The effects of extended pre-quit varenicline treatment on smoking behavior and short-term abstinence: a randomized clinical trial

Combining varenicline preloading with Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) in persons with serious mental illness who smoke: The randomized ACTSLow pilot feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

People with serious mental illness (SMI; bipolar [BD] or schizophrenia spectrum disorders [SSD]) who smoke have 30-60% lower odds of quitting and are more prone to experience neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs) when quitting than smokers without SMI. We pilot-tested the feasibility of combining two different dosing strategies of varenicline preloading with Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) in persons with SMI in an attempt to bolster quit rates without increasing NPSAEs.

METHODS

Twelve-week, single center, randomized, double-blind, pilot feasibility trial of low (0.5mg twice daily, slower titration) versus standard dose (1.0mg twice daily, standard titration) varenicline in persons with BD or SSD with a 12-week follow-up. All participants received up to 10 sessions of ACT for smoking cessation. Participants were asked to preload with varenicline while still smoking and set a flexible target quit day (TQD) by day 35.

RESULTS

Recruitment was hampered by shutdowns related to COVID-19 and the worldwide varenicline recall, respectively. Retention goals were met. Treatment satisfaction was high across both dosing and diagnostic groups. Most participants (92.9%) adhered to preloading instructions and the flexible TQD. Seven-day point prevalence abstinence at week 12 was highest in BD participants (37.5%) but lowest in SSD participants (16.7%) who received the standard dose. Medication was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Although recruitment was hindered by unanticipated world events, feasibility was demonstrated. Participants adhered to and were highly satisfied with the combination of pre-cessation varenicline plus ACT. Findings support testing this combined treatment approach in a fully powered trial of persons with BD who smoke.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

Background

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

Objectives

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

Search methods

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

Selection criteria

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

Data collection and analysis

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

Main results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authors' conclusions

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

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

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

Key messages

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

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

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

What are 'nicotine receptor partial agonists'?

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

What did we want to find out?

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

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

· how many people had unwanted effects.

What did we do?

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

What did we find?

We found 75 studies that compared NRPAs with:

· placebo or no medicine;

· nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches or gum;

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

· another NRPA;

· e‐cigarettes.

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

Main results

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

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

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

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

What are the limitations of the evidence?

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

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

How up to date is the evidence?

The evidence is up to date to 29 April 2022.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Effect of Extending the Duration of Prequit Treatment With Varenicline on Smoking Abstinence: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Even with varenicline, the leading monotherapy for tobacco dependence, smoking abstinence rates remain low. Preliminary evidence suggests that extending the duration of varenicline treatment before quitting may increase abstinence.

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypotheses that, compared with standard run-in varenicline treatment (1 week before quitting), extended run-in varenicline treatment (4 weeks before quitting) reduces smoking exposure before the target quit date (TQD) and enhances abstinence, particularly among women.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial enrolled participants from October 2, 2017, to December 9, 2020, at a single-site research clinic in Buffalo, New York. Of 1385 people screened, 320 adults reporting smoking 5 or more cigarettes per day (CPD) were randomized and followed up for 28 weeks. Data were analyzed from August 2021 to June 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

In the pre-TQD period (weeks 1-4), the extended run-in group received 4 weeks of varenicline; the standard run-in group received 3 weeks of placebo followed by 1 week of varenicline. Both groups received open-label varenicline during weeks 5 to 15 and brief quit counseling at 6 clinic visits.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome consisted of cotinine-verified (at end of treatment [EOT]) self-reported continuous abstinence from smoking (in CPD) during the last 4 weeks of treatment. Secondary outcomes included bioverified self-report of continuous abstinence at the 6-month follow-up and percentage of reduction in self-reported smoking rate during the prequit period (week 1 vs week 4).

RESULTS

A total of 320 participants were randomized, including 179 women (55.9%) and 141 men (44.1%), with a mean (SD) age of 53.7 (10.1) years. Continuous abstinence during the final 4 weeks of treatment (weeks 12-15; EOT) was not greater in the extended run-in group (64 of 163 [39.3%]) compared with the standard run-in group (57 of 157 [36.3%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.13 [95% CI, 0.72-1.78]), nor was the hypothesized group × sex interaction significant (OR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.21-1.28]). Similar nonsignificant results were obtained for continuous abstinence at the 6-month follow-up. The mean (SE) decrease in self-reported smoking rate during the prequit period was greater in the extended run-in group (-38.8% [2.8%]) compared with the standard run-in group (-17.5% [2.7%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among adult daily smokers, extending the duration of prequit varenicline treatment beyond the standard 1-week run-in period reduced prequit smoking exposure but, more importantly, did not significantly improve continuous abstinence rates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03262662.

Evaluating Treatment Mechanisms of Varenicline: Mediation by Affect and Craving

INTRODUCTION

Negative reinforcement models posit that relapse to cigarette smoking is driven in part by changes in affect and craving during the quit attempt. Varenicline may aid cessation by attenuating these changes; however, this mediational pathway has not been formally evaluated in placebo-controlled trials. Thus, trajectories of negative affect (NA), positive affect (PA), and craving were tested as mediators of the effect of varenicline on smoking cessation.

AIMS AND METHODS

Secondary data analysis was conducted on 828 adults assigned to either varenicline or placebo in a randomized controlled trial for smoking cessation (NCT01314001). Self-reported NA, PA, and craving were assessed 1-week pre-quit, on the target quit day (TQD), and 1 and 4 weeks post-TQD.

RESULTS

Across time, NA peaked 1-week post-quit, PA did not change, and craving declined. Less steep rises in NA (indirect effect 95% CI: .01 to .30) and lower mean craving at 1-week post-quit (CI: .06 to .50) were mediators of the relationship between varenicline and higher cessation rates at the end of treatment. PA was associated with cessation but was not a significant mediator.

