1
|
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
2
|
Livingstone-Banks J, Fanshawe TR, Thomas KH, Theodoulou A, Hajizadeh A, Hartman L, Lindson N. Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 5:CD006103. [PMID: 37142273 PMCID: PMC10169257 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006103.pub8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Kyla H Thomas
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Anisa Hajizadeh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Lilian Hartman
- University of Oxford Medical School, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Fediuk DJ, Sweeney K, Sahasrabudhe V, McRae T, Byon W. Population pharmacokinetics and exposure-response analyses of varenicline in adolescent smokers. CPT-PHARMACOMETRICS & SYSTEMS PHARMACOLOGY 2021; 10:769-781. [PMID: 34062053 PMCID: PMC8302239 DOI: 10.1002/psp4.12645] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2020] [Revised: 03/17/2021] [Accepted: 03/18/2021] [Indexed: 12/04/2022]
Abstract
Varenicline is an approved smoking cessation aid in adults. Population pharmacokinetics (popPK) and exposure–response (ER) (continuous abstinence rates [CAR] weeks 9‒12 and nausea/vomiting incidence) for varenicline in adolescent smokers were characterized using data from two phase 1 and one phase 4 studies. A one‐compartment popPK model with first‐order absorption and elimination adequately fitted the observed data. The effect of female sex on apparent clearance was significant. Apparent volume of distribution increased with body weight and decreased by 24%, 15%, and 14% for black race, “other” race, and female sex, respectively. The observed range of exposure in the phase 4 study was consistent with that expected for each dose and body‐weight group from the results obtained in adolescent PK studies, supporting that varenicline dose and administration were appropriate in the study. The relationship between CAR9‒12 and varenicline area under the concentration–time curve (AUC) from 0 to 24 hours (AUC24) was nonsignificant (p = 0.303). Nausea/vomiting incidence increased with AUC24 (p < 0.001) and was higher in females. Varenicline PK and ER for tolerability in adolescent smokers were comparable with adults, while ER for efficacy confirmed the negative results reported in the phase 4 study.
Collapse
|
4
|
Glatard A, Guidi M, Dobrinas M, Cornuz J, Csajka C, Eap CB. Influence of body weight and UGT2B7 polymorphism on varenicline exposure in a cohort of smokers from the general population. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2019; 75:939-949. [PMID: 30868192 DOI: 10.1007/s00228-019-02662-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2018] [Accepted: 03/06/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The abstinence rate to tobacco after varenicline treatment is moderate and might be partially affected by variability in varenicline concentrations. This study aimed at characterizing the sources of variability in varenicline pharmacokinetics and to relate varenicline exposure to abstinence. METHODS The population pharmacokinetic analysis (NONMEM®) included 121 varenicline concentrations from 82 individuals and tested the influence of genetic and non-genetic characteristics on apparent clearance (CL/F) and volume of distribution (V/F). Model-based average concentrations over 24 h (Cav) were used to test the impact of varenicline exposure on the input rate (Kin) expressed as a function of the number of cigarettes per day in a turnover model of 373 expired carbon monoxide levels. RESULTS A one-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination appropriately described varenicline concentrations. CL/F was 8.5 L/h (coefficient of variation, 26%), V/F was 228 L, and the absorption rate (ka) was fixed to 0.98 h-1. CL/F increased by 46% in 100-kg individuals compared to 60-kg individuals and was found to be 21% higher in UGT2B7 rs7439366 TT individuals. These covariates explained 14% and 9% of the interindividual variability in CL/F, respectively. No influence of varenicline Cav was found on Kin in addition to the number of cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS Body weight mostly and to a smaller extent genetic polymorphisms of UGT2B7 can influence varenicline exposure. Dose adjustment based on body weight and, if available, on UGT2B7 genotype might be useful to improve clinical efficacy and tolerability of varenicline.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anaïs Glatard
- Unit of Pharmacogenetics and Clinical Psychopharmacology, Centre for Psychiatric Neuroscience, Department of Psychiatry, Lausanne University Hospital, Hospital of Cery, University of Lausanne, Prilly, Switzerland
- Service of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Laboratories, Lausanne University Hospital, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Monia Guidi
- Service of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Laboratories, Lausanne University Hospital, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
- School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Geneva, University of Lausanne, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Maria Dobrinas
- Unit of Pharmacogenetics and Clinical Psychopharmacology, Centre for Psychiatric Neuroscience, Department of Psychiatry, Lausanne University Hospital, Hospital of Cery, University of Lausanne, Prilly, Switzerland
| | - Jacques Cornuz
- Department of Ambulatory Care and Community Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Chantal Csajka
- Service of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Laboratories, Lausanne University Hospital, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
- School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Geneva, University of Lausanne, Geneva, Switzerland.
| | - Chin B Eap
- Unit of Pharmacogenetics and Clinical Psychopharmacology, Centre for Psychiatric Neuroscience, Department of Psychiatry, Lausanne University Hospital, Hospital of Cery, University of Lausanne, Prilly, Switzerland.
