Cytisine for smoking cessation in patients with tuberculosis: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

Comparison between cytisine and Nicotine Replacement Therapy in smoking cessation among inpatient psychiatric patients

INTRODUCTION

Smoking is more common among people with mental disorders and is associated with adverse effects. Some compounds, including nicotine and cytisine, have been used in many individuals to increase success in smoking cessation. In this study, the effect of cytisine on the smoking status of patients hospitalized in the psychiatry department was investigated.

METHOD

Forty-seven patients, hospitalized in the psychiatry ward, motivated to quit smoking, participated in this open-label randomized trial. Thirty patients used nicotine gums 2 mg (Nicolife®) for eight weeks, and the remaining took cytisine pills (Tabex®) according to the manufacturer's instructions for 25 days. All patients were followed up for six months. The primary outcome was smoking cessation, measured by the mood and physical symptoms scale (MPSS), the AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C), confirmatory factor analyses, and reliability of the modified cigarette evaluation questionnaire at the end of the 1st week and at 1st, 2nd and 6th months after quit day.

FINDINGS

Only two out of 30 patients (6.66%) in the group taking Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) could quit smoking entirely (no cigarettes after six months). In contrast, three out of 17 patients (17.64%) managed to do so in the cytisine group. The number of cigarettes smoked by the patients in both groups decreased, but the reduction was significant in the cytisine group.

CONCLUSION

Cytisine is an effective and suitable agent for smoking cessation in patients with psychological problems, with fewer adverse effects and more success rate compared to NRT.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A scoping review of interventions to address TB associated respiratory disability

There is a growing body of data describing a high burden of respiratory morbidity amongst pulmonary TB patients and survivors, with up to half thought to experience residual respiratory symptoms, abnormal spirometry, or structural pathology after TB treatment completion. Many patients experiencing marked impacts on their lives and livelihoods. However, there remain no guidelines or evidence-based frameworks for integrated TB-respiratory care during or post TB treatment completion. In this scoping review, completed in collaboration with the WHO Global Tuberculosis Programme, we have identified a lack of primary data on the clinical efficacy, cost effectiveness or feasibility of six potential interventions for the prevention and management of TB-associated respiratory impairment and disability, with a lack of studies in children and adolescents. There is a need for robust interventional trials to improve the long-term respiratory outcomes of people affected by pulmonary TB disease, and to explore how these might be implemented within resource-limited settings.

The efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological monotherapies and e-cigarette on smoking cessation: a systemic review and network meta-analysis

Background and aims

Several pharmacological interventions, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline, and bupropion, have been approved for clinical use of smoking cessation. E-cigarettes (EC) are increasingly explored by many RCTs for their potentiality in smoking cessation. In addition, some RCTs are attempting to explore new drugs for smoking cessation, such as cytisine. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to investigate how these drugs and e-cigarettes compare regarding their efficacy and acceptability.

Materials and methods

This systematic review and NMA searched all clinical studies on smoking cessation using pharmacological monotherapies or e-cigarettes published from January 2011 to May 2022 using MEDLINE, COCHRANE Library, and PsychINFO databases. NRTs were divided into transdermal (TDN) and oronasal nicotine (ONN) by administrative routes, thus 7 network nodes were set up for direct and indirect comparison. Two different indicators measured the efficacy: prevalent and continuous smoking abstinence. The drop-out rates measured the acceptability.

Results

The final 40 clinical studies included in this study comprised 77 study cohorts and 25,889 participants. Varenicline is more effective intervention to assist in smoking cessation during 16-32 weeks follow-up, and is very likely to prompt dropout. Cytisine shows more effectiveness in continuous smoking cessation but may also lead to dropout. E-cigarettes and oronasal nicotine are more effective than no treatment in encouraging prevalent abstinence, but least likely to prompt dropout. Finally, transdermal nicotine delivery is more effective than no treatment in continuous abstinence, with neither significant effect on prevalent abstinence nor dropout rate.

