical trials did not confirm a causal role, case reports suggested a possible link of varenicline with neuropsychiatric adverse drug events (NPAEs). This study aims to investigate the risk of NPAEs associated with varenicline initiation among the general population in a real‐world setting.

Methods

We conducted a sequence symmetry analysis (SSA) based on the University of Groningen IADB.nl prescription database. We selected incident users of both varenicline and marker drugs for NPAEs, including depression, anxiety and sleep disorder within different time‐intervals. Adjusted sequence ratios (aSR) were calculated for each time‐interval.

Results

Within 365‐days' time‐interval 1066 patients were incident users of both varenicline and NPAE marker drugs. In total, 505 patients were prescribed varenicline before NPAE marker drugs and 561 vice versa (crude sequence ratio [cSR] 0.90, 95% CI: 0.80–1.02). After adjustments for trends in prescriptions, overall a null association was found (aSR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.89–1.13). Regarding specific NPAEs, no increased risks were found for depression nor anxiety within any time‐interval. A small transient increased risk was found for sleep disorders, particularly in earlier time‐intervals 3 and 6 months (aSRs 1.52, 95% CI: 1.10–2.11 and 1.45, 95% CI: 1.15–1.83, respectively). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.

Conclusions

Varenicline initiation was unlikely to be associated with an increased risk of taking anti‐depressants nor anti‐anxiety drugs. Yet a small, but statistically significant, transient association with drugs for sleep disorders was noticed, possibly associated with withdrawal symptoms caused by smoking cessation.

Ausgestaltung und Barrieren für eine Tabakentwöhnung in Hausarztpraxen: Ergebnisse einer qualitativen Studie

Ziel der Studie Etwa 25% der deutschen Bevölkerung raucht. Obgleich Tabakentwöhnung eines der effektivsten Mittel zur Reduktion tabakassoziierter Folgen ist, findet sie nicht ihren Weg in die Regelversorgung. Auch in Hausarztpraxen wird sie nur vereinzelt angeboten. Diese Studie untersucht, wie Hausärztinnen und Hausärzte mit dem Thema Tabakentwöhnung umgehen und welche Faktoren die Umsetzung von Tabakentwöhnung behindern.

Methodik Es wurden leitfadengestützte Einzelinterviews mit 13 LehrärztInnen des Instituts für Hausarztmedizin in Bonn geführt. Die Interviews wurden auf Tonband aufgezeichnet und transkribiert. Anhand des Textmaterials erfolgte in MAXQDA eine inhaltlich strukturierende Inhaltsanalyse mit deduktiv-induktiver Kategorienbildung.

Ergebnisse Die HausärztInnen berichten verschiedene Arten, wie sie Tabakentwöhnungsmaßnahmen in der Praxis umsetzen, wobei sie kombinierte Ansätze als erfahrungsgemäß effektiv beschreiben. Nikotinersatztherapie und verschreibungspflichtige Mittel behalten sie starken Rauchern mit erfolglosen Entwöhnungsversuchen vor. Ihrer Erfahrung nach ist der Wirkstoff Vareniclin sehr wirksam und gut verträglich. Dennoch berichten die HausärztInnen einen zurückhaltenden Einsatz, da sie infolge der Warnhinweise für den Wirkstoff Bupropion auch Nebenwirkungen bei Vareniclin befürchten. Als zentrale Barrieren für Tabakentwöhnung sehen sie praxisseitigen Zeitmangel, fehlende Patientenmotivation und Kosten für medikamentöse Ansätze.

Schlussfolgerung Die befragten HausärztInnen möchten gerade ihren motivierten PatientInnen zum Rauchstopp verhelfen. Jedoch fehlt eine strukturierte Behandlung der Tabakabhängigkeit. Dadurch ist die Anzahl an Raucherinterventionen gering und wirksame Therapien werden zu selten eingesetzt. Der Aufwand einer strukturierten Behandlung müsste jedoch finanziell entlohnt werden. Zudem könnten die HausärztInnen durch den Ausbau von externen Angeboten zur Tabakentwöhnung zeitlich entlastet werden.

Parental Reflectiveness, Posttraumatic Symptoms and Alcohol Use Disorder among Israeli Combat-Veteran Fathers

Combat veterans are highly prone to develop Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) following their release from duty, presumably due to high prevalence of prolonged aversive emotional symptoms such as Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms (PTSS). Parental Reflective Functions (PRF) and Parental Sense of Competence (PSOC) have been identified as key protective factors in predicting maternal functioning and well-being, yet little is known of its role among fathers, let alone combat veteran fathers. In this study we explored whether PRF and PSOC moderated the association between PTSS and AUD among 189 Israel Defense Forces (IDF) male combat veterans. Participants filled out validated measures assessing PTSS, PRF, PSOC and AUD. Results indicated that PTSS, as well as PRF's "interest and curiosity regarding the child's mental states" subscale, were positively correlated to AUD. In addition, PRF's "certainty about child mental states" subscale moderated the association between PTSS and AUD, so that PTSS and AUD were significantly correlated for participants who reported average or high levels of certainty about their child's mental states. This finding may imply that intrusive mentalizing ("hypermentalizing") by veteran fathers may facilitate the association between PTSS and AUD, presumably by constituting a maladaptive mechanism for coping with the stressful uncertainty embedded in the parent-child relationship.

[Smoking cessation - achievable and effective]

In hospital, effective smoking cessation can be organized through counselling, pharmacological aids and, above all, continuous care in outpatient structures following discharge. Pharmacological treatment has proven to be effective and safe with nicotine replacement therapy as well as varenicline. Counselling plus pharmacotherapy is more effective in combination than either therapy is on its own. To better implement structures medical societies in Germany are seeking adequate funding e. g. in the DRG system for hospitalised patients.There are obvious and relevant benefits in smoking cessation. Not only for the main tobacco-related diseases such as coronary heart disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), positive effects of quitting on morbidity and mortality have been confirmed by high-quality meta-analyses. Furthermore, quality of life is increasing following cessation. Presently, smoking is found to be a significant risk factor for severe disease and mortality following coronavirus infection.Do e-cigarettes offer an alternative in smoking cessation? No. Animal and human data are suggesting toxic effects especially following longer use. The long-term effectiveness of e-cigarettes in tobacco cessation is still uncertain and epidemiologic data clearly point toward ineffectiveness. Furthermore, dual use with potentiation of the toxic effects is common. Therefore, e-cigarettes cannot be recommended for tobacco cessation.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Smoking Cessation Interventions in the United Kingdom Accounting for Major Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events

OBJECTIVES

Smoking is a leading cause of death worldwide. Cessation aids include varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and e-cigarettes at various doses (low, standard and high) and used alone or in combination with each other. Previous cost-effectiveness analyses have not fully accounted for adverse effects nor compared all cessation aids. The objective was to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of cessation aids in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

An established Markov cohort model was adapted to incorporate health outcomes and costs due to depression and self-harm associated with cessation aids, alongside other health events. Relative efficacy in terms of abstinence and major adverse neuropsychiatric events was informed by a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Base case results are reported for UK-licensed interventions only. Two sensitivity analyses are reported, one including unlicensed interventions and another comparing all cessation aids but removing the impact of depression and self-harm. The sensitivity of conclusions to model inputs was assessed by calculating the expected value of partial perfect information.