- School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Geneva, University of Lausanne, Geneva, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
O’Malley SS, Zweben A, Fucito LM, Wu R, Piepmeier ME, Ockert DM, Bold KW, Petrakis I, Muvvala S, Jatlow P, Gueorguieva R. Effect of Varenicline Combined With Medical Management on Alcohol Use Disorder With Comorbid Cigarette Smoking: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Psychiatry 2018; 75:129-138. [PMID: 29261824 PMCID: PMC5838706 DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.3544] [Citation(s) in RCA: 70] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Individuals with alcohol use disorder have high rates of cigarette smoking. Varenicline tartrate, an approved treatment for smoking cessation, may reduce both drinking and smoking. OBJECTIVES To test the efficacy of varenicline with medical management for patients with alcohol use disorder and comorbid smoking seeking alcohol treatment, and to evaluate the secondary effects on smoking abstinence. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This phase 2, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 2 outpatient clinics from September 19, 2012, to August 31, 2015. Eligible participants met alcohol-dependence criteria and reported heavy drinking (≥5 drinks for men and ≥4 drinks for women) 2 or more times per week and smoking 2 or more times per week; 131 participants were randomized to either varenicline or placebo stratified by sex and site. All analyses were of the intention-to-treat type. Data analysis was conducted from February 5, 2016, to September 29, 2017. INTERVENTIONS Varenicline tartrate, 1 mg twice daily, and matching placebo pills for 16 weeks. Medical management emphasized medication adherence for 4 weeks followed by support for changing drinking. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Percentage of heavy drinking days (PHDD) weeks 9 to 16, no heavy drinking days (NHDD) weeks 9 to 16, and prolonged smoking abstinence weeks 13 to 16. RESULTS Of 131 participants, 39 (29.8%) were women and 92 (70.2%) were men, the mean (SD) age was 42.7 (11.7) years, and the race/ethnicity self-identified by most respondents was black (69 [52.7%]). Sixty-four participants were randomized to receive varenicline, and 67 to receive placebo. Mean change in PHDD between varenicline and placebo across sex and site was not significantly different. However, a significant treatment by sex by time interaction for PHDD (F1,106 = 4.66; P = .03) revealed that varenicline compared with placebo resulted in a larger decrease in log-transformed PHDD in men (least square [LS] mean difference in change from baseline, 0.54; 95% CI, -0.09 to 1.18; P = .09; Cohen d = 0.45) but a smaller decrease in women (LS mean difference, -0.69; 95% CI, -1.63 to 0.25; P = .15; Cohen d = -0.53). Thirteen of 45 men (29%) had NHDD taking varenicline compared with 3 of 47 men (6%) taking placebo (Cohen h = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.22-1.03), whereas 1 of 19 women (5%) had NHDD compared with 5 of 20 women (25%) taking placebo (Cohen h = -0.60; 95% CI, -1.21 to 0.04). Taking varenicline, 8 of 64 participants (13%) achieved prolonged smoking abstinence; no one (0 of 67) quit smoking taking placebo (P = .003; Cohen h = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.38-1.07). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Varenicline with medical management resulted in decreased heavy drinking among men and increased smoking abstinence in the overall sample. Varenicline could be considered to promote improvements in men with these dual behavioral health risks. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01553136.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Allen Zweben
- School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, New York
| | - Lisa M. Fucito
- Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Ran Wu
- Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | | | | | - Krysten W. Bold
- Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Ismene Petrakis
- Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Srinivas Muvvala
- Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Peter Jatlow
- Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut,Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Ralitza Gueorguieva
- Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut,Department of Biostatistics, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Cahill K, Lindson‐Hawley N, Thomas KH, Fanshawe TR, Lancaster T. Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 2016:CD006103. [PMID: 27158893 PMCID: PMC6464943 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006103.pub7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 190] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). OBJECTIVES To review the efficacy of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register for trials, using the terms ('cytisine' or 'Tabex' or 'dianicline' or 'varenicline' or 'nicotine receptor partial agonist') in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO using MeSH terms and free text to identify controlled trials of interventions for smoking cessation and prevention. We contacted authors of trial reports for additional information where necessary. The latest update of the specialised register was in May 2015, although we have included a few key trials published after this date. We also searched online clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials which compared the treatment drug with placebo. We also included comparisons with bupropion and nicotine patches where available. We excluded trials which did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from start of treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data on the type of participants, the dose and duration of treatment, the outcome measures, the randomisation procedure, concealment of allocation, and completeness of follow-up.The main outcome measured was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, and preferred biochemically validated rates where they were reported. Where appropriate we pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS Two trials of cytisine (937 people) found that more participants taking cytisine stopped smoking compared with placebo at longest follow-up, with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 3.