CONCLUSIONS

These results partially support the hypothesis that varenicline improves smoking cessation rates by attenuating changes in specific psychological processes and supported NA and craving as plausible treatment mechanisms of varenicline.

IMPLICATIONS

The present research provides the first evidence from a placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial that varenicline's efficacy is due, in part, to post-quit attenuation of NA and craving. Reducing NA across the quit attempt and craving early into the attempt may be important treatment mechanisms for effective interventions. Furthermore, post-quit NA, PA, and craving were all associated with relapse and represent treatment targets for future intervention development.

Smoking-Specific Risk Factors in Early Adulthood That Mediate Risk of Daily Smoking by Age 29 for Children with ADHD

OBJECTIVE

To test whether smoking-specific risk factors in early adulthood mediate prediction to daily smoking from childhood ADHD.

METHODS

Participants were 237 with and 164 without childhood ADHD. A smoking risk profile score comprising smoking-specific factors measured between ages 18 to 25 (e.g., craving severity) and age of initiation was tested as mediator of the association between childhood ADHD and age 29 daily smoking.

RESULTS

Childhood ADHD predicted age 29 smoking (β = -.15, p = .019), 35% of ADHD versus 17% of nonADHD, and the profile score (β = -.07, p = .004), which in turn mediated prediction to age 29 daily smoking (β = -.03; p = .007). When tested individually, three profile variables (# cigarettes/day, difficulty concentrating during abstinence, and nicotine dependence) were significant mediators (ps = 0.005-0.038), above and beyond early adult smoking, ADHD persistence, and delinquency.

CONCLUSIONS

These behavioral smoking characteristics help explain later daily cigarette smoking for adults with ADHD histories and may need to be targeted in intervention.

Tobacco Use Disorder

Tobacco use disorder is highly prevalent; more than a billion individuals use tobacco worldwide. Popular views on the addictive potential of tobacco often underestimate the complex neural adaptations that underpin continued use. Although sometimes trivialized as a minor substance, effects of nicotine on behavior lead to profound morbidity over a lifetime of exposure. Innovations in processing have led to potent forms of tobacco and delivery devices. Proactive treatment strategies focus on pharmacotherapeutic interventions. Innovations on the horizon hold promise to help clinicians address this problem in a phenotypically tailored manner. Efforts are needed to prevent tobacco use for future generations.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

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

PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTIONS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

DATA SOURCES

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

REVIEW METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

FUTURE WORK

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

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

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

Comparative effects of varenicline or combination nicotine replacement therapy versus patch monotherapy on candidate mediators of early abstinence in a smoking cessation attempt

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The phase-based model of smoking cessation treatment suggests that treatment needs may vary across phases (e.g. pre-cessation, cessation). This study tested the comparative effects of varenicline and combination nicotine replacement therapy (C-NRT) relative to nicotine patch monotherapy on pre-cessation and cessation phase candidate withdrawal, expectancy and motivation mediators; relations between mediators and abstinence; and indirect effects of enhanced treatments on abstinence via candidate mediators.

DESIGN

Secondary mediation analysis of data from the open-label, randomized Wisconsin Smokers' Health Study 2, a comparative effectiveness trial of varenicline or C-NRT, versus patch monotherapy, in adults who smoked, recruited via media and community outreach.

SETTING

Research clinics in Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1051 daily smokers motivated to quit smoking (52.5% female; mean age = 48.1, standard deviation = 11.6).

INTERVENTIONS

Twelve weeks of varenicline (n = 407) or 12 weeks of combination nicotine patch and nicotine lozenge therapy (n = 421), both compared with 12 weeks of patch control condition (n = 230), with individual smoking cessation counseling.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary abstinence outcome was biochemically verified 7-day point-prevalence abstinence 4 weeks post-target quit day (TQD). Candidate mediators (craving, positive smoking expectancies, withdrawal symptoms, and quitting motivation) were assessed via ecological momentary assessment from 1 week prior (pre-cessation phase) to 4 weeks after (cessation phase) the TQD.

FINDINGS

Pre-cessation and cessation mean levels and slopes of craving [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.34-0.79], smoking expectancies (aOR = 0.46-0.79) and quitting motivation (aOR = 1.35-7.21) significantly predicted 4-week post-TQD abstinence (P < 0.05). Significant varenicline mediation occurred via greater suppression in pre-cessation craving [mediated effect (ab) = 0.09, standard error (SE) = 0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.04-0.14] and smoking expectancies (ab = 0.06, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.02-0.12). C-NRT mediation occurred via greater reduction in pre-post-TQD changes in craving (ab = 0.04, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.01-0.08) and expectancies (ab = 0.03, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.001-0.07), relative to patch monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Among adult smokers seeking to quit, varenicline seems to work through its effects on suppression of craving and smoking expectancies pre-cessation while combination nicotine replacement therapy mediation seems to work through cessation-related reduction in craving and smoking expectancies changes.

The impact of three weeks of pre-quit varenicline on reinforcing value and craving for cigarettes in a laboratory choice procedure

RATIONALE

Varenicline, a partial nicotinic agonist, is theorized to attenuate pre-quit smoking reinforcement and post-quit withdrawal and craving. However, the mechanisms of action have not been fully characterized, as most studies employ only retrospective self-report measures, hypothetical indices of reinforcing value, and/or nontreatment-seeking samples.

OBJECTIVES

The current research examined the impact of pre-quit varenicline (vs. placebo) on laboratory measures of smoking and food (vs. water) reinforcement and craving.

METHODS

Participants were 162 treatment-seeking smokers enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of smoking cessation ( clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03262662). Participants completed two laboratory sessions: a pre-treatment session, ~ 1 week prior to beginning varenicline or placebo, and an active treatment session, after ~ 3 weeks of treatment. At each session, participants completed a laboratory choice procedure; on each of 36 trials, a lit cigarette, food item, or cup of water was randomly presented. Participants reported level of craving and spent $0.01-0.25 to have a corresponding 5-95% chance to sample the cue.