RESULTS

When limited to UK-licensed interventions, varenicline standard-dose and NRT standard-dose were most cost-effective. Including unlicensed interventions, e-cigarette low-dose appeared most cost-effective followed by varenicline standard-dose + bupropion standard-dose combined. When the impact of depression and self-harm was excluded, varenicline standard-dose + NRT standard-dose was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low-dose + NRT standard-dose.

CONCLUSION

Although found to be most cost-effective, combined therapy is currently unlicensed in the United Kingdom and the safety of e-cigarettes remains uncertain. The value-of-information analysis suggested researchers should continue to investigate the long-term effectiveness and safety outcomes of e-cigarettes in studies with active comparators.

Risk of neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular adverse events following treatment with varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink: a case-cross-over study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) are the most commonly used medications to quit smoking. Given their widespread use, monitoring adverse risks remains important. This study aimed to estimate the neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular risks associated with varenicline and NRT as used in routine UK care.

DESIGN

Case-cross-over study.

SETTING

UK-based electronic primary care records in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink from 2006 to 2015 linked to hospital and mortality data sets.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult smokers (n =282,429) observed during periods when exposed and not exposed to either varenicline or NRT.

MEASUREMENTS

Main outcomes included suicide, self-harm, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause death and cause-specific death [MI, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)]. In primary analyses, conditional logistic regression was used to compare the chance of varenicline or NRT exposure during the risk period (90 days prior to the event) with the chance of exposure during an earlier single reference period (91-180 days prior to the event) or multiple 90-day reference periods to increase statistical power.

FINDINGS

In the primary analyses, findings were inconclusive for the associations between varenicline and the main outcomes using a single reference period, while NRT was associated with MI [odds ratio (OR) = 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.18-1.67]. Using multiple reference periods, varenicline was associated with an increased risk of self-harm (OR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.12-1.56) and suicide (OR = 3.56, 95% CI = 1.32-9.60) but a reduction in all-cause death (OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.61-0.93). NRT was associated with MI (OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.36-1.74), self-harm (OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.18-1.44) and deaths from MI (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.11-2.10), COPD (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.14-1.56) and all causes (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.18-1.40) when using multiple reference periods.

CONCLUSIONS

There appear to be positive associations between (1) nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and myocardial infarction, death and risk of self-harm and (2) varenicline and increased risk of self-harm and suicide, as well as a negative association between varenicline and all-cause death. The associations may not be causal. They may reflect health changes at the time of smoking cessation (nicotine replacement therapy is prescribed for people with cardiac problems) or be associated with quit attempts (exposure to both medicines was associated with self-harm).

Neuropsychiatric safety of varenicline in the general and COPD population with and without psychiatric disorders: a retrospective cohort study in a real-world setting

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the real-world association between varenicline and neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPAEs) in general and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) population with and without psychiatric disorders compared with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to strengthen the knowledge of varenicline safety.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Prescription database IADB.nl, the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

New users of varenicline or NRT among general (≥18 years) and COPD (≥40 years) population. Psychiatric subcohort was defined as people prescribed psychotropic medications (≥2) within 6 months before the index date.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The incidence of NPAEs including depression, anxiety and insomnia, defined by new or naive prescriptions of related medications in IADB.nl within 24 weeks after the first treatment initiation of varenicline or NRT.

RESULTS

For the general population in non-psychiatric cohort, the incidence of total NPAEs in varenicline (4480) and NRT (1970) groups was 10.5% and 12.6%, respectively (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.00). For the general population in psychiatric cohort, the incidence of total NPAEs was much higher, 75.3% and 78.5% for varenicline (1427) and NRT (1200) groups, respectively (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.99). For the COPD population (1598), there were no differences in the incidence of NPAEs between comparison groups in both the psychiatric cohort (aOR 0.97, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.44) and non-psychiatric cohort (aOR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.20). Results from subgroup or sensitivity analyses also did not reveal increased risks of NPAEs but showed decreased risk of some subgroup NPAEs associated with varenicline.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to the concerns of a possible increased risk of NPAEs among varenicline users, we found a relative decreased risk of total NPAEs in varenicline users of the general population in psychiatric or non-psychiatric cohorts compared with NRT and no difference for NPAEs between varenicline and NRT users in smaller population with COPD.

A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial of Remote Varenicline Sampling to Promote Treatment Engagement and Smoking Cessation

INTRODUCTION

Medication sampling is a clinically useful tool to engage smokers in the quitting process. Whether varenicline is suitable for sampling purposes is unclear. The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility, uptake, and preliminary outcomes of varenicline sampling.

METHODS

Smokers (N = 99), both motivated to quit and not, were recruited and randomized to varenicline sampling versus not, with 12 week follow-up. The intervention consisted of mailing one-time samples of varenicline (lasting 2-4 wks), with minimally suggestive guidance on use.

RESULTS

Uptake of varenicline was strong, at 2 weeks (54% any use, 66% daily use) and 4 weeks (38%, 46%), with 58% of medication users seeking additional medication. Most users followed conventional titration patterns, self-titrating from 0.5 mg to 2 mg. Relative to control, varenicline sampling increased motivation (p = 0.006) and confidence to quit (p = 0.02), and decreased cigarette smoking (p = 0.02). Smokers receiving varenicline samples were significantly more likely to achieve 50% reduction in cigarettes per day (CPD), both immediately following the sampling exercise (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 4.12; 95% CI: 1.39 to 12.17) and at final follow-up (AOR = 4.50; 95% CI: 1.56 to 13.01). Though cessation outcomes were not statistically significant, there was a 1.5 to 3-fold increase in quit attempts and abstinence from varenicline sampling throughout follow-up. These outcomes were comparable among smokers motivated to quit and not.

CONCLUSIONS

Unguided, user-driven sampling of varenicline sampling is a concrete behavioral exercise that is feasible to do and seems to suggest clinical utility. Sampling is a pragmatic clinical approach to engage more smokers in quitting.

IMPLICATIONS

Use of evidence-based pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation is low. Medication sampling is a pragmatic behavioral exercise that allows smokers to experience the benefits of using them, while promoting positive downstream effects towards quitting. While previous studies have shown that nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) sampling is viable and effective, whether this extends to varenicline is unclear. Results from this trial demonstrate that varenicline sampling is feasible, safe, and suggestive of clinically important steps toward quitting, deserving of a larger trial.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT #03742154.