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.01 to 7.87; low-quality evidence). One recent trial comparing cytisine with NRT in 1310 people found a benefit for cytisine at six months (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.80).One trial of dianicline (602 people) failed to find evidence that it was effective (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.75). This drug is no longer in development.We identified 39 trials that tested varenicline, 27 of which contributed to the primary analysis (varenicline versus placebo). Five of these trials also included a bupropion treatment arm. Eight trials compared varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Nine studies tested variations in varenicline dosage, and 13 tested usage in disease-specific subgroups of patients. The included studies covered 25,290 participants, 11,801 of whom used varenicline.The pooled RR for continuous or sustained abstinence at six months or longer for varenicline at standard dosage versus placebo was 2.24 (95% CI 2.06 to 2.43; 27 trials, 12,625 people; high-quality evidence). Varenicline at lower or variable doses was also shown to be effective, with an RR of 2.08 (95% CI 1.56 to 2.78; 4 trials, 1266 people). The pooled RR for varenicline versus bupropion at six months was 1.39 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.54; 5 trials, 5877 people; high-quality evidence). The RR for varenicline versus NRT for abstinence at 24 weeks was 1.25 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; 8 trials, 6264 people; moderate-quality evidence). Four trials which tested the use of varenicline beyond the 12-week standard regimen found the drug to be well-tolerated during long-term use. The number needed to treat with varenicline for an additional beneficial outcome, based on the weighted mean control rate, is 11 (95% CI 9 to 13). The most commonly reported adverse effect of varenicline was nausea, which was mostly at mild to moderate levels and usually subsided over time. Our analysis of reported serious adverse events occurring during or after active treatment suggests there may be a 25% increase in the chance of SAEs among people using varenicline (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.49; 29 trials, 15,370 people; high-quality evidence). These events include comorbidities such as infections, cancers and injuries, and most were considered by the trialists to be unrelated to the treatments. There is also evidence of higher losses to follow-up in the control groups compared with the intervention groups, leading to a likely underascertainment of the true rate of SAEs among the controls. Early concerns about a possible association between varenicline and depressed mood, agitation, and suicidal behaviour or ideation led to the addition of a boxed warning to the labelling in 2008. However, subsequent observational cohort studies and meta-analyses have not confirmed these fears, and the findings of the EAGLES trial do not support a causal link between varenicline and neuropsychiatric disorders, including suicidal ideation and suicidal behaviour. The evidence is not conclusive, however, in people with past or current psychiatric disorders. Concerns have also been raised that varenicline may slightly increase cardiovascular events in people already at increased risk of those illnesses. Current evidence neither supports nor refutes such an association, but we await the findings of the CATS trial, which should establish whether or not this is a valid concern. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Cytisine increases the chances of quitting, although absolute quit rates were modest in two recent trials. Varenicline at standard dose increased the chances of successful long-term smoking cessation between two- and three-fold compared with pharmacologically unassisted quit attempts. Lower dose regimens also conferred benefits for cessation, while reducing the incidence of adverse events. More participants quit successfully with varenicline than with bupropion or with NRT. Limited evidence suggests that varenicline may have a role to play in relapse prevention. The most frequently recorded adverse effect of varenicline is nausea, but mostly at mild to moderate levels and tending to subside over time. Early reports of possible links to suicidal ideation and behaviour have not been confirmed by current research.Future trials of cytisine may test extended regimens and more intensive behavioural support.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate Cahill
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesRadcliffe Observatory QuarterWoodstock RoadOxfordUKOX2 6GG
| | - Nicola Lindson‐Hawley
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesRadcliffe Observatory QuarterWoodstock RoadOxfordUKOX2 6GG
| | - Kyla H Thomas
- University of BristolSchool of Social and Community MedicineCanynge Hall39 Whatley RoadBristolUKBS8 2PS
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesRadcliffe Observatory QuarterWoodstock RoadOxfordUKOX2 6GG
| | - Tim Lancaster
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesRadcliffe Observatory QuarterWoodstock RoadOxfordUKOX2 6GG
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
McKee SA, Smith PH, Kaufman M, Mazure CM, Weinberger AH. Sex Differences in Varenicline Efficacy for Smoking Cessation: A Meta-Analysis. Nicotine Tob Res 2016; 18:1002-11. [PMID: 26446070 PMCID: PMC5942618 DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntv207] [Citation(s) in RCA: 77] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2015] [Accepted: 09/03/2015] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Women have lower rates of quitting than men with both bupropion and nicotine replacement. It is unknown whether varenicline demonstrates differential efficacy for men and women. The purpose of this study was to conduct the first comprehensive meta-analysis of clinical trial data examining sex differences in the efficacy of varenicline for smoking cessation. METHODS Searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO, 17 of 43 clinical trials of varenicline for smoking cessation published through December 31, 2014 were low-bias randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials. Data (n = 6710 smokers, 34% female, n = 16 studies, 96% of available data) was analyzed with Metafor program in R. Outcome endpoints were 7-day point-prevalence (PP) and continuous-abstinence (CA) at week 12 (end of treatment), week 24 (6-month follow-up), and week 52 (12-month follow-up). RESULTS Using placebo, women were less likely than men to quit (PP-12, CA-24; P < .05 for sex). Using varenicline, similar rates of abstinence for men and women were demonstrated for all six outcomes (eg, PP-12 abstinence rates were 53% in both women and men). Varenicline versus placebo outcomes demonstrated that varenicline was more effective for women for short and intermediate outcomes (PP-12, CA-12, CA-24; P < .05 sex × medication interaction). For end-of-treatment PP, varenicline was 46% more effective for women. For continuous abstinence, varenicline was 34% (CA-12) and 31% (CA-24) more effective for women. CONCLUSIONS Unlike other smoking cessation medications, varenicline demonstrated greater efficacy among women smokers for short and immediate-term outcomes and equal efficacy for 1-year outcomes. Varenicline may be particularly useful for reducing the sex disparity typically seen in rates of smoking cessation. IMPLICATIONS Varenicline is currently the most effective FDA-approved smoking cessation medication and this is the first demonstration that women compared with men have a preferred therapeutic response for a smoking cessation medication when considering short-term outcomes. Importantly, this is also the first demonstration that women have similar rates of quitting to men when considering longer-term, 1-year outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sherry A McKee
- Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Women's Health Research at Yale, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Cancer Prevention and Control Research Program, Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT;
| | - Philip H Smith
- Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
| | - Mira Kaufman
- Department of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI
| | - Carolyn M Mazure
- Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Women's Health Research at Yale, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
| | - Andrea H Weinberger
- Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Women's Health Research at Yale, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Cancer Prevention and Control Research Program, Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT; Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, Bronx, NY
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Hemsing N, Greaves L, Poole N. Tobacco Cessation Interventions for Underserved Women. JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE IN THE ADDICTIONS 2015; 15:267-287. [PMID: 27226783 PMCID: PMC4867857 DOI: 10.1080/1533256x.2015.1054231] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/03/2015] [Revised: 04/09/2015] [Accepted: 05/14/2015] [Indexed: 06/05/2023]
Abstract
Despite high rates of smoking among some subgroups of women, there is a lack of tailored interventions to address smoking cessation among women. We identify components of a women-centered approach to tobacco cessation by analyzing 3 bodies of literature: sex and gender influences in tobacco use and addiction; evidence-based tobacco cessation guidelines; and best practices in delivery of women-centered care. Programming for underserved women should be tailored, build confidence and increase motivation, integrate social justice issues and address inequities, and be holistic and comprehensive. Addressing the complexity of women's smoking and tailoring appropriately could help address smoking among subpopulations of women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natalie Hemsing
- Research Associate, British Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Lorraine Greaves
- Senior Investigator, British Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Nancy Poole
- Director, British Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Kim SY, Choi SH, Rollema H, Schwam EM, McRae T, Dubrava S, Jacobsen J. Phase II crossover trial of varenicline in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2014; 37:232-45. [PMID: 24247022 DOI: 10.1159/000355373] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/28/2013] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Evidence supports a role of α4β2 receptors in Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS This Korean, multicenter, double-blind, two-period (6 weeks each), crossover study randomized participants to the order in which they received varenicline (1 mg twice daily) and placebo. Assessments included AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) 75, Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), adverse events (AEs) and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS). RESULTS For varenicline versus placebo (n = 66 randomized), there was no significant difference in the week 6 least square (LS) mean ADAS-Cog 75 total score (primary endpoint; 18.07 vs. 18.49; p = 0.3873) and a slight worsening in the week 6 LS mean NPI (3.82 vs. 2.55; p = 0.0468), primarily driven by decreased appetite/eating. Common treatment-related AEs were nausea (23.3; 3.4%), vomiting (15.0%; 0) and decreased appetite (15.0; 6.8%). CONCLUSIONS Varenicline did not improve cognition, behavior or global change in this population. The most frequent varenicline-associated AEs were gastrointestinal; psychiatric AEs were rare and similar between the groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seong Yoon Kim
- Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Predictors of success in smoking cessation among Italian adults motivated to quit. J Subst Abuse Treat 2013; 44:534-40. [PMID: 23312770 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2012.12.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2012] [Revised: 11/22/2012] [Accepted: 12/03/2012] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
We examined the role of sexual gender, age, working status, education, cigarettes per day, Fagerström test, age of onset, pharmacologic intervention (bupropion or varenicline), 10 sessions of cognitive-behavioral group counseling therapy (GCT) conducted over 6 weeks, and level of attendance of the counseling program as predictors of smoking cessation on 1282 Italian adult smokers. Results of a multi-variate forward stepwise conditional logistic analysis, at the first step, indicate that subjects who attended the program from 4 to 6 sessions and from 1 to 3 sessions, respectively, resulted about 3 times and 24 times more likely to smoke than those attending from 7 to 10 sessions; at the second step, subjects with high Fagerström score were 2 times more likely to smoke than subjects with low/middle Fagerström; at the third step, subjects treated only with GCT were 2 times more likely to smoke than subjects with combined pharmacologic interventions and GCT; at the fourth step, subjects with age of onset less than 17 years were 1.5 times more likely to smoke than subjects with a higher age of onset; eventually, at the fifth step women resulted 1.5 times more likely to smoke than men. In conclusion, we found that a steady attendance of the cognitive behavioral program, as well as the addition of pharmacologic interventions to counseling, remarkably increased the probability of the smoking cessation behavior to be determined. Nevertheless, FTQ was a valid measure in predicting the smoking cessation, and women revealed to be more likely to keep the smoking behavior, as well as subjects who declared an age of onset less than 17 years.