Conclusion

This review suggested and agreed that Varenicline, Cytisine and transdermal nicotine delivery, as smoking cessation intervention, have advantages and disadvantages. However, we had to have reservations about e-cigarettes as a way to quit smoking in adolescents.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

PRIMARY OUTCOME

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

Background

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

Objectives

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

Search methods

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

Selection criteria

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

Data collection and analysis

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

Main results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authors' conclusions

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

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

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

Key messages

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

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

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

What are 'nicotine receptor partial agonists'?

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

What did we want to find out?

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

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

· how many people had unwanted effects.

What did we do?

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

What did we find?

We found 75 studies that compared NRPAs with:

· placebo or no medicine;

· nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches or gum;

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

· another NRPA;

· e‐cigarettes.

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

Main results

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

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

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

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

What are the limitations of the evidence?

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

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

How up to date is the evidence?

The evidence is up to date to 29 April 2022.

Behavioral Study of 3- and 5-Halocytisine Derivatives in Zebrafish Using the Novel Tank Diving Test (NTT)

Anxiety is a serious mental disorder, and recent statistics have determined that 35.12% of the global population had an anxiety disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic. A mechanism associated with anxiolytic effects is related to nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) agonists, principally acting on the α4β2 nAChR subtype. nAChRs are present in different animal models, including murine and teleosteos ones. Zebrafish has become an ideal animal model due to its high human genetic similarities (70%), giving it high versatility in different areas of study, among them in behavioral studies related to anxiety. The novel tank diving test (NTT) is one of the many paradigms used for studies on new drugs related to their anxiolytic effect. In this work, an adult zebrafish was used to determine the behavioral effects of 3- and 5-halocytisine derivatives, using the NTT at different doses. Our results show that substitution at position 3 by chlorine or bromine decreases the time spent by the fish at the bottom compared to the control. However, the 3-chloro derivative at higher doses increases the bottom dwelling time. In contrast, substitution at the 5 position increases bottom dwelling at all concentrations showing no anxiolytic effects in this model. Unexpected results were observed with the 5-chlorocytisine derivative, which at a concentration of 10 mg/L produced a significant decrease in bottom dwelling and showed high times of freezing. In conclusion, the 3-chloro and 3-bromo derivatives show an anxiolytic effect, the 3-chlorocytisine derivative being more potent than the 3-bromo derivative, with the lowest time at the bottom of the tank at 1mg/L. On the other hand, chlorine, and bromine at position 5 produce an opposite effect.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost-utility of cytisine for smoking cessation over and above behavioural support in people with newly diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis: an economic evaluation of a multicentre randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost-effectiveness of cytisine over and above brief behavioural support (BS) for smoking cessation among patients who are newly diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) in low-income and middle-income countries.

DESIGN

An incremental cost-utility analysis was undertaken alongside a 12-month, double-blind, two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial from a public/voluntary healthcare sector perspective with the primary endpoint at 6 months post randomisation.

SETTING

Seventeen subdistrict hospitals in Bangladesh and 15 secondary care hospitals in Pakistan.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults (aged ≥18 years in Bangladesh and ≥15 years in Pakistan) with pulmonary TB diagnosed within the last 4 weeks who smoked tobacco daily (n=2472).

INTERVENTIONS

Two brief BS sessions with a trained TB health worker were offered to all participants. Participants in the intervention arm (n=1239) were given cytisine (25-day course) while those in the control arm (n=1233) were given placebo. No significant difference was found between arms in 6-month abstinence.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Costs of cytisine and BS sessions were estimated based on research team records. TB treatment costs were estimated based on TB registry records. Additional smoking cessation and healthcare costs and EQ-5D-5L data were collected at baseline, 6-month and 12-month follow-ups. Costs were presented in purchasing power parity (PPP) adjusted US dollars (US$). Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived from the EQ-5D-5L. Incremental total costs and incremental QALYs were estimated using regressions adjusting for respective baseline values and other baseline covariates. Uncertainty was assessed using bootstrapping.