Vaccine effectiveness of live attenuated and trivalent inactivated influenza vaccination in 2010/11 to 2015/16: the SIVE II record linkage study

BACKGROUND

There is good evidence of vaccine effectiveness in healthy individuals but less robust evidence for vaccine effectiveness in the populations targeted for influenza vaccination. The live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) has recently been recommended for children in the UK. The trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) is recommended for all people aged ≥ 65 years and for those aged < 65 years who are at an increased risk of complications from influenza infection (e.g. people with asthma).

OBJECTIVE

To examine the vaccine effectiveness of LAIV and TIV.

DESIGN

Cohort study and test-negative designs to estimate vaccine effectiveness. A self-case series study to ascertain adverse events associated with vaccination.

SETTING

A national linkage of patient-level general practice (GP) data from 230 Scottish GPs to the Scottish Immunisation & Recall Service, Health Protection Scotland virology database, admissions to Scottish hospitals and the Scottish death register.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1,250,000 people.

INTERVENTIONS

LAIV for 2- to 11-year-olds and TIV for older people (aged ≥ 65 years) and those aged < 65 years who are at risk of diseases, from 2010/11 to 2015/16.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures include vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed influenza using real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), influenza-related morbidity and mortality, and adverse events associated with vaccination.

RESULTS

Two-fifths (40%) of preschool-aged children and three-fifths (60%) of primary school-aged children registered in study practices were vaccinated. Uptake varied among groups [e.g. most affluent vs. most deprived in 2- to 4-year-olds, odds ratio 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.70 to 1.82]. LAIV-adjusted vaccine effectiveness among children (aged 2-11 years) for preventing RT-PCR laboratory-confirmed influenza was 21% (95% CI -19% to 47%) in 2014/15 and 58% (95% CI 39% to 71%) in 2015/16. No significant adverse events were associated with LAIV. Among at-risk 18- to 64-year-olds, significant trivalent influenza vaccine effectiveness was found for four of the six seasons, with the highest vaccine effectiveness in 2010/11 (53%, 95% CI 21% to 72%). The seasons with non-significant vaccine effectiveness had low levels of circulating influenza virus (2011/12, 5%; 2013/14, 9%). Among those people aged ≥ 65 years, TIV effectiveness was positive in all six seasons, but in only one of the six seasons (2013/14) was significance achieved (57%, 95% CI 20% to 76%).

CONCLUSIONS

The study found that LAIV was safe and effective in decreasing RT-PCR-confirmed influenza in children. TIV was safe and significantly effective in most seasons for 18- to 64-year-olds, with positive vaccine effectiveness in most seasons for those people aged ≥ 65 years (although this was significant in only one season).

FUTURE WORK

The UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has recommended the use of adjuvanted injectable vaccine for those people aged ≥ 65 years from season 2018/19 onwards. A future study will be required to evaluate this vaccine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88072400.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric safety of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies in non-depressed adults: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation are widely prescribed, despite substantial concerns being raised regarding the potential increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) and neuropsychiatric adverse events associated with these treatments. This study aimed to assess the relative CV and neuropsychiatric safety between varenicline and bupropion compared with nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) in adults without a recent history of depression.

DESIGN

Retrospective new-user cohort study.

SETTING

US administrative data from 2006 to 2016 covering more than 100 million individuals.

PARTICIPANTS

Three study cohorts of new users, aged 18 years or older, limited to patients with no diagnosis or treatment for depression in the prior 12 months.

MEASUREMENTS

Propensity score adjusted log-binomial regression models. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalized CV events. Secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalized neuropsychiatric events and individual components of the primary outcome.

FINDINGS

A total of 618 497 participants were included in our study cohorts. Compared with NRT (n = 32 237), varenicline (n = 454 698) was associated with a 20% lower 1-year CV risk [adjusted relative risk (RR) = 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.75-0.85], and bupropion (n = 131 562) was associated with a 25% lower 1-year CV risk (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.69-0.81). Varenicline was associated with a 35% lower 1-year risk of neuropsychiatric hospitalization versus NRT (RR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.59-0.72), and bupropion was associated with a 21% increase in 1-year risk of neuropsychiatric hospitalization (RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.09-1.35).

CONCLUSION

Varenicline compared with nicotine replacement therapy does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular or neuropsychiatric hospitalizations. Bupropion appears to be associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular hospitalization and a higher risk of neuropsychiatric hospitalization, compared with nicotine replacement therapy.

Initiating Pharmacologic Treatment in Tobacco-Dependent Adults. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Background: Current tobacco treatment guidelines have established the efficacy of available interventions, but they do not provide detailed guidance for common implementation questions frequently faced in the clinic. An evidence-based guideline was created that addresses several pharmacotherapy-initiation questions that routinely confront treatment teams.Methods: Individuals with diverse expertise related to smoking cessation were empaneled to prioritize questions and outcomes important to clinicians. An evidence-synthesis team conducted systematic reviews, which informed recommendations to answer the questions. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to rate the certainty in the estimated effects and the strength of recommendations.Results: The guideline panel formulated five strong recommendations and two conditional recommendations regarding pharmacotherapy choices. Strong recommendations include using varenicline rather than a nicotine patch, using varenicline rather than bupropion, using varenicline rather than a nicotine patch in adults with a comorbid psychiatric condition, initiating varenicline in adults even if they are unready to quit, and using controller therapy for an extended treatment duration greater than 12 weeks. Conditional recommendations include combining a nicotine patch with varenicline rather than using varenicline alone and using varenicline rather than electronic cigarettes.Conclusions: Seven recommendations are provided, which represent simple practice changes that are likely to increase the effectiveness of tobacco-dependence pharmacotherapy.

Pharmacovigilance Assessment of Cardiac Implications of Nicotine Replacement Therapy Among Smokers

PURPOSE

The purpose of this quantitative comparative study was to examine the possible relationship between nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and cardiac disorder risk by comparing the rates of cardiac disorder risk of NRT with cardiac disorder risk of non-replacement drugs among smokers seeking smoking cessation.

METHODS

The study used retrospective quantitative design, which involved the collection of secondary data from the adverse event reporting system (FAERS) database of the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Rates of cardiac disorder were compared between the NRT group and non- NRT (varenicline and bupropion) group. Statistical analyses involved using a 2x2 contingency table and logistic regression to calculate odds ratio (reporting odds ratio (ROR)).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Unadjusted ROR was 0.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28, 0.70). With age and sex as confounding factors, the smokers in the NRT group still had lower odds of having cardiac disorder risk than the non-NRT group (adjusted ROR=0.44, 95% CI 0.28, 0.70).

CONCLUSION

Our study findings showed lower cardiac disorder risk with the NRT group compared to the non-NRT (varenicline and bupropion) group. While the study did not aim to undermine either using NRT or non-NRT for smoking cessation therapy to prevent smoking illness, the study results offer informed findings that could potentially improve current smoking cessation management using NRT intervention among smokers and enhance smokers' health outcome. Despite the negative signal detection of cardiac disorder risk with NRT as compared to non-NRT in final findings, we still recommend further research on the causal relationship between NRT and non-NRT and cardiac disorder risk.