RESULTS

As predicted, spending was significantly higher on cigarette trials than water trials, and varenicline resulted in a greater between-session decline in spending on cigarette trials (but not water) than did placebo. Cigarette craving was enhanced in the presence of smoking cues compared to water, but neither average (tonic) cigarette craving nor cue-specific cigarette craving was significantly influenced by varenicline. Food spending and craving were generally unaffected by varenicline treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

These laboratory data from treatment-seeking smokers provide the strongest evidence to date that varenicline selectively attenuates smoking reinforcement prior to quitting.

Nomogram to predict successful smoking cessation in a Chinese outpatient population

INTRODUCTION

The study aimed to establish and internally validate a nomogram to predict successful smoking cessation in a Chinese outpatient population.

METHODS

A total of 278 participants were included, and data were collected from March 2016 to December 2018. Predictors for successful smoking cessation were evaluated by 3-month sustained abstinence rates. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression was used to select variables for the model to predict successful smoking cessation, and multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to establish a novel predictive model. The discriminatory ability, calibration, and clinical usefulness of the nomogram were determined by the concordance index (C-index), calibration plot, and decision curve analysis, respectively. Internal validation with bootstrapping was performed.

RESULTS

The nomogram included living with a smoker or experiencing workplace smoking, number of outpatient department visits, reason for quitting tobacco, and varenicline use. The nomogram demonstrated valuable predictive performance, with a C-index of 0.816 and good calibration. A high C-index of 0.804 was reached with interval validation. Decision curve analysis revealed that the nomogram for predicting successful smoking cessation was clinically significant when intervention was conducted at a successful cessation of smoking possibility threshold of 19%.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel nomogram for successful smoking cessation can be conveniently used to predict successful cessation of smoking in outpatients.

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

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

Isradipine enhancement of virtual reality cue exposure for smoking cessation: Rationale and study protocol for a double-blind randomized controlled trial

Cigarette smoking remains a leading cause of preventable death in the United States, contributing to over 480,000 deaths each year. Although significant strides have been made in the development of effective smoking cessation treatments, most established interventions are associated with high relapse rates. One avenue for increasing the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions is to design focused, efficient, and rigorous experiments testing engagement of well-defined mechanistic targets. Toward this aim, the current protocol will apply a pharmacologic augmentation strategy informed by basic research in animal models of addiction. Our goal is to evaluate the enhancing effect of isradipine, an FDA-approved calcium channel blocker, on the extinction of craving-a key mechanism of drug relapse after periods of abstinence. To activate craving robustly in human participants, we will use multimodal smoking cues including novel 360° video environments developed for this project and delivered through consumer virtual reality headsets. Adult smokers will take either isradipine or placebo and complete the cue exposure protocol in a double-blind randomized control trial. In order to test the hypothesis that isradipine will enhance retention of craving extinction, participants will repeat cue exposure 24 h later without the administration of isradipine or placebo. The study will be implemented in a primary care setting where adult smokers receive healthcare, and smoking behavior will be tracked throughout the trial with ecological momentary assessment.

Extending varenicline preloading to 6 weeks facilitates smoking cessation: A single-site, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Initiating varenicline use 4 weeks before the target quit date (TQD) reduces smoking in the run-in phase and increases end-treatment cessation rates; however, the lack of a smoke intake plateau suggests longer preloading periods are required. This study assessed whether varenicline preloading for 6 weeks reduced pre-quit smoke intake and enhanced 6-month abstinence outcomes compared with the standard 1-week preloading.

METHODS

In this randomised single-centre controlled trial, (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02634281), conducted between February 2016 and July 2018 in Israel, daily smokers (n = 242) aged ≥ 18 years were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive varenicline preloading for 6 weeks (n = 121) or a placebo for 5 weeks followed by varenicline for 1 week (n = 121) before the TQD. Participants and researchers were masked to both group assignment and treatment allocation. Both groups received standard 12-week post-TQD varenicline treatment. The primary outcome was the 24-week biochemically verified continuous abstinence rate (CAR) from weeks 6 (TQD)-30. Secondary outcomes included the 23-week CAR from 1-week post-TQD (week 7) to week 30, and the 7-day point-prevalence (PP) abstinence at week 30. Other measures included pre- and post-quit rewards, smoking urges, nausea, aversion, and markers of cigarette consumption.

FINDINGS

By intention-to-treat, the 24-week CAR, weeks 6-30 with extended preloading was significantly higher than with standard preloading (23·1% vs. 4·1%; risk reduction [RR]: -0·19 [95% confidence interval [CI]:-0·10-0·24]; p < 0·001). Extended preloading also showed better secondary outcomes. Extended preloading significantly decreased pre-quit rewards, urges, and smoke intake, including unsolicited smoking abstinence. Post-quit urges remained remarkably lower with extended preloading. Participants receiving extended preloading reported more nausea at week 4 (39.6% vs 11.5%) and abnormal dreams at week 6 (7.7% vs. 0%). Participants receiving standard preloading reported more constipation at week 7 (7.6% vs. 0%) and dizziness at weeks 7 (12.1% vs. 2.5%) and 12 (10.7% vs 1.4%).

INTERPRETATION

Extended preloading reduced ad lib smoking, enhanced cessation rates at 3 and 6 months, and decreased pre- and post-quit rewards and smoking drive in a pattern compatible with a reinforcement-reduction mechanism. These data substantiate extending the standard pre-treatment period, and suggest that targeting pre-quit smoking sensations should be a treatment priority, although confirmatory evidence is needed from larger clinical trials.

FUNDING

This study was funded by a 2013 Global Research Award for Nicotine Dependence (GRAND) supported by Pfizer, Inc. (#WI182915).