RESULTS

Mean total costs were PPP US$57.74 (95% CI 49.40 to 83.36) higher in the cytisine arm than in the placebo arm while the mean QALYs were -0.001 (95% CI -0.004 to 0.002) lower over 6 months. The cytisine arm was dominated by the placebo arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Cytisine plus BS for smoking cessation among patients with TB was not cost-effective compared with placebo plus BS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN43811467.

Scaling up tobacco cessation within TB programmes: findings from a multi-country, mixed-methods implementation study

BACKGROUND

Brief behavioural support can effectively help tuberculosis (TB) patients quit smoking and improve their outcomes. In collaboration with TB programmes in Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan, we evaluated the implementation and scale-up of cessation support using four strategies: (1) brief tobacco cessation intervention, (2) integration of tobacco cessation within routine training, (3) inclusion of tobacco indicators in routine records and (4) embedding research within TB programmes.

METHODS

We used mixed methods of observation, interviews, questionnaires and routine data. We aimed to understand the extent and facilitators of vertical scale-up (institutionalization) within 59 health facility learning sites in Pakistan, 18 in Nepal and 15 in Bangladesh, and horizontal scale-up (increased coverage beyond learning sites). We observed training and surveyed all 169 TB health workers who were trained, in order to measure changes in their confidence in delivering cessation support. Routine TB data from the learning sites were analysed to assess intervention delivery and use of TB forms revised to report smoking status and cessation support provided. A purposive sample of TB health workers, managers and policy-makers were interviewed (Bangladesh n = 12; Nepal n = 13; Pakistan n = 19). Costs of scale-up were estimated using activity-based cost analysis.

RESULTS

Routine data indicated that health workers in learning sites asked all TB patients about tobacco use and offered them cessation support. Qualitative data showed use of intervention materials, often with adaptation and partial implementation in busy clinics. Short (1-2 hours) training integrated within existing programmes increased mean confidence in delivering cessation support by 17% (95% CI: 14-20%). A focus on health system changes (reporting, training, supervision) facilitated vertical scale-up. Dissemination of materials beyond learning sites and changes to national reporting forms and training indicated a degree of horizontal scale-up. Embedding research within TB health systems was crucial for horizontal scale-up and required the dynamic use of tactics including alliance-building, engagement in the wider policy process, use of insider researchers and a deep understanding of health system actors and processes.

CONCLUSIONS

System-level changes within TB programmes may facilitate routine delivery of cessation support to TB patients. These strategies are inexpensive, and with concerted efforts from TB programmes and donors, tobacco cessation can be institutionalized at scale.

Effect of quitting smoking on health outcomes during treatment for tuberculosis: secondary analysis of the TB & Tobacco Trial

BACKGROUND

Despite treatment, patients with tuberculosis (TB) who smoke have poorer outcomes compared with non-smokers. It is unknown, however, if quitting smoking during the 6 months of TB treatment improves TB outcomes.

METHODS

The TB & Tobacco Trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial of cytisine for smoking cessation in 2472 patients with pulmonary TB in Bangladesh and Pakistan. In a secondary analysis, we investigated the hypothesis that smoking cessation improves health outcomes in patients during the TB treatment course. The outcomes included an eight-point TB clinical score, sputum conversion rates, chest X-ray grades, quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), TB cure plus treatment completion rates and relapse rates. These were compared between those who stopped smoking and those who did not, using regression analysis.

RESULTS

We analysed the data of 2273 (92%) trial participants. Overall, 25% (577/2273) of participants stopped smoking. Compared with non-quitters, those who quit had better TB cure plus treatment completion rates (91% vs 80%, p<0.001) and lower TB relapse rates (6% vs 14%, p<0.001). Among quitters, a higher sputum conversion rate at week 9 (91% vs 87%, p=0.036), lower mean TB clinical scores (-0.20 points, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.08, p=0.001) and slightly better quality of life (mean EQ-5D-5L 0.86 vs 0.85, p=0.015) at 6 months were also observed. These differences, except quality of life, remained statistically significant after adjusting for baseline values, trial arm and TB treatment adherence rates.