Varenicline: mode of action, efficacy, safety and accumulated experience salient for clinical populations

Objective: Varenicline, a selective partial agonist of the α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, is a smoking cessation pharmacotherapy that more than doubles the chance of quitting smoking at 6 months compared with placebo. This article reviews salient knowledge of the discovery, pharmacological characteristics, and the efficacy and safety of varenicline in general and in specific populations of smokers and provides recommendations to support use in clinical practice.Methods: Literature searches for varenicline were conducted using PubMed, with date limitations of 2000-2018 inclusive, using search terms covering the discovery, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety in different populations of smokers, alternative quit approaches and combination therapy. Selection of safety and efficacy data was limited to clinical trials, meta-analyses and observational studies.Results: Standard administration of varenicline is efficacious in helping smokers to quit, including smokers with cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Furthermore, varenicline efficacy may be improved with pre-loading, a gradual quitting approach for smokers unwilling or unable to quit abruptly, and extended treatment in smokers who have recently quit to help maintain abstinence. Initial concerns regarding the association of varenicline with increased risk of neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular adverse events have been disproven after extensive clinical evaluations, and the benefit-risk profile of varenicline is considered favorable.Conclusions: Varenicline is efficacious and safe for all adult smokers with a range of clinical characteristics. Evidence suggests that approaches offering greater flexibility in timing and duration of treatment may further extend treatment efficacy and clinical reach.

Comparative Effectiveness of Varenicline and Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Smoking Cessation in Older and Younger Smokers: A Prospective Cohort in Taiwan

Introduction

The effectiveness of varenicline compared with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in achieving smoking cessation in older smokers has not been investigated. This study prospectively compared the effectiveness of varenicline relative to NRT in smokers aged 25–54 years and separately in smokers aged 55 years or older.

Methods

Among 13 397 smokers participating in the Smoking Cessation Program in Taiwan, 2012–2015, 6336 (19.2%, aged ≥55) received varenicline and 7061 received NRT patch or gum (23.2%, aged ≥55). Participants self-reported smoking behaviors by phone interview after 6 months. Logistic regression models estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 7-day, 1-month, and 6-month point-prevalence abstinence. Age-specific models adjusted for sex, education, marital status, smoke-years, nicotine dependence, medical institution, clinic visit number, and duration of medication received.

Results

Among smokers aged 25–54 years, varenicline users had a greater point-prevalence abstinence than NRT users (e.g., 7-day point-prevalence: 34.0% vs. 23.5%), with adjusted OR ranging from 1.23 (CI: 1.09–1.39; 6-month point-prevalence) to 1.37 (CI: 1.24–1.50; 1-month point-prevalence). Among smokers aged 55 years or older, point-prevalence was similar for varenicline and NRT users (e.g., 7-day point-prevalence: 32.3% vs. 33.1%), and ORs did not suggest that varenicline has greater effectiveness than NRT. Sex and level of nicotine dependence did not modify the age-specific effectiveness of varenicline relative to NRT.

Conclusions

Varenicline did not offer greater effectiveness in achieving abstinence than NRT for smokers 55 years or older, whereas it was more effective than NRT in smokers aged 25–54 years. These findings highlighted the need for age-specific approaches for effective tobacco control.

Implications

In this prospective investigation of a national cohort, older smokers (aged ≥55 years) who received varenicline did not have a greater point-prevalence abstinence after 6 months compared with those who used NRT patch or gum. Younger smokers (aged 25–54 years) who received varenicline had a greater likelihood of abstinence than NRT users. Sex and nicotine dependence did not modify the age-specific effectiveness of varenicline relative to NRT patch or gum. Age-appropriate approaches for effective tobacco control are needed.

Treatment With Bupropion and Varenicline for Smoking Cessation and the Risk of Acute Cardiovascular Events and Injuries: a Swedish Case-Crossover Study

Introduction

Bupropion and varenicline are non-nicotine medications used for smoking cessation that mitigate craving and withdrawal symptoms. We aim to investigate whether these drugs increase the risk of selected acute adverse outcomes when used in medical practice.

Methods

Population-based case-crossover design using data from Swedish health and administrative registers. Adult individuals diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction, stroke, suicide, suicide attempt, fall injury, or that suffered a road traffic crash from 01.10.2006 for bupropion, or from 01.03.2008 for varenicline, until 31.12.2013 were included. Different lengths of exposure periods were analyzed within the 12-week hazard period prior to the adverse outcome (1-14, 15-28, and 29-84 days). The control period was matched using the interval preceding the hazard period (85-168 days), and breaking it up into equivalent periods (85-98, 99-112, and 113-168 days). Conditional logistic regression with each case considered as one stratum was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Neither medication was associated with consistent higher risks for any of the adverse outcomes. For bupropion and varenicline, respectively, in the 1-14 days hazard period, OR (95% CI) were: myocardial infarction 1.14 (0.55 to 2.34) and 1.06 (0.70 to 1.62); stroke 1.16 (0.39 to 3.47) and 1.26 (0.72 to 2.17), and traffic crashes 0.85 (0.39 to 1.85) and 1.48 (0.90 to 2.41). In the other periods, ORs were similar or even lower. For falls and suicidal events ORs were generally below one for both drugs.

Conclusion

The available evidence suggests that if prescription guidelines are properly followed regarding potential contraindications both of these medications could be considered relatively safe.

Implications

The reliable exposure and diagnosis assessment used in this nationwide register-based study, along with the number of cases gathered makes this sample one of the largest of its type to assess potential side effects associated with the use of these drugs. Neither medication was associated with consistent higher risks for any of the adverse outcomes studied.

Use of varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy in people with and without general practitioner-recorded dementia: retrospective cohort study of routine electronic medical records

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to estimate smoking prevalence and prescribing rates of varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in people with and without general practitioner (GP)-recorded dementia. Our secondary objective was to assess and compare quit rates of smokers with versus without GP-recorded dementia who were prescribed varenicline or NRT for smoking cessation.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study based on the analysis of electronic medical records within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (2007-2015).

SETTING

683 general practices in England.

PARTICIPANTS

People with and without GP-recorded dementia, aged 18 years and have a code indicating that they are a current smoker.

INTERVENTION

Index prescription of varenicline or NRT (from 1 September 2006).

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were smoking prevalence and prescribing rates of varenicline and NRT (2007-2015). The secondary outcome was smoking cessation at 2 years.

RESULTS

Age and sex-standardised prevalence of smoking was slightly higher in people with GP-recorded dementia than in those without. There were 235 314 people aged 18 years and above prescribed NRT or varenicline. Among smokers with GP-recorded dementia (N=447), 409 were prescribed NRT and 38 varenicline. Smokers with GP-recorded dementia were 74% less likely (95% CI 64% to 82%) to be prescribed varenicline than NRT, compared with smokers without GP-recorded dementia. Compared with people without GP-recorded dementia, people with GP-recorded dementia had consistently lower prescribing rates of varenicline from 2007 to 2015. Two years after prescription, there was no clear evidence for a difference in the likelihood of smoking cessation after prescription of these medications between individuals with and without dementia (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Between 2007 and 2015, people with GP-recorded dementia were less likely to be prescribed varenicline than those without dementia. Quit rates following prescription of either NRT or varenicline were similar in those with and without dementia.