Collapse
|
11
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this review is to assess the efficacy and tolerability of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including cytisine, dianicline and varenicline for smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register for trials, using the terms ('cytisine' or 'Tabex' or 'dianicline' or 'varenicline' or 'nicotine receptor partial agonist') in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Web of Science using MeSH terms and free text to identify controlled trials of interventions for smoking cessation and prevention. We contacted authors of trial reports for additional information where necessary. The latest update of the specialised register was in December 2011. We also searched online clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials which compared the treatment drug with placebo. We also included comparisons with bupropion and nicotine patches where available. We excluded trials which did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from start of treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data on the type of participants, the dose and duration of treatment, the outcome measures, the randomization procedure, concealment of allocation, and completeness of follow-up.The main outcome measured was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, and preferred biochemically validated rates where they were reported. Where appropriate we pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS Two recent cytisine trials (937 people) found that more participants taking cytisine stopped smoking compared with placebo at longest follow-up, with a pooled RR of 3.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.01 to 7.87). One trial of dianicline (602 people) failed to find evidence that it was effective (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.75). Fifteen trials compared varenicline with placebo for smoking cessation; three of these also included a bupropion treatment arm. We also found one open-label trial comparing varenicline plus counselling with counselling alone. We found one relapse prevention trial, comparing varenicline with placebo, and two open-label trials comparing varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). We also include one trial in which all the participants were given varenicline, but received behavioural support either online or by phone calls, or by both methods. This trial is not included in the analyses, but contributes to the data on safety and tolerability. The included studies covered 12,223 participants, 8100 of whom used varenicline.The pooled RR for continuous or sustained abstinence at six months or longer for varenicline at standard dosage versus placebo was 2.27 (95% CI 2.02 to 2.55; 14 trials, 6166 people, excluding one trial evaluating long term safety). Varenicline at lower or variable doses was also shown to be effective, with an RR of 2.09 (95% CI 1.56 to 2.78; 4 trials, 1272 people). The pooled RR for varenicline versus bupropion at one year was 1.52 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.88; 3 trials, 1622 people). The RR for varenicline versus NRT for point prevalence abstinence at 24 weeks was 1.13 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.35; 2 trials, 778 people). The two trials which tested the use of varenicline beyond the 12-week standard regimen found the drug to be well-tolerated during long-term use. The main adverse effect of varenicline was nausea, which was mostly at mild to moderate levels and usually subsided over time. A meta-analysis of reported serious adverse events occurring during or after active treatment and not necessarily considered attributable to treatment suggests there may be a one-third increase in the chance of severe adverse effects among people using varenicline (RR 1.36; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.79; 17 trials, 7725 people), but this finding needs to be tested further. Post-marketing safety data have raised questions about a possible association between varenicline and depressed mood, agitation, and suicidal behaviour or ideation. The labelling of varenicline was amended in 2008, and the manufacturers produced a Medication Guide. Thus far, surveillance reports and secondary analyses of trial data are inconclusive, but the possibility of a link between varenicline and serious psychiatric or cardiovascular events cannot be ruled out. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Cytisine increases the chances of quitting, although absolute quit rates were modest in two recent trials. Varenicline at standard dose increased the chances of successful long-term smoking cessation between two- and threefold compared with pharmacologically unassisted quit attempts. Lower dose regimens also conferred benefits for cessation, while reducing the incidence of adverse events. More participants quit successfully with varenicline than with bupropion. Two open-label trials of varenicline versus NRT suggested a modest benefit of varenicline but confidence intervals did not rule out equivalence. Limited evidence suggests that varenicline may have a role to play in relapse prevention. The main adverse effect of varenicline is nausea, but mostly at mild to moderate levels and tending to subside over time. Possible links with serious adverse events, including serious psychiatric or cardiovascular events, cannot be ruled out.Future trials of cytisine may test extended regimens and more intensive behavioural support. There is a need for further trials of the efficacy of varenicline treatment extended beyond 12 weeks.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate Cahill
- Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Hawk LW, Ashare RL, Lohnes SF, Schlienz NJ, Rhodes JD, Tiffany ST, Gass JC, Cummings KM, Mahoney MC. The effects of extended pre-quit varenicline treatment on smoking behavior and short-term abstinence: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2012; 91:172-80. [PMID: 22130118 PMCID: PMC3325094 DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2011.317] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