Facilitated Extinction Training to Improve Pharmacotherapy for Smoking Cessation: A Pilot Feasibility Trial

Introduction

Varenicline reduces smoking satisfaction during the pre-cessation run-in period, which may contribute to extinction of cravings and smoking behavior. Research indicates that efficacy is enhanced when the run-in period is increased from 1 to 4 weeks, providing a longer extinction opportunity. We hypothesized that efficacy could be further enhanced by harnessing basic and applied research on extinction. We developed a pre-cessation extinction-facilitating intervention and tested its feasibility in a pilot trial.

Methods

The facilitated extinction (FE) intervention comprised brief counseling and workbook-recommending strategies to maximize extinction processes during the run-in, including instructions to smoke at a normal rate across contexts and cues, and use of an extinction cue to enhance generalization. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three varenicline interventions: standard (1-week run-in), extended (4-week run-in), and extended + FE. Interventions were delivered prior to the target quit date (TQD). Assessments were conducted in weeks 1 and 4 pre-TQD and 1 and 3 months post-TQD, with focus on feasibility indices.

Results

Recruitment and retention goals were met (N = 58). Treatment satisfaction was high across groups. The majority of FE participants adhered to instructions and maintained their usual smoking rate during the run-in period. Greater decreases in craving and smoking satisfaction were observed among participants in both extended groups versus the standard group (p < .005).

Conclusions

Feasibility was demonstrated. Participants adhered to the FE intervention, thereby optimizing the number and variety of extinction trials. Findings support testing the novel FE smoking cessation intervention in a fully powered trial.

Implications

This study expands the research on the clinical benefits of extending the pre-cessation run-in period of varenicline. It introduces the hypothesis that further benefit might be achieved by translating basic behavioral research, as well as cue-exposure research and therapy for other disorders, to improve the extinction and generalization processes thought to underlie much of varenicline's effect. A FE intervention was developed and found acceptable to smokers and feasible to implement in a research setting. The study sets the stage for a subsequent randomized controlled trial.

Nicotine preloading for smoking cessation: the Preloading RCT

BACKGROUND

Nicotine preloading means using nicotine replacement therapy prior to a quit date while smoking normally. The aim is to reduce the drive to smoke, thereby reducing cravings for smoking after quit day, which are the main cause of early relapse. A prior systematic review showed inconclusive and heterogeneous evidence that preloading was effective and little evidence of the mechanism of action, with no cost-effectiveness data.

OBJECTIVES

To assess (1) the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of nicotine preloading in a routine NHS setting relative to usual care, (2) the mechanisms of the action of preloading and (3) the cost-effectiveness of preloading.

DESIGN

Open-label randomised controlled trial with examination of mediation and a cost-effectiveness analysis.

SETTING

NHS smoking cessation clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

People seeking help to stop smoking.

INTERVENTIONS

Nicotine preloading comprised wearing a 21 mg/24 hour nicotine patch for 4 weeks prior to quit date. In addition, minimal behavioural support was provided to explain the intervention rationale and to support adherence. In the comparator group, participants received equivalent behavioural support. Randomisation was stratified by centre and concealed from investigators.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was 6-month prolonged abstinence assessed using the Russell Standard. The secondary outcomes were 4-week and 12-month abstinence. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed from baseline to 1 week after quit day. In a planned analysis, we adjusted for the use of varenicline (Champix^®; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA) as post-cessation medication. Cost-effectiveness analysis took a health-service perspective. The within-trial analysis assessed health-service costs during the 13 months of trial enrolment relative to the previous 6 months comparing trial arms. The base case was based on multiple imputation for missing cost data. We modelled long-term health outcomes of smoking-related diseases using the European-study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco (EQUIPT) model.

RESULTS

In total, 1792 people were eligible and were enrolled in the study, with 893 randomised to the control group and 899 randomised to the intervention group. In the intervention group, 49 (5.5%) people discontinued preloading prematurely and most others used it daily. The primary outcome, biochemically validated 6-month abstinence, was achieved by 157 (17.5%) people in the intervention group and 129 (14.4%) people in the control group, a difference of 3.02 percentage points [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to 6.41 percentage points; odds ratio (OR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.62; p = 0.081]. Adjusted for use of post-quit day varenicline, the OR was 1.34 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.73; p = 0.028). Secondary abstinence outcomes were similar. The OR for the occurrence of serious AEs was 1.12 (95% CI 0.42 to 3.03). Moderate-severity nausea occurred in an additional 4% of the preloading group compared with the control group. There was evidence that reduced urges to smoke and reduced smoke inhalation mediated the effect of preloading on abstinence. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at the 6-month follow-up for preloading relative to control was £710 (95% CI -£13,674 to £23,205), but preloading was dominant at 12 months and in the long term, with an 80% probability that it is cost saving.

LIMITATIONS

The open-label design could partially account for the mediation results. Outcome assessment could not be blinded but was biochemically verified.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of nicotine-patch preloading for 4 weeks prior to attempting to stop smoking can increase the proportion of people who stop successfully, but its benefit is undermined because it reduces the use of varenicline after preloading. If this latter effect could be overcome, then nicotine preloading appears to improve health and reduce health-service costs in the long term. Future work should determine how to ensure that people using nicotine preloading opt to use varenicline as cessation medication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33031001.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Progressive nicotine patch dosing prior to quitting smoking: feasibility, safety and effects during the pre-quit and post-quit periods

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) may be more effective in aiding smoking cessation if higher doses of nicotine from it can be tolerated. We examined the responses to, and 4-week abstinence rates observed, when titrating the dose of transdermal nicotine patch up to 84 mg/day over 4 weeks prior to a target quit date and titrating down again over 4 weeks afterwards.

DESIGN

Clinical cohort study.

SETTING

Tobacco dependence clinic, Mar del Plata, Argentina.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty smokers seeking help with stopping smoking.