The risk of varenicline-induced seizure among those who have attempted to quit smoking using pharmacotherapy

OBJECTIVE

Varenicline is an effective smoking cessation agent; however, its use is limited because of black box warnings issued by regulatory agencies in the U.S. and Australia. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration updated the label for varenicline in 2015 to warn about the risk of varenicline-induced seizures. The objective of this study was to examine the risk of seizure associated with varenicline use.

METHODS

A nested case-control study was performed using IMS LifeLink PharMetrics Plus administrative claims data (2009-2015). The outcome was presumptive seizures. All smokers making an attempt to quit smoking and having no recent seizure events were included in the nest. Cases and controls were matched (1:4) on age (±5 years), sex, index date (±30 days), event date, and duration of enrollment. An exposure period of 90 days preceding the event date was used. Chi-square tests were used to compare the characteristics of cases and controls. Conditional logistic regression was conducted to determine if an association between presumptive seizures and varenicline use exists.

RESULTS

Our final sample was comprised of 1342 cases and 5368 controls. The adjusted analysis showed that odds of a seizure for patients with a varenicline prescription were 1.09 (confidence interval [CI] = 0.88-1.36) times those of patients with no varenicline exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not find a significant association between varenicline and increased risk of presumptive seizures. These findings raise questions regarding the necessity for a warning label for increased risk of seizures associated with varenicline.

Smoking abstinence 1 year after acute coronary syndrome: follow-up from a randomized controlled trial of varenicline in patients admitted to hospital

BACKGROUND

Patients who continue to smoke after acute coronary syndrome are at increased risk of reinfarction and death. We previously found use of varenicline to increase abstinence 24 weeks after acute coronary syndrome; here we report results through 52 weeks.

METHODS

The EVITA trial was a multicentre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of varenicline for smoking cessation in patients admitted to hospital with acute coronary syndrome. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive varenicline or placebo for 12 weeks, in conjunction with low-intensity counselling. Smoking abstinence was assessed via 7-day recall, with biochemical validation using exhaled carbon monoxide. Participants lost to follow-up or withdrawn were assumed to have returned to smoking.

RESULTS

Among the 302 participants, abstinence declined over the course of the trial, with 34.4% abstinent 52 weeks after acute coronary syndrome. Compared with placebo, point estimates suggest use of varenicline increased point-prevalence abstinence (39.9% v. 29.1%, difference 10.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01% to 21.44%; number needed to treat 10), continuous abstinence (31.1% v. 21.2%, difference 9.9%, 95% CI -0.01% to 19.8%) and reduction in daily cigarette smoking by 50% or greater (57.8% v. 49.7%, difference 8.1%, 95% CI -3.1% to 19.4%). Varenicline and placebo groups had similar occurrence of serious adverse events (24.5% v. 21.9%, risk difference 2.7%, 95% CI -7.3% to 12.6%) and major adverse cardiovascular events (8.6% v. 9.3%, risk difference -0.7%, 95% CI -7.8% to 6.5%).

INTERPRETATION

Varenicline was efficacious for smoking cessation in this high-risk patient population. However, 60% of patients who received treatment with varenicline still returned to smoking. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT00794573.

Response of safety pharmacologists to challenges arising from the rapidly evolving changes in the pharmaceutical industry

This commentary highlights and expands upon the thoughts conveyed in the lecture by Dr. Alan S. Bass, recipient of the 2017 Distinguished Service Award from the Safety Pharmacology Society, given on 27 September 2017 in Berlin, Germany. The lecture discussed the societal, scientific, technological, regulatory and economic events that dramatically impacted the pharmaceutical industry and ultimately led to significant changes in the strategic operations and practices of safety pharmacology. It focused on the emerging challenges and opportunities, and considered the lessons learned from drug failures and the influences of world events, including the financial crisis that ultimately led to a collapse of the world economies from which we are now recovering. Events such as these, which continue to today, challenge the assumptions that form the foundation of our discipline and dramatically affect the way that safety pharmacology is practiced. These include the latest scientific and technological developments contributing to the design and advancement of safe medicines. More broadly, they reflect the philosophical mission of safety pharmacology and the roles and responsibilities served by safety pharmacologists. As the discipline of Safety Pharmacology continues to evolve, develop and mature, the reader is invited to reflect on past experiences as a framework towards a vision of the future of the field.

Multimodal treatment for smoking cessation with varenicline in alcoholic, methadone-maintained, and psychotic patients: A one-year follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Numerous studies have evaluated the efficacy and safety of varenicline for smoking cessation in smokers in the general population and, to a lesser extent, among the psychiatric population. However, few studies have evaluated varenicline in patients with other addictions. The present study was conducted to assess outcomes of a multimodal treatment for smoking cessation intervention with varenicline in a sample of alcohol and substance use disorders and patients with psychotic disorders.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter study. The patient sample comprised alcoholics in remission, methadone-maintained patients, and patients with psychotic disorders, all of whom wanted to stop smoking. All participants received multimodal treatment for smoking cessation therapy (psychological therapy plus varenicline). Smoking abstinence and changes in the psychopathological state of patients were assessed at predefined time points during a 12-month follow-up. The probability of tobacco abstinence after one year of treatment was computed using Kaplan-Meier life tables.

RESULTS

The probability of abstinence at one year was 0.225 (95% CI: 0.1430-0.319). By group, the probabilities were as follows: patients with psychotic disorders 0.254 (95% CI: 0.118-0.415); alcoholics 0.237 (95% CI: 0.098-0.409); and methadone-maintained patients 0.177 (95% CI: 0.065-0.335). Patients with previous quit attempts had a higher probability of achieving abstinence at one year (p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study support the use of multimodal treatment with varenicline in patients with alcohol addiction in remission, patients on methadone maintenance, and patients with stable psychotic disorders. Previous smoking cessation attempts were predictive of smoking cessation success in these patients.

Parental nicotine replacement therapy and offspring bronchitis/bronchiolitis and asthma - a nationwide population-based cohort study

Background

Prior evidence shows that environmental tobacco smoke is a risk factor for respiratory tract infections, wheeze, and asthma. Nicotine replacement therapy has been shown to increase smoking cessation. However, no prior studies have explored if parental use decreases the risk of bronchitis/bronchiolitis and asthma in the offspring.

Objective

To examine whether nicotine replacement therapy varenicline, given to parents, was associated with a reduction in bronchitis/bronchiolitis and/or asthma in their children.

Methods

This study is a population-based cohort study, linking data from nationwide registers, and using a within-individual design that minimizes selection effects and controls for time-invariant confounding factors. Participants included 37,420 parents with a collected prescription of varenicline with 72,392 offspring <18 years of age. Exposure was defined as collected prescriptions of varenicline among the parents. Primary outcomes were offspring hospital visits for bronchitis/bronchiolitis (ICD10: J20 or J21) and offspring hospital visits for asthma (ICD10: J45).