Preclinical research and learning theory suggest that a longer duration of varenicline treatment prior to the target quit date (TQD) would reduce smoking rates before cessation and improve abstinence outcomes. A double-blind randomized controlled trial tested this hypothesis in 60 smokers randomized to either an Extended run-in group (4 weeks of pre-TQD varenicline) or a Standard run-in group (3 weeks of placebo, 1 week of pre-TQD varenicline); all the participants received 11 weeks of post-TQD varenicline and brief counseling. During the pre-quit run-in, the reduction in smoking rates was greater in the Extended run-in group than in the Standard run-in group (42% vs. 24%, P < 0.01), and this effect was greater in women than in men (57% vs. 26%, P = 0.001). The rate of continuous abstinence during the final 4 weeks of treatment was higher among women in the Extended group compared to women in the Standard run-in group (67% vs. 35%). Although these data suggest that extension of varenicline treatment reduces smoking during the pre-quit period and may further enhance cessation rates, confirmatory evidence is needed from phase III clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L W Hawk
- Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Ouellet D, Sutherland S, Wang T, Griffini P, Murthy V. First-time-in-human study with GSK1018921, a selective GlyT1 inhibitor: relationship between exposure and dizziness. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011; 90:597-604. [PMID: 21866096 DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2011.154] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
The pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and tolerability of GSK1018921, a glycine transporter 1 (GlyT-1) inhibitor, were assessed in this first-time-in-human (FTIH) study. Single oral doses ranging from 0.5 to 280 mg and placebo were administered to 25 healthy subjects in a five-period, two-cohort, crossover study. GSK1018921 showed dose-proportional PK with a terminal half-life of ~17 h. The subjects reported dizziness with a dose-dependent frequency of 22-88% at doses of 70-280 mg. The time course of the dizziness paralleled the PK of the drug, with peak response at 2 h after the dose, consistent with time to maximum plasma concentration (T(max)). The dizziness was resolved by 10-12 h in all subjects. A Markov-chain logistic regression model was implemented in NONMEM to determine the probability of developing dizziness as a function of the plasma concentration of the compound. Frequency, onset (<1 h), and offset (4 h) were well described by the model. Exposure resulting in 80% receptor occupancy is predicted to be well tolerated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D Ouellet
- Clinical Pharmacology, Modeling and Simulation, GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Williams JM, Steinberg MB, Steinberg ML, Gandhi KK, Ulpe R, Foulds J. Varenicline for tobacco dependence: panacea or plight? Expert Opin Pharmacother 2011; 12:1799-812. [PMID: 21644843 PMCID: PMC3132819 DOI: 10.1517/14656566.2011.587121] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION This review examines the postmarketing experience with varenicline, including case reports, newer clinical trials and secondary analyses of large clinical datasets. AREAS COVERED Varenicline has been shown to be an effective treatment in a broad range of tobacco users with medical, behavioral and diverse demographic characteristics. Recent studies finding excellent safety and efficacy in groups of smokers with diseases including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are particularly encouraging and call for increased use of this medication for smoking cessation. Despite case reports of serious neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients taking varenicline, including changes in behavior and mood, causality has not been established. Recent analyses of large datasets from clinical trials have not demonstrated that varenicline is associated with more depression or suicidality than other treatments for smoking cessation. EXPERT OPINION Now that additional clinical trials in specific populations and observational studies on treatment-seeking smokers outside of clinical trials have been published, we can be confident that varenicline remains the most efficacious monotherapy for smoking cessation and that its side-effect profile remains good. The risk-to-benefit ratio of receiving varenicline to quit smoking must include the increased chances of quitting smoking and avoiding the sizeable risks of smoked-caused disease and death that remain if tobacco addiction is not properly treated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jill M Williams
- UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, 317 George St, Suite 105, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, Phone: (732) 235-4341, Fax: (732) 235-4277,
| | - Michael B. Steinberg
- UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Tobacco Dependence Program Division of General Internal Medicine, Clinical Academic Building - 125 Paterson Street / Room 2300 New Brunswick, NJ 08901, Phone: (732) 235-8219 or 7149, Fax: (732) 235-7144,
| | - Marc L. Steinberg
- UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, 317 George Street; Suite 105, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, Phone: (732) 235-3362, Fax: (732) 235-4277,
| | - Kunal K. Gandhi
- UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, 317 George Street; Suite 105, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, Phone: (732) 235-9711, Fax: (732) 235-4277,
| | - Rajiv Ulpe
- UMDNJ-Cancer Institute of New Jersey, 195 Little Albany St, 5th Floor, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, Phone: (732) 235-6088,
| | - Jonathan Foulds
- Penn State University, College of Medicine, Cancer Institute, T3428, CH69, Division of Population Sciences & Cancer Prevention, 500 University Drive, P.O. Box 850, Hershey, PA 17033-0850, Phone: (717) 531-3504, Fax: (717) 53- 0480,