CONCLUSION

Patients with TB who stop smoking may have better outcomes than those who don't. Health professionals should support patients in stopping smoking.

How to manage cigarette smoking in kidney transplant candidates and recipients?

Tobacco smoking is a frequent problem affecting many kidney transplant (KT) candidates and recipients. The negative impact of active smoking on KT outcomes has been demonstrated. Consequently, most guidelines strongly recommend quitting smoking before considering kidney transplantation. However, nicotine addiction is a complex multifactorial disease and only 3-5% of the patients who try to quit by themselves achieve prolonged abstinence. Smoking cessation programmes (SCPs) have proven their efficacy in the general population to increase the rate of quitting and should therefore be proposed to all smoking KT candidates and recipients. Nevertheless, SCPs have not been evaluated in the KT field and not all KT centres have easy access to these programmes. In this work, we aim to review the current knowledge on the subject and provide an overview of the available interventions to help smoking patients quit. We detail non-pharmaceutical and pharmaceutical approaches and discuss their use in KT candidates and recipients.

Co-producing an intervention for tobacco cessation and improvement of oral health among diabetic patients in Bangladesh

BACKGROUND

Tobacco consumption is a major risk factor for many diseases including diabetes and has deleterious effects on oral health. Diabetic patients are vulnerable to developing certain oral conditions. So far, no studies have attempted to co-develop a tobacco cessation intervention to be delivered in dental clinics for people with diabetes in Bangladesh.

AIM

To co-produce a tobacco cessation intervention for people with diabetes for use in dental clinics in Bangladesh.

OBJECTIVES

To assess: (1) tobacco use (patterns) and perceptions about receiving tobacco cessation support from dentists among people with diabetes attending the dental department of Bangladesh Institute of Research and Rehabilitation in Diabetes, Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders (BIRDEM) who smoke or use smokeless tobacco (ST) (2) current tobacco cessation support provision by the dentists of the dental department of BIRDEM (3) barriers and facilitators of delivering a tobacco cessation intervention at a dental clinic, and (4) to co-produce a tobacco cessation intervention with people with diabetes, and dentists to be used in the proposed context.

METHODS

The study was undertaken in two stages in the dental department of BIRDEM, which is the largest diabetic hospital in Bangladesh. Stage 1 (July-August 2019) consisted of a cross-sectional survey among people with diabetes who use tobacco to address objective 1, and a survey and workshop with dentists working in BIRDEM, and consultations with patients to address objectives 2 and 3. Stage 2 (January 2020) consisted of consultations with patients attending BIRDEM, and a workshop with dentists to co-produce the intervention.

RESULT

All survey participants (n = 35) were interested in receiving tobacco cessation support from their dentist. We identified important barriers and facilitators to deliver tobacco cessation intervention within dental services. Barriers reported by dentists included lack of a structured support system and lack of training. As a facilitator, we identified that dentists were willing to provide support and it would be feasible to deliver tobacco cessation intervention if properly designed and embedded in the routine functioning of the dental department of BIRDEM. Through the workshops and consultations at stage 2, a tobacco cessation intervention was co-developed. The intervention included elements of brief cessation advice (using a flipbook and a short video on the harmful effects of tobacco) and pharmacotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Incorporation of tobacco cessation within dental care for people with diabetes was considered feasible and would provide a valuable opportunity to support this vulnerable group in quitting tobacco.

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Most people who stop smoking gain weight. This can discourage some people from making a quit attempt and risks offsetting some, but not all, of the health advantages of quitting. Interventions to prevent weight gain could improve health outcomes, but there is a concern that they may undermine quitting.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effects of: (1) interventions targeting post-cessation weight gain on weight change and smoking cessation (referred to as 'Part 1') and (2) interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that plausibly affect post-cessation weight gain (referred to as 'Part 2').