Results

Parental varenicline treatment was associated with a lower rate of visits for bronchitis/bronchiolitis in their children (incidence rate ratio [IRR]=0.67; 95% CI=0.50–0.91), but no association was found for asthma (IRR=1.08; 95% CI=0.97–1.19). The rate reduction of bronchitis/bronchiolitis was similar when we restricted data to children aged 0–3 years (IRR=0.71; 95% CI=0.52–0.97) and to maternal varenicline treatment (IRR=0.64; 95% CI=0.43–0.96). When restricting the outcomes to unplanned visits only (ie, excluding booked appointments, followups, and referrals), no associations were found (IRR=0.72, 95% CI=0.51–1.02).

Conclusion

In this cohort study, nicotine replacement treatment in parents was associated with reduced hospital visits for bronchitis/bronchiolitis in their children.

Prevention and Treatment of Tobacco Use: JACC Health Promotion Series

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death worldwide and is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Both prevention of smoking initiation among youth and smoking cessation among established smokers are key for reducing smoking prevalence and the associated negative health consequences. Proven tobacco cessation treatment includes pharmacotherapy and behavioral support, which are most effective when provided together. First-line medications (varenicline, bupropion, and nicotine replacement) are effective and safe for patients with CVD. Clinicians who care for patients with CVD should give as high a priority to treating tobacco use as to managing other CVD risk factors. Broader tobacco control efforts to raise tobacco taxes, adopt smoke-free laws, conduct mass media campaigns, and restrict tobacco marketing enhance clinicians' actions working with individual smokers.

The effects of prescribing varenicline on two-year health outcomes: an observational cohort study using electronic medical records

AIMS

To investigate whether smokers prescribed varenicline had lower risks of serious ill-health during the 4 years following treatment compared with those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).

DESIGN

Observational cohort study of electronic medical records.

SETTING

A total of 370 UK general practices sampled from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 126 718 patients aged 18 and over who were issued smoking cessation prescriptions between 1 September 2006 and 31 March 2014.

MEASUREMENTS

Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 2 years of first prescription as indicated by linked Office of National Statistics data. Our secondary outcomes were cause-specific mortality, all-cause, cause-specific hospitalization, primary care diagnosis of myocardial infarction or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), body mass index and attendance rate to primary care within 2 years of first prescription. Risk differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by multivariable adjusted regression and propensity score matched regression. We used instrumental variable analysis to overcome residual confounding.

FINDINGS

People prescribed varenicline were healthier at baseline than those prescribed NRT in almost all characteristics, highlighting the potential for residual confounding. Our instrumental variable analysis results found that people prescribed varenicline had a similar risk of mortality at 2 years [risk difference per 100 patients treated = 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.11 to 1.46)] to those prescribed NRT, and there were similar rates of all-cause hospitalization, incident primary-care diagnoses of myocardial infarction and COPD. People prescribed varenicline subsequently attended primary care less frequently.

CONCLUSIONS

Smokers prescribed varenicline in primary care in the United Kingdom do not appear to be less likely to die, be hospitalized or experience a myocardial infarction or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease during the following 2 years compared with smokers prescribed nicotine replacement therapy, but they gain more weight and attend primary care less frequently.

Cost-effectiveness of increasing the reach of smoking cessation interventions in Germany: results from the EQUIPTMOD

AIMS

To evaluate costs, effects and cost-effectiveness of increased reach of specific smoking cessation interventions in Germany.

DESIGN

A Markov-based state transition return on investment model (EQUIPTMOD) was used to evaluate current smoking cessation interventions as well as two prospective investment scenarios. A health-care perspective (extended to include out-of-pocket payments) with life-time horizon was considered. A probabilistic analysis was used to assess uncertainty concerning predicted estimates.

SETTING

Germany.

PARTICIPANTS

Cohort of current smoking population (18+ years) in Germany.

INTERVENTIONS

Interventions included group-based behavioural support, financial incentive programmes and varenicline. For prospective scenario 1 the reach of group-based behavioral support, financial incentive programme and varenicline was increased by 1% of yearly quit attempts (= 57 915 quit attempts), while prospective scenario 2 represented a higher reach, mirroring the levels observed in England.

MEASUREMENTS

EQUIPTMOD considered reach, intervention cost, number of quitters, quality-of-life years (QALYs) gained, cost-effectiveness and return on investment.

FINDINGS

The highest returns through reduction in smoking-related health-care costs were seen for the financial incentive programme (€2.71 per €1 invested), followed by that of group-based behavioural support (€1.63 per €1 invested), compared with no interventions. Varenicline had lower returns (€1.02 per €1 invested) than the other two interventions. At the population level, prospective scenario 1 led to 15 034 QALYs gained and €27 million cost-savings, compared with current investment. Intervention effects and reach contributed most to the uncertainty around the return-on-investment estimates. At a hypothetical willingness-to-pay threshold of only €5000, the probability of being cost-effective is approximately 75% for prospective scenario 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing the reach of group-based behavioural support, financial incentives and varenicline for smoking cessation by just 1% of current annual quit attempts provides a strategy to German policymakers that improves the population's health outcomes and that may be considered cost-effective.

[Interventions for smoking cessation in 2018]

Smoking cessation treatments have been proved effective to stop smoking. For pharmacological treatments, nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) as well as bupropion allow to increase 6 month-abstinence rates by more than 80% in comparison with placebo while varenicline prescription doubles success rates in the same conditions. These results mean that for 10 smokers who quit with placebo, 18 are expected to quit with NRT or bupropion and 28 are expected to quit with varenicline. Varenicline is 50% more effective than nicotine patch and 70% more effective than nicotine gum. Nevertheless, a combination including NRT patch and oral nicotine forms is as effective as varenicline, thus leading to encourage the prescription of a combination NRT when NRT are chosen. For these three pharmacological treatments, cardiovascular as well as neuropsychiatric tolerance were not found statistically different from placebo in randomized controlled trials. Yet, bupropion prescription leads to an increasing risk of seizure (1/1000 to 1/1500). For behavioral treatment, motivational interviewing as well as cognitive behavior therapies are been proven to be effective to stop smoking but few smokers have access to this treatment. Smoking cessation mobile application and smartphone application seem to be promising in terms of effectiveness and might be useful to reach more smokers.