INTERVENTION

Participants started on one 21-mg/24-hour patch 4 weeks prior to their target quit day (TQD). The dose was increased weekly by adding a 21-mg patch unless participants reported adverse effects and/or did not wish to increase the dose. The dose was reduced by 21 mg/day each week from 1 week post-TQD, until it reverted to the standard dose (21 mg/day) at 4 weeks post-TQD. Participants received weekly behavioural support and could also use oral NRT from the TQD. Participants were advised to smoke ad libitum during the pre-quit period.

MEASUREMENTS

Proportion of participants progressing through each stage of dosing, adherence, adverse effects, changes in cigarette consumption, smoke intake and enjoyment of smoking during the pre-quit period; withdrawal symptoms; carbon monoxide-validated abstinence during 4 weeks post-TQD.

FINDINGS

Of the 50 participants, 72.0% (n = 36) progressed to the 84-mg nicotine dose and 94.0% (n = 47) completed the trial. Adverse effects consisted primarily of nausea and were mild and well tolerated. Cigarette consumption, smoke intake and enjoyment of smoking declined significantly during the pre-quit period. Forty-one (82%) participants achieved 4 weeks validated abstinence. Abstainers experienced no detectable cigarette withdrawal symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Most smokers seeking help with stopping appear to be able to tolerate doses of transdermal nicotine patch up to 84 mg/day during a 4-week pre-quit up-titration period with minimal side effects.

Mediators of the effect of nicotine pre-treatment on quitting smoking

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Using smoking cessation medications for several weeks prior to quitting smoking facilitates quitting success, but how it does so is not clear. Candidate theories are that pre-cessation medication enhances self-efficacy, facilitates medication adherence post-quit, induces aversion to smoking, reduces reward from smoking or reduces the drive to smoke. We investigated these pathways using data from a large trial of nicotine pre-loading, using mediation analysis.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial of nicotine pre-loading. Potential mediators were assessed at baseline and 1 week into the pre-loading (3 weeks prior to quitting). In addition to this, urges to smoke in abstainers were assessed 1 week after the target quit date.

SETTING

England.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1792 smokers who wanted to quit attending specialist smoking cessation services in England were enrolled between 13 August 2012 and 10 March 2015.

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

Participants were randomized to either standard smoking cessation medications accompanied by behavioural support or the same treatment supplemented by nicotine 'pre-loading', i.e. 4 weeks of 21 mg nicotine patch use prior to quitting.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome, selected for its proximity in time to potential mediators, was biochemically validated abstinence from smoking at 4 weeks post-target quit date. Potential mediators included the Modified Cigarette Evaluation Questionnaire, with subscales assessing satisfaction, reward, craving and aversion; ratings of strength and frequency of urges to smoke; the Mood and Physical Symptoms Scale assessing cigarette withdrawal symptoms; two items from the Nicotine Dependence Syndrome Scale assessing smoking stereotypy; self-reported reduction in cigarettes per day and in carbon monoxide (CO) reading; post-target quit day (TQD) medication adherence; self-efficacy; nausea.

FINDINGS

Pre-loading reduced urges to smoke at 3 weeks pre-quit (P < 0.001) and exhaled CO concentrations (P < 0.001), and also urges to smoke post-quit in abstainers (P = 0.001). At 3 weeks pre-quit, it also reduced cigarette consumption, enjoyment of and satisfaction from smoking and smoking reward and increased nausea, aversion (all P < 0.001) and smoking stereotypy (P = 0.003). Only the first three variables, however (reduced smoke intake and reduced urges to smoke pre- and post-quit), mediated abstinence from smoking at 4 weeks and only the latter two mediated abstinence at 6 months (indirect mediating effects P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Nicotine pre-loading appears to facilitate smoking abstinence by reducing urges to smoke and smoke intake before quitting and urges to smoke after quitting.

Adherence to Pharmacological Smoking Cessation Interventions: A Literature Review and Synthesis of Correlates and Barriers

Introduction

Efficacious pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation are available, but poor adherence to these treatments may limit these interventions overall impact. To improve adherence to smoking cessation interventions, it is first necessary to identify and understand smoker-level characteristics that drive nonadherence (ie, nonconformance with a provider's recommendation of timing, dosage, or frequency of medication-taking during the prescribed length of time).

Methods

We present a literature review of studies examining correlates of, or self-reported reasons for, nonadherence to smoking cessation pharmacotherapies. Studies were identified through PubMed-using MeSH terms, Embase-using Emtree terms, and ISI Web of Science.

Results and Conclusions

This literature review included 50 studies that examined nonpreventable (eg, sociodemographics) and preventable (eg, forgetfulness) factors associated with adherence to smoking cessation medication and suggestions for overcoming some of the identified barriers. Systematic study of this topic would be facilitated by consistent reporting of adherence and correlates thereof in the literature, development of consistent definitions of medication adherence across studies, utilization of more objective measures of adherence (eg, blood plasma levels vs. self-report) in addition to reliance on self-reported adherence.

Implications

This article provides the most comprehensive review to date on correlates of adherence to pharmacological smoking cessation interventions. Challenges and specific gaps in the literature that should be a priority for future research are discussed. Future priorities include additional research, particularly among vulnerable populations of smokers, developing standardized definitions of adherence and methods for measuring adherence, regular assessment of cessation pharmacotherapy adherence in the context of research and clinical practice, and development of novel treatments aimed at preventable barriers to medication adherence.

Effects on abstinence of nicotine patch treatment before quitting smoking: parallel, two arm, pragmatic randomised trial

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effectiveness of a nicotine patch worn for four weeks before a quit attempt.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled open label trial.

SETTING

Primary care and smoking cessation clinics in England, 2012-15.

PARTICIPANTS

1792 adults who were daily smokers with tobacco dependence. 899 were allocated to the preloading arm and 893 to the control arm.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised 1:1, using concealed randomly permuted blocks stratified by centre, to either standard smoking cessation pharmacotherapy and behavioural support or the same treatment supplemented by four weeks of 21 mg nicotine patch use before quitting: "preloading."