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Effectiveness of varenicline for smoking cessation: A 1-year follow-up study. J Subst Abuse Treat 2011; 41:64-70. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2011.01.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2010] [Revised: 12/09/2010] [Accepted: 01/14/2011] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
16
|
Abstract
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). Varenicline was developed as a nicotine receptor partial agonist from cytisine, a drug widely used in central and eastern Europe for smoking cessation. The first trial reports of varenicline were released in 2006, and further trials have now been published or are currently underway. OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this review is to assess the efficacy and tolerability of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register for trials, using the terms ('varenicline' or 'cytisine' or 'Tabex' or 'nicotine receptor partial agonist') and 'smoking' in the title or abstract, or as keywords. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL using MeSH terms and free text, and we contacted authors of trial reports for additional information where necessary. The latest search was in September 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials which compared the treatment drug with placebo. We also included comparisons with bupropion and nicotine patches where available. We excluded trials which did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from start of treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data on the type of participants, the dose and duration of treatment, the outcome measures, the randomization procedure, concealment of allocation, and completeness of follow up.The main outcome measured was abstinence from smoking after at least six months from the beginning of treatment. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, and preferred biochemically validated rates where they were reported. Where appropriate we performed meta-analysis to produce a risk ratio, using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS We found 11 trials of varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation; three of these included a bupropion experimental arm. We also found one relapse prevention trial, comparing varenicline with placebo, and two open-label trials comparing varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). We also include one trial in which all the participants were given varenicline, but received behavioural support either online or by phone calls, or by both methods. This trial is not included in the analyses, but contributes to the data on safety and tolerability. The included studies covered >10,300 participants, 6892 of whom used varenicline. We identified one trial of cytisine (Tabex) for inclusion.The pooled risk ratio (RR) (10 trials, 4443 people, excluding one trial evaluating long term safety) for continuous abstinence at six months or longer for varenicline at standard dosage versus placebo was 2.31 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.01 to 2.66). Varenicline at lower or variable doses was also shown to be effective, with an RR of 2.09 (95% CI 1.56 to 2.78; 4 trials, 1272 people). The pooled RR for varenicline versus bupropion at one year was 1.52 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.88; 3 trials, 1622 people). The RR for varenicline versus NRT for point prevalence abstinence at 24 weeks was 1.13 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.35; 2 trials, 778 people). The two trials which tested the use of varenicline beyond the 12-week standard regimen found the drug to be well-tolerated during long-term use. The main adverse effect of varenicline was nausea, which was mostly at mild to moderate levels and usually subsided over time. Post-marketing safety data raised questions about a possible association between varenicline and depressed mood, agitation, and suicidal behaviour or ideation. The labelling of varenicline was amended in 2008, and the manufacturers produced a Medication Guide. Thus far, surveillance reports and secondary analyses of trial data lend little support to a causal relationship.The one cytisine trial included in this review found that more participants taking cytisine stopped smoking compared with placebo at two-year follow up, with an RR of 1.61 (95% CI 1.24 to 2.08). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Varenicline at standard dose increased the chances of successful long-term smoking cessation between two- and threefold compared with pharmacologically unassisted quit attempts. Lower dose regimens also conferred benefits for cessation, while reducing the incidence of adverse events. More participants quit successfully with varenicline than with bupropion. Two open-label trials of varenicline versus NRT suggested a modest benefit of varenicline but confidence intervals did not rule out equivalence. Limited evidence suggests that varenicline may have a role to play in relapse prevention. The main adverse effect of varenicline is nausea, but mostly at mild to moderate levels and tending to subside over time. Possible links with serious adverse events, including depressed mood, agitation and suicidal thoughts, have been reported but are so far not substantiated.There is a need for further independent community-based trials of varenicline, to test its efficacy and safety in smokers with varying co-morbidities and risk patterns. There is a need for further trials of the efficacy of treatment extended beyond 12 weeks. Cytisine may also increase the chances of quitting, but the evidence at present is inconclusive.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate Cahill
- Department of Primary Health Care, University of Oxford, Rosemary Rue Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford, UK, OX3 7LF
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Abstract