Cardiovascular Safety of Varenicline, Bupropion, and Nicotine Patch in Smokers: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Quitting smoking is enhanced by the use of pharmacotherapies, but concerns have been raised regarding the cardiovascular safety of such medications.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the relative cardiovascular safety risk of smoking cessation treatments.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A double-blind, randomized, triple-dummy, placebo- and active-controlled trial (Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study [EAGLES]) and its nontreatment extension trial was conducted at 140 multinational centers. Smokers, with or without established psychiatric diagnoses, who received at least 1 dose of study medication (n = 8058), as well as a subset of those who completed 12 weeks of treatment plus 12 weeks of follow up and agreed to be followed up for an additional 28 weeks (n = 4595), were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline, 1 mg twice daily; bupropion hydrochloride, 150 mg twice daily; and nicotine replacement therapy, 21-mg/d patch with tapering.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was the time to development of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE: cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) during treatment; secondary end points were the occurrence of MACE and other pertinent cardiovascular events (MACE+: MACE or new-onset or worsening peripheral vascular disease requiring intervention, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina).

RESULTS

Of the 8058 participants, 3553 (44.1%) were male (mean [SD] age, 46.5 [12.3] years). The incidence of cardiovascular events during treatment and follow-up was low (<0.5% for MACE; <0.8% for MACE+) and did not differ significantly by treatment. No significant treatment differences were observed in time to cardiovascular events, blood pressure, or heart rate. There was no significant difference in time to onset of MACE for either varenicline or bupropion treatment vs placebo (varenicline: hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.05-1.68 and bupropion: hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.10-2.50).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

No evidence that the use of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies increased the risk of serious cardiovascular adverse events during or after treatment was observed. The findings of EAGLES and its extension trial provide further evidence that smoking cessation medications do not increase the risk of serious cardiovascular events in the general population of smokers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01574703.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis to Assess the Safety of Bupropion and Varenicline in Pregnancy

Introduction

Smoking in pregnancy is a substantial public health issue, but, apart from nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), pharmacological therapies are not generally used to promote cessation. Bupropion and varenicline are effective cessation methods in nonpregnant smokers and this systematic review investigates their safety in pregnancy.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsychINFO databases for studies of any design reporting pregnancy outcomes after bupropion or varenicline exposure. We included studies of bupropion used for smoking cessation, depression, or where the indication was unspecified. Depending on study design, quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Most findings are reported narratively but meta-analyses were used to produce pooled estimates for the proportion of live births with congenital malformations and of the mean birthweight and gestational age at delivery following bupropion exposure.

Results

In total, 18 studies were included: 2 randomized controlled trials, 11 cohorts, 2 case– control studies, and 3 case reports. Study quality was variable. Gestational safety outcomes were reported in 14 bupropion and 4 varenicline studies. Meaningful meta-analysis was only possible for bupropion exposure, for which the pooled estimated proportion of congenital malformations amongst live-born infants was 1.0% (95% CI = 0.0%–3.0%, I2 = 80.9%, 4 studies) and the mean birthweight and mean gestational age at delivery was 3305.9 g (95% CI = 3173.2–3438.7 g, I2 = 77.6%, 5 studies) and 39.2 weeks (95% CI = 38.8–39.6 weeks, I2 = 69.9%, 5 studies), respectively.

Conclusions

There was no strong evidence that either major positive or negative outcomes were associated with gestational use of bupropion or varenicline. PROSPERO registration number CRD42017067064.

Implications

We believe this to be the first systematic review investigating the safety of bupropion and varenicline in pregnancy. Meta-analysis of outcomes following bupropion exposure in pregnancy suggests that there are no major positive or negative impacts on the rate of congenital abnormalities, birthweight, or premature birth. Overall, we found no evidence that either of these treatments might be harmful in pregnancy, and no strong evidence to suggest safety, but available evidence is of poor quality.

Effectiveness and safety of varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy among mental health patients: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the effectiveness and safety of two smoking cessation medications (varenicline and nicotine patches) in patients with controlled psychiatric disorders in daily practice in a Smoking Cessation Service.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study. It was carried on at a smoking cessation clinic in Madrid and used a convenience sampling strategy. We reviewed medical records of patients diagnosed with psychiatric disorders who attended a Smoking Cessation Service. All patients received similar treatment programme: a combination of pharmacological treatment (varenicline or nicotine replacement therapy) and intensive cognitive-behavioural therapy.

RESULTS

The group included 349 patients (38.4% men). Mean age (SD) 49.6 (10.5) years. 28.3 (12.8) cigarettes per day. 156 subjects achieved 9-24 weeks continuous abstinence (44.7%), in 39% of those who used nicotine patches and in 53.7% of those who used varenicline. OR: 1.64 (95% CI: 1.03-2.61; p=0.036). Success rates were higher in men; OR 1.85 (95% CI: 1.12-3.04; p=0.016). High levels of CO and high daily cigarette use were associated with poorer success rates (OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96-0.99, p=0.007; and OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96-1.00, p=0.045), respectively. Nausea and pruritus were the most common adverse events. No cases of suicidal ideation or behaviour were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline and nicotine patches could be safe and effective smoking cessation treatments for patients with psychiatric disorders in daily clinical practice.

Sex Differences in Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapy Comparative Efficacy: A Network Meta-analysis

Introduction

Converging clinical and biological evidence suggest sex is an important factor when selecting a pharmacological intervention for smoking cessation. The current investigation used network meta-analyses to estimate sex differences in the comparative efficacy of transdermal nicotine (TN), varenicline, and sustained release (SR) bupropion for smoking cessation.

Methods

Systematically searched previously published reviews and databases (Medline, PsycINFO, Embase) of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of bupropion-SR, TN, and varenicline for cigarette smoking cessation in primary care/general community samples were included.

Results

Thirty-two studies met all criteria and 28 (88%) were included in the final analyses, representing 14 389 smokers (51% female). Results of the full sample (women and men combined) mirrored those from a Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group network meta-analysis of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy, showing VAR>TN=BUP. All medications improved quit rates over placebo for both women and men. Relative to placebo, varenicline efficacy was similar for women and men. Significant sex differences were evident when comparing varenicline versus TN and varenicline versus bupropion. For women, varenicline was more efficacious than TN (RR = 1.41; 95% CI = 1.12,1.76) and bupropion (RR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.08,1.77). For men, outcomes for those treated with TN and bupropion were similar to those treated with varenicline. There were no differences in efficacy when comparing bupropion versus TN.

Conclusions

The advantage of varenicline over bupropion SR and TN is greater for women than men. Clinicians should strongly consider varenicline as the first option treatment for women. Among men, the advantage of varenicline over TN or bupropion is less clear.

Implications

This study provides information for the sex-informed treatment of nicotine addiction among cigarette smokers. Relative to placebo, women and men achieved similar outcomes when treated with varenicline; however the advantages of varenicline over transdermal patch and bupropion were greater for women compared to men.

Cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric risks of varenicline and bupropion in smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Varenicline and bupropion are effective smoking cessation treatments, but there are concerns about their safety in smokers with COPD.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether varenicline and bupropion are associated with serious adverse cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric events in smokers with COPD.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study, we used data from 14 350 patients with COPD included in the QResearch database, which holds data from 753 National Health Service general practices across England. We identified patients with COPD who received a prescription of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT; N=10 426; reference group), bupropion (N=350) or varenicline (N=3574) in the period between January 2007 and June 2012. Patients were followed up for 6 months to compare incident cardiovascular (ie, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease and cardiac arrhythmias) and neuropsychiatric (ie, depression and self-harm) events using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for potential confounders. Propensity score analysis was used as an additional approach to account for potential confounding by indication. We also modelled the effects of possible unmeasured confounders.