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was biochemically confirmed prolonged abstinence at six months. Secondary outcomes were prolonged abstinence at four weeks and 12 months.

RESULTS

Biochemically validated abstinence at six months was achieved by 157/899 (17.5%) participants in the preloading arm and 129/893 (14.4%) in the control arm: difference 3.0% (95% confidence interval -0.4% to 6.4%), odds ratio 1.25 (95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.62), P=0.08 in the primary analysis. There was an imbalance between arms in the frequency of varenicline use as post-cessation treatment, and planned adjustment for this gave an odds ratio for the effect of preloading of 1.34 (95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.73), P=0.03: difference 3.8% (0.4% to 7.2%). At four weeks, the difference in prolonged abstinence unadjusted for varenicline use was odds ratio 1.21 (1.00 to 1.48), difference 4.3% (0.0% to 8.7%), P=0.05, and adjusted for varenicline use was 1.32 (1.08 to 1.62) P=0.007. At 12 months the odds ratio was 1.28 (0.97 to 1.69), difference 2.7% (-0.4% to 5.8%), P=0.09 unadjusted for varenicline use and after adjustment was 1.36 (1.02 to 1.80) P=0.04. 5.9% of participants discontinued preloading owing to intolerance. Gastrointestinal symptoms-chiefly nausea-occurred in 4.0% (2.2% to 5.9%) more people in the preloading arm than control arm. Eight serious adverse events occurred in the preloading arm and eight in the control arm (odds ratio 0.99, 0.36 to 2.75).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence was insufficient to confidently show that nicotine preloading increases subsequent smoking abstinence. The beneficial effect seems to have been masked by a concurrent reduction in the use of varenicline in people using nicotine preloading, and future studies should explore ways to mitigate this unintended effect.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33031001.

Effect of Varenicline Combined With Medical Management on Alcohol Use Disorder With Comorbid Cigarette Smoking: A Randomized Clinical Trial

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.

A Randomised Controlled Trial Evaluating the Effectiveness and Tolerability of Step-up and Step-down Varenicline Therapy for Smoking Cessation: A Study Protocol

Background: Varenicline remains the most effective medication for smoking cessation; however, discontinuation as a result of adverse events negatively impacts medication adherence, and the likelihood of a quit attempt being successful. Post-treatment cravings and withdrawal symptoms may also occur, increasing the likelihood of treatment failure, due to lapse and relapse after achieving initial abstinence. This protocol details a trial investigating changes in the effectiveness and tolerability of varenicline, when an extended step-up and step-down regimen are used.

Methods: A phase four, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled single-centre study with a treatment period of 16 weeks, and follow-up period of 12 weeks will be conducted. Up to 201 participants will be enrolled and allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to a placebo-matching control group, step-up, or step-down intervention group, all receiving behavioural counselling and quitting advice. Participants will be contacted weekly during treatment and fortnightly during follow-up. Eligible participants are smokers over 18 years old, willing to quit smoking, are able to attend clinic visits, and have no uncontrolled or serious medical issues. Primary outcome measures are comparisons of biochemically confirmed continuous abstinence rates, 7-day point prevalence abstinence rates, and the frequency, severity and duration of adverse events, cravings and withdrawal symptoms. Secondary outcome measures are participant adherence to the study medication throughout treatment, and comparisons of changes in smoking satisfaction and reward. Effects of each regimen on smoking cessation will be assessed by logistic regression, with survival analyses used for a more precise estimate of when cessation occurs. Primary endpoints will then be compared using a general linear model. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12616000802404p

A Systematic Review Investigating the Impact of Modified Varenicline Regimens on Smoking Cessation

Introduction: The efficacy of varenicline as a smoking cessation aid is affected by commonly-occurring issues, such as intolerable adverse events, cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and poor medication adherence. Improvement in quit rates may be achieved through tailoring doses relative to individual smokers’ behaviours, and previous experiences with smoking cessation medications.

Aims: The aim of this review is to evaluate smoking cessation outcomes from published randomised controlled trials that have attempted to improve the efficacy and tolerability of varenicline through modifying its dosage regimen compared to placebo.

Methods: A systematic search of the literature up to June 2016 was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials, where varenicline was administered in a regimen not consistent with the current clinical guidelines. Outcome measures evaluated included continuous abstinence rates, changes in cravings, withdrawal symptoms, smoking behaviours, adverse event rates, and premature therapy discontinuations.

Results: Ten randomised controlled trials, encompassing four different modifications to standard varenicline therapy, matched the eligibility criteria. Modifications such as the extended duration of therapy and the use of a flexible quit date were effective compared to placebo and have been implemented into some clinical guidelines, whereas other modifications do not appear to produce any benefit for smokers, or require further research to ascertain their suitability for clinical practice.

Conclusions: Some varenicline therapy modifications may lead to improvements in efficacy and tolerability. Further research on the effect of modifications such as daily doses higher than 2mg, tapering doses, and the use of extended pre-quit varenicline may advance varenicline therapy outcomes.

Use of varenicline for more than 12 months for smoking cessation in heavy chronic obstructive pulmonary disease smokers unmotivated to quit: a pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Use of varenicline for as long as necessary to achieve abstinence has not been studied. The aim of this study was to test whether smokers with mild-to-moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are able to quit if they use varenicline for a sufficient length of time.

METHODS

A total of 30 heavy smokers with COPD took varenicline for sufficiently long enough for smoking cessation. Smokers were allowed to smoke without a fixed quit date. The main endpoints were the time of voluntary abstinence (VA) and the continuous abstinence rate (CAR) at 12 and 18 months.