SEARCH METHODS

Part 1 - We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; latest search 16 October 2020. Part 2 - We searched included studies in the following 'parent' Cochrane reviews: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, e-cigarettes, and exercise interventions for smoking cessation published in Issue 10, 2020 of the Cochrane Library. We updated register searches for the review of nicotine receptor partial agonists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Part 1 - trials of interventions that targeted post-cessation weight gain and had measured weight at any follow-up point or smoking cessation, or both, six or more months after quit day. Part 2 - trials included in the selected parent Cochrane reviews reporting weight change at any time point.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. Change in weight was expressed as difference in weight change from baseline to follow-up between trial arms and was reported only in people abstinent from smoking. Abstinence from smoking was expressed as a risk ratio (RR). Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the inverse variance method for weight, and Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking.

MAIN RESULTS

Part 1: We include 37 completed studies; 21 are new to this update. We judged five studies to be at low risk of bias, 17 to be at unclear risk and the remainder at high risk.  An intermittent very low calorie diet (VLCD) comprising full meal replacement provided free of charge and accompanied by intensive dietitian support significantly reduced weight gain at end of treatment compared with education on how to avoid weight gain (mean difference (MD) -3.70 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.82 to -2.58; 1 study, 121 participants), but there was no evidence of benefit at 12 months (MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI -3.49 to 0.89; 1 study, 62 participants). The VLCD increased the chances of abstinence at 12 months (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73; 1 study, 287 participants). However, a second study  found that no-one completed the VLCD intervention or achieved abstinence. Interventions aimed at increasing acceptance of weight gain reported mixed effects at end of treatment, 6 months and 12 months with confidence intervals including both increases and decreases in weight gain compared with no advice or health education. Due to high heterogeneity, we did not combine the data. These interventions increased quit rates at 6 months (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.96; 4 studies, 619 participants; I² = 21%), but there was no evidence at 12 months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.06; 2 studies, 496 participants; I² = 26%). Some pharmacological interventions tested for limiting post-cessation weight gain (PCWG) reduced weight gain at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine, phenylpropanolamine, naltrexone). The effects of ephedrine and caffeine combined, lorcaserin, and chromium were too imprecise to give useful estimates of treatment effects. There was very low-certainty evidence that personalized weight management support reduced weight gain at end of treatment (MD -1.11 kg, 95% CI -1.93 to -0.29; 3 studies, 121 participants; I² = 0%), but no evidence in the longer-term 12 months (MD -0.44 kg, 95% CI -2.34 to 1.46; 4 studies, 530 participants; I² = 41%). There was low to very low-certainty evidence that detailed weight management education without personalized assessment, planning and feedback did not reduce weight gain and may have reduced smoking cessation rates (12 months: MD -0.21 kg, 95% CI -2.28 to 1.86; 2 studies, 61 participants; I² = 0%; RR for smoking cessation 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90; 2 studies, 522 participants; I² = 0%). Part 2: We include 83 completed studies, 27 of which are new to this update. There was low certainty that exercise interventions led to minimal or no weight reduction compared with standard care at end of treatment (MD -0.25 kg, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.29; 4 studies, 404 participants; I² = 0%). However, weight was reduced at 12 months (MD -2.07 kg, 95% CI -3.78 to -0.36; 3 studies, 182 participants; I² = 0%). Both bupropion and fluoxetine limited weight gain at end of treatment (bupropion MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.67; 10 studies, 1098 participants; I² = 3%); (fluoxetine MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.53; 2 studies, 144 participants; I² = 38%; low- and very low-certainty evidence, respectively). There was no evidence of benefit at 12 months for bupropion, but estimates were imprecise (bupropion MD -0.26 kg, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.78; 7 studies, 471 participants; I² = 0%). No studies of fluoxetine provided data at 12 months. There was moderate-certainty that NRT reduced weight at end of treatment (MD -0.52 kg, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.05; 21 studies, 2784 participants; I² = 81%) and moderate-certainty that the effect may be similar at 12 months (MD -0.37 kg, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.11; 17 studies, 1463 participants; I² = 0%), although the estimates are too imprecise to assess long-term benefit. There was mixed evidence of the effect of varenicline on weight, with high-certainty evidence that weight change was very modestly lower at the end of treatment (MD -0.23 kg, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.06; 14 studies, 2566 participants; I² = 32%); a low-certainty estimate gave an imprecise estimate of higher weight at 12 months (MD 1.05 kg, 95% CI -0.58 to 2.69; 3 studies, 237 participants; I² = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is no intervention for which there is moderate certainty of a clinically useful effect on long-term weight gain. There is also no moderate- or high-certainty evidence that interventions designed to limit weight gain reduce the chances of people achieving abstinence from smoking.