RESULTS

Neither bupropion nor varenicline showed an increased risk of adverse events compared with NRT. Varenicline was associated with a significantly reduced risk of heart failure (HR=0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.92) and depression (HR=0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.86). Similar results were obtained from the propensity score analysis. Modelling of unmeasured confounding provided additional evidence that an increased risk of these adverse events was very unlikely.

CONCLUSION

In smokers with COPD, varenicline and bupropion do not appear to be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, depression or self-harm in comparison with NRT.

Interventions for smoking cessation in patients admitted with Acute Coronary Syndrome: a review

Tobacco smoking contributes to about six million deaths per year and is predicted to increase in the future. Several pharmacological interventions are used for smoking cessation. Trials using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) showed inconclusive results. Furthermore, three trials using bupropion in patients admitted with ACS failed to show improvement in smoking cessation compared with placebo. Interestingly, only one trial using varenicline was successful in achieving smoking abstinence in the acute setting. With regard to behavioural interventions, a meta-analysis found that telephone counselling was successful in both the acute and stable settings, with greater effect in the acute setting. The best results for smoking cessation were found in trials that used a combination of pharmacological and behavioural interventions. The objective of this report is to review the results of studies on interventions used for smoking cessation after an ACS.

Prospective association between tobacco smoking and death by suicide: a competing risks hazard analysis in a large twin cohort with 35-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

The relationship between smoking and suicide remains controversial.

METHOD

A total of 16 282 twin pairs born before 1958 in Finland and alive in 1974 were queried with detailed health and smoking questionnaires in 1975 and 1981, with response rates of 89% and 84%. Smoking status and dose, marital, employment, and socio-economic status, and indicators of psychiatric and somatic illness were assessed at both time points. Emergent psychiatric and medical illness and vital status, including suicide determined by forensic autopsy, were evaluated over 35-year follow-up through government registries. The association between smoking and suicide was determined in competing risks hazard models. In twin pairs discordant for smoking and suicide, the prospective association between smoking and suicide was determined using a matched case-control design.

RESULTS

Smokers had a higher cumulative suicide incidence than former or never smokers. Heavy smokers had significantly higher suicide risk [hazard ratio (HR) 3.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.31-5.22] than light smokers (HR 2.30, 95% CI 1.61-3.23) (p = 0.017). Compared with never smokers, smokers, but not former smokers, had increased suicide risk (HR 2.56, 95% CI 1.43-4.59), adjusting for depressive symptoms, alcohol and sedative-hypnotic use, and excluding those who developed serious somatic or psychiatric illness. In twin pairs discordant for smoking and suicide, suicide was more likely in smokers [odds ratio (OR) 6.0, 95% CI 2.06-23.8].

CONCLUSIONS

Adults who smoked tobacco were more likely to die by suicide, with a large, dose-dependent effect. This effect remained after consideration of many known predictors of suicide and shared familial effects, consistent with the hypothesis that exposure to tobacco smoke increases the risk of suicide.

How do smoking cessation medicines compare with respect to their neuropsychiatric safety? A protocol for a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death in the UK and worldwide. Public health guidance recommends the use of varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) as smoking cessation aids in the UK. Additionally, the first electronic cigarette has been licensed for use as a smoking cessation medicine. However, there are ongoing concerns about the safety of these medicines. We present a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine how these smoking cessation medicines compare to each other with respect to their neuropsychiatric safety in adult smokers. Secondary aims include updating the evidence regarding the effectiveness and cardiovascular safety of these medicines for use in a cost-effectiveness analysis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will include randomised controlled trials and observational studies with control groups comparing monotherapy with varenicline, bupropion, NRT or electronic cigarette and combination therapies to each other, placebo or usual care. The primary composite safety outcome will be serious adverse events, defined as events that resulted in death, were life threatening, required hospitalisation or resulted in significant disability or congenital/birth defect. The preferred effectiveness outcome will be sustained smoking cessation defined as abstinence for a minimum of 6 months as determined by biochemical validation. We will include trials identified by previous reviews and search relevant databases for newly published trials as well as contacting study authors to identify unpublished information. We will conduct fixed-effect and random-effect meta-analyses for each pairwise comparison of treatments and outcome; where these estimates differ, we will consider reasons for heterogeneity, quantified using the between-study variance (τ²). For each outcome, we will construct a NMA in a Bayesian framework which will be compared with the pair-wise results, allowing us to rank treatments. The effectiveness estimates from the NMA will be entered into a probabilistic economic model.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for this evidence synthesis study as it involves analysis of secondary data from randomised controlled trials and observational studies. The review will make an important contribution to the knowledge base around the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines. Results will be disseminated to the general public, healthcare practitioners and clinicians, academics, industry and policy makers.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016041302.

Treating tobacco dependence: guidance for primary care on life-saving interventions. Position statement of the IPCRG

Tobacco smoking is the world's leading cause of premature death and disability. Global targets to reduce premature deaths by 25% by 2025 will require a substantial increase in the number of smokers making a quit attempt, and a significant improvement in the success rates of those attempts in low, middle and high income countries. In many countries the only place where the majority of smokers can access support to quit is primary care. There is strong evidence of cost-effective interventions in primary care yet many opportunities to put these into practice are missed. This paper revises the approach proposed by the International Primary Care Respiratory Group published in 2008 in this journal to reflect important new evidence and the global variation in primary-care experience and knowledge of smoking cessation. Specific for primary care, that advocates for a holistic, bio-psycho-social approach to most problems, the starting point is to approach tobacco dependence as an eminently treatable condition. We offer a hierarchy of interventions depending on time and available resources. We present an equitable approach to behavioural and drug interventions. This includes an update to the evidence on behaviour change, gender difference, comparative information on numbers needed to treat, drug safety and availability of drugs, including the relatively cheap drug cytisine, and a summary of new approaches such as harm reduction. This paper also extends the guidance on special populations such as people with long-term conditions including tuberculosis, human immunodeficiency virus, cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease, pregnant women, children and adolescents, and people with serious mental illness. We use expert clinical opinion where the research evidence is insufficient or inconclusive. The paper describes trends in the use of waterpipes and cannabis smoking and offers guidance to primary-care clinicians on what to do faced with uncertain evidence. Throughout, it recognises that clinical decisions should be tailored to the individual's circumstances and attitudes and be influenced by the availability and affordability of drugs and specialist services. Finally it argues that the role of the International Primary Care Respiratory Group is to improve the confidence as well as the competence of primary care and, therefore, makes recommendations about clinical education and evaluation. We also advocate for an update to the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines to optimise each primary-care intervention. This International Primary Care Respiratory Group statement has been endorsed by the Member Organisations of World Organization of Family Doctors Europe.