RESULTS

Of 28 subjects, eight subjects continued to smoke and 20 subjects stopped smoking, demonstrating a CAR up to 18 months (71%). Median time of treatment was 6 (range 3-24) and 2 (range 1-8) months for abstainers and non-abstainers, respectively, and the median time of VA for abstainers was 4 (range 1-21) months.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of varenicline for more than the traditional 12 recommended weeks may be a good strategy to increase the cessation rate in heavy smokers with mild COPD.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Sex Differences in Varenicline Efficacy for Smoking Cessation: A Meta-Analysis

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.

Does Extended Pre Quit Bupropion Aid in Extinguishing Smoking Behavior?

INTRODUCTION

Understanding the mechanisms by which bupropion promotes smoking cessation may lead to more effective treatment. To the extent that reduced smoking reinforcement is one such mechanism, a longer duration of pre quit bupropion treatment should promote extinction of smoking behavior. We evaluated whether 4 weeks of pre quit bupropion (extended run-in) results in greater pre quit reductions in smoking rate and cotinine and, secondarily, greater short-term abstinence, than standard 1 week of pre quit bupropion (standard run-in).

METHODS

Adult smokers (n = 95; 48 females) were randomized to a standard run-in group (n = 48; 3-week placebo, then 1-week bupropion pre quit) or an extended run-in group (4-week pre quit bupropion; n = 47). Both groups received group behavioral counseling and 7 weeks of post quit bupropion. Smoking rate (and craving, withdrawal, and subjective effects) was collected daily during the pre quit period; biochemical data (cotinine and carbon monoxide) were collected at study visits.

RESULTS

During the pre quit period, the extended run-in group exhibited a greater decrease in smoking rate, compared to the standard run-in group, interaction p = .03. Cigarette craving and salivary cotinine followed a similar pattern, though the latter was evident only among women. Biochemically verified 4-week continuous abstinence rates were higher in the extended run-in group (53%) than the standard run-in group (31%), p = .033.

CONCLUSIONS

The extended use of bupropion prior to a quit attempt reduces smoking behavior during the pre quit period and improved short-term abstinence rates. The data are consistent with an extinction-of-reinforcement model and support further investigation of extended run-in bupropion therapy for smoking cessation.

The impact of pre-cessation varenicline on behavioral economic indices of smoking reinforcement

BACKGROUND

Varenicline was developed to aid smoking cessation by reducing smoking reinforcement. The present study tests this reinforcement-reduction hypothesis among smokers preparing to quit.

METHOD

After a one-week baseline, treatment-seeking smokers were randomized to receive three weeks of varenicline or placebo (Weeks 2-4). During each of the four weeks of the study, smokers completed a hypothetical cigarette purchase task (CPT) via handheld devices in their natural environment. Behavioral economic measures of simulated smoking if cigarettes were free (demand intensity), sensitivity of consumption to increasing price (elasticity), and price at which purchases would drop to 0 (breakpoint) were estimated.

RESULTS

The exponential demand equation fit the purchase task data well across subjects and time. As predicted, demand intensity decreased and sensitivity to price (elasticity) increased over time. However, changes in demand intensity did not differ by treatment group. Contrary to our hypothesis that varenicline would increase sensitivity to price, the placebo group tended to become more elastic in their purchases during Weeks 2 and 3; the groups did not differ in elasticity at Week 4. Breakpoint did not vary by group, time, or their interaction.

CONCLUSION

Simulated smoking demand can be validly assessed in the natural environment of treatment-seeking smokers. Simulated demand indices of smoking reinforcement diminished as smokers approached their target quit date. However, there was no evidence that varenicline facilitated these changes over a three-week period, leaving open the mechanisms by which varenicline reduces smoking rate prior to cessation and improves long-term abstinence.

Varenicline efficacy and safety among methadone maintained smokers: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

AIMS

To test the efficacy and safety of varenicline as an aid to smoking cessation in methadone-maintained smokers.

DESIGN

Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with random assignment to 12 weeks of varenicline 1 mg twice daily (n = 57) or matched placebo (n = 55), with in-person and telephone counseling.

SETTING

Urban methadone programs in the Bronx, New York City, New York, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Methadone maintenance patients, smoking ≥5 cigarettes/day, interested in quitting, stable in methadone treatment, without current Axis I psychiatric disorders, suicidal ideation or recent suicide attempts.

MEASUREMENTS

Seven-day point prevalence abstinence verified by expired carbon monoxide (CO) < 8 parts per million at week 12 (primary outcome); carbon monoxide (CO)-verified abstinence, cigarettes/day, incident Axis I psychiatric illness, suicidal ideation or serious adverse events (SAEs) at weeks 2, 4, 8, 12 or 24 (secondary outcomes).

FINDINGS

Baseline demographic, smoking and clinical factors were similar between groups. Retention at 24 weeks was 90%. Subjects receiving varenicline were more likely than those receiving placebo to achieve abstinence (10.5 versus 0%, P = 0.03; effect size 10.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.4-19.3%) and to reduce smoking (median five versus two cigarettes/day, P < 0.001) at 12 weeks. These effects were not maintained after drug treatment ceased. Incident psychiatric illness (OR= 0.84, 95% CI = 0.16, 4.4) and suicidality [odds ratio (OR) = 0.88, 95% CI 0.2, 3.9] were not different between groups. There were no psychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline can aid short-term smoking abstinence in methadone-maintained smokers.

Effects of chronic varenicline treatment on nicotine, cocaine, and concurrent nicotine+cocaine self-administration

Nicotine dependence and cocaine abuse are major public health problems, and most cocaine abusers also smoke cigarettes. An ideal treatment medication would reduce both cigarette smoking and cocaine abuse. Varenicline is a clinically available, partial agonist at α4β2* and α6β2* nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) and a full agonist at α7 nAChRs. Varenicline facilitates smoking cessation in clinical studies and reduced nicotine self-administration, and substituted for the nicotine-discriminative stimulus in preclinical studies. The present study examined the effects of chronic varenicline treatment on self-administration of IV nicotine, IV cocaine, IV nicotine+cocaine combinations, and concurrent food-maintained responding by five cocaine- and nicotine-experienced adult rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Varenicline (0.004-0.04 mg/kg/h) was administered intravenously every 20 min for 23 h each day for 7-10 consecutive days. Each varenicline treatment was followed by saline-control treatment until food- and drug-maintained responding returned to baseline. During control treatment, nicotine+cocaine combinations maintained significantly higher levels of drug self-administration than nicotine or cocaine alone (P<0.05-0.001). Varenicline dose-dependently reduced responding maintained by nicotine alone (0.0032 mg/kg/inj) (P<0.05), and in combination with cocaine (0.0032 mg/kg/inj) (P<0.05) with no significant effects on food-maintained responding. However, varenicline did not significantly decrease self-administration of a low dose of nicotine (0.001 mg/kg), cocaine alone (0.0032 and 0.01 mg/kg/inj), or 0.01 mg/kg cocaine combined with the same doses of nicotine. We conclude that varenicline selectively attenuates the reinforcing effects of nicotine alone but not cocaine alone, and its effects on nicotine+cocaine combinations are dependent on the dose of cocaine.

Extinction Burst after Varenicline Titration: A Case Report

Background: The mechanism of action of varenicline as a partial agonist may make it useful for cigarette reduction as smokers experience reduced craving and withdrawal at the same time their cigarettes provide reduced reinforcement value.

Case Description: The current case report describes a 51-year-old African American woman using varenicline to reduce her cigarette use. After making a substantial reduction in cigarettes per day (from 25 to 8), the patient unexpectedly began smoking considerably more (from 8 to 20) after 11 days treatment with varenicline.

Conclusions: The temporary increase in smoking while taking varenicline was likely the result of an ‘extinction burst’ where the extinction of a reward (e.g., nicotine's rewarding effects after smoking a cigarette) was temporarily associated with an increase in the behaviour usually associated with the reward (e.g., smoking a cigarette). Once explaining to her that no amount of cigarettes would overcome the feeling of reduced reward she likely felt while taking varenicline, she was able to reduce her smoking again.

Effects of 21 days of varenicline versus placebo on smoking behaviors and urges among non-treatment seeking smokers

Varenicline promotes smoking cessation and reduces urges to smoke. However, the mechanisms associated with these effects and their time course are not well characterized. One mechanism may be extinction, but the duration of the current dosing protocol may not be sufficient. We examined the effect of extended pre-treatment with varenicline on smoking behavior among 17 non-treatment seeking adult smokers. Using a within-subjects, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover design, participants received standard dosing of varenicline for 21 days, followed by a 14-day washout period and 21 days of placebo; order counterbalanced. Cigarettes per day (CPD), smoking topography, smoking urges (QSU), and side effects were assessed every three days. Biomarkers (e.g. nicotine metabolites) were collected on days 1, 7, and 21. There was a significant drug by time interaction indicating a reduction in CPD during varenicline phase (between days 10-21), but no reduction during placebo. Varenicline also led to reductions in nicotine metabolites and urges to smoke. Among this sample of non-treatment seeking smokers, varenicline significantly reduced smoking behavior. Results have important treatment implications because changes in CPD and craving did not occur until after the typical one-week run-up period. This suggests that a longer duration of pre-treatment may be beneficial for some smokers.

The effects of varenicline on attention and inhibitory control among treatment-seeking smokers

RATIONALE

Varenicline represents a new class of smoking cessation aids that has different mechanisms of action that are unique from bupropion or nicotine replacement therapies. An improved understanding of these mechanisms may lead to greater treatment success in quitting smoking.

OBJECTIVES

We examined the effects of steady-state varenicline on attention and inhibitory control among adult treatment-seeking smokers.

METHODS

Adult smokers enrolled in a randomized clinical trial received either 4 weeks of pre-quit varenicline (n = 31) or 3 weeks of placebo (n = 26) followed by 1 week of standard varenicline treatment. Participants in the present work completed cognitive assessments at a baseline session (prior to treatment) and again 3 weeks later (during active treatment). At both sessions, participants completed the stop signal task to assess both lapses in attention and inhibitory control.

RESULTS

Analyses indicated that varenicline improved lapses in attention compared to placebo. There were no significant differences observed between groups at either session for inhibitory control.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated that varenicline improves lapses in attention among treatment-seeking smokers preparing to make a quit attempt. These findings suggest that the domain of attention may be a good candidate for larger studies of the role of improved cognition in understanding the mechanisms of varenicline treatment for smoking cessation.

Impact of varenicline on cue-specific craving assessed in the natural environment among treatment-seeking smokers

RATIONALE

Varenicline is believed to work, in part, by reducing craving responses to smoking cues and by reducing general levels of craving; however, these hypotheses have never been evaluated with craving assessed in the natural environments of treatment-seeking smokers.

OBJECTIVES

Ecological momentary assessment procedures were used to assess the impact of varenicline on cue-specific and general craving in treatment-seeking smokers prior to quitting.

METHODS

For 5 weeks prior to quitting, 60 smokers carried personal digital assistants that assessed their response to smoking or neutral cues. During week 1 (baseline), participants did not receive medication; during weeks 2-4 (drug manipulation), participants were randomized to receive varenicline or placebo; during week 5 (standard therapy), all participants received varenicline. Craving was assessed before each cue; cue-specific craving and attention to cue were assessed after each cue.

RESULTS

During all phases, smoking cues elicited greater craving than neutral cues; the magnitude of this effect declined after the first week. General craving declined across each phase of the study. Relative to the placebo condition, varenicline was associated with a greater decline in general craving over the drug manipulation phase. Varenicline did not significantly attenuate cue-specific craving during any phase of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking cues delivered in the natural environment elicited strong craving responses in treatment-seeking smokers, but cue-specific craving was not affected by varenicline administered prior to the quit attempt. These findings suggest that the clinical efficacy of varenicline is