Supporting tobacco cessation in tuberculosis patients

Tobacco is a key determinant of health inequalities, both across and within countries. 80% of tobacco users live in economically developing countries, which also face a huge tuberculosis (TB) burden. TB being an archetypal disease, affects low income groups, and has a higher proportion of smokers than the general population. The sub-group of TB patients who smoke disproportionately suffer from poorer outcomes, despite treatment. Behavioural interventions aimed at helping smokers quit by modifying their health beliefs and attitudes are highly successful in TB patients. However, integrating them in routine TB care is challenging, and requires a cultural shift at several levels, including individual, structural and organisational. We offer recommendations for policy, practice and research to address the dual burden of tobacco use and TB. Acting on these are vital towards achieving the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target of ending the TB epidemic by 2030.

Measuring fidelity to delivery of a new smoking cessation intervention integrated into routine tuberculosis care in Pakistan and Bangladesh: Contextual differences and opportunities

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco smoking among tuberculosis (TB) patients leads to poorer treatment outcomes. Smoking cessation support should be integrated into routine TB care. We measured healthcare providers' fidelity to a smoking cessation intervention integrated into routine TB care, in Bangladesh and Pakistan. We aimed to understand the role of providers and settings in the implementation of behavior support (BS) messages for TB and smoking cessation.

METHODS

The integrated BS intervention was implemented in TB clinics (24 public and 1 private). Cross-sectional data were collected on the fidelity of delivery of the BS intervention using a predefined fidelity index based on an existing validated method of measuring intervention fidelity. Audio-recordings of patient-provider BS sessions were coded using the fidelity index. Intervention fidelity was presented as the proportion of sessions that implemented BS messages.

RESULTS

A total of 96 sessions were conducted, 37 in Bangladesh and 59 in Pakistan. In public settings, TB medication advice was offered in 91.9% (95% CI: 78.7- 97.2) of sessions in Bangladesh, and in 75.5% (95% CI: 62.4-85.1) of sessions in Pakistan; whilst it was offered in 83.3% (95% CI: 43.7-97.0) of sessions in the private setting in Pakistan. Patients' smoking status was assessed in 70.3% (95% CI: 54.2-82.5) of sessions in Bangladesh, and in 34.0% (95% CI: 22.7-47.4) of sessions in the public setting and in 66.7% (95% CI: 30.0-90.3) of sessions in the private setting in Pakistan. A quit date was set in 32.4% (95% CI: 19.6-48.5) of all sessions in Bangladesh, and in 33.3% (95% CI: 9.6-70.0) of all sessions in the public setting in Pakistan.

CONCLUSIONS

Fidelity to the intended delivery of the intervention was found to be high for TB-related messages but not for smoking cessation messages. Clinic contexts may play a mediating role in health workers' opportunities to deliver the intervention as planned.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomized Clinical Trial Number (ISRCTN43811467). Registered 23 March 2016, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN43811467.