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). Varenicline was developed as a nicotine receptor partial agonist from cytisine, a drug widely used in central and eastern Europe for smoking cessation. The first trial reports of varenicline were released in 2006, and further trials have now been published or are currently underway. OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this review is to assess the efficacy and tolerability of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register for trials, using the terms ('varenicline' or 'cytisine' or 'Tabex' or 'nicotine receptor partial agonist') and 'smoking' in the title or abstract, or as keywords. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL using MeSH terms and free text, and we contacted authors of trial reports for additional information where necessary. The latest search was in September 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials which compared the treatment drug with placebo. We also included comparisons with bupropion and nicotine patches where available. We excluded trials which did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from start of treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data on the type of participants, the dose and duration of treatment, the outcome measures, the randomization procedure, concealment of allocation, and completeness of follow up.The main outcome measured was abstinence from smoking after at least six months from the beginning of treatment. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, and preferred biochemically validated rates where they were reported. Where appropriate we performed meta-analysis to produce a risk ratio, using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS We found 11 trials of varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation; three of these included a bupropion experimental arm. We also found one relapse prevention trial, comparing varenicline with placebo, and two open-label trials comparing varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). We also include one trial in which all the participants were given varenicline, but received behavioural support either online or by phone calls, or by both methods. This trial is not included in the analyses, but contributes to the data on safety and tolerability. The included studies covered >10,300 participants, 6892 of whom used varenicline. We identified one trial of cytisine (Tabex) for inclusion.The pooled risk ratio (RR) (10 trials, 4443 people, excluding one trial evaluating long term safety) for continuous abstinence at six months or longer for varenicline at standard dosage versus placebo was 2.31 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.01 to 2.66). Varenicline at lower or variable doses was also shown to be effective, with an RR of 2.09 (95% CI 1.56 to 2.78; 4 trials, 1272 people). The pooled RR for varenicline versus bupropion at one year was 1.52 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.88; 3 trials, 1622 people). The RR for varenicline versus NRT for point prevalence abstinence at 24 weeks was 1.13 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.35; 2 trials, 778 people). The two trials which tested the use of varenicline beyond the 12-week standard regimen found the drug to be well-tolerated during long-term use. The main adverse effect of varenicline was nausea, which was mostly at mild to moderate levels and usually subsided over time. Post-marketing safety data raised questions about a possible association between varenicline and depressed mood, agitation, and suicidal behaviour or ideation. The labelling of varenicline was amended in 2008, and the manufacturers produced a Medication Guide. Thus far, surveillance reports and secondary analyses of trial data lend little support to a causal relationship.The one cytisine trial included in this review found that more participants taking cytisine stopped smoking compared with placebo at two-year follow up, with an RR of 1.61 (95% CI 1.24 to 2.08). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Varenicline at standard dose increased the chances of successful long-term smoking cessation between two- and threefold compared with pharmacologically unassisted quit attempts. Lower dose regimens also conferred benefits for cessation, while reducing the incidence of adverse events. More participants quit successfully with varenicline than with bupropion. Two open-label trials of varenicline versus NRT suggested a modest benefit of varenicline but confidence intervals did not rule out equivalence. Limited evidence suggests that varenicline may have a role to play in relapse prevention. The main adverse effect of varenicline is nausea, but mostly at mild to moderate levels and tending to subside over time. Possible links with serious adverse events, including depressed mood, agitation and suicidal thoughts, have been reported but are so far not substantiated.There is a need for further independent community-based trials of varenicline, to test its efficacy and safety in smokers with varying co-morbidities and risk patterns. There is a need for further trials of the efficacy of treatment extended beyond 12 weeks. Cytisine may also increase the chances of quitting, but the evidence at present is inconclusive.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate Cahill
- Department of Primary Health Care, University of Oxford, Rosemary Rue Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford, UK, OX3 7LF
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Faessel HM, Obach RS, Rollema H, Ravva P, Williams KE, Burstein AH. A Review of the Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Varenicline for Smoking Cessation. Clin Pharmacokinet 2010; 49:799-816. [PMID: 21053991 DOI: 10.2165/11537850-000000000-00000] [Citation(s) in RCA: 83] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Hélène M Faessel
- Clinical Pharmacology, Primary Care Unit, Pfizer Inc., New London, Connecticut 06320, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Harrison-Woolrych M, Ashton J. Utilization of the smoking cessation medicine varenicline: an intensive post-marketing study in New Zealand. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2010; 19:949-53. [DOI: 10.1002/pds.2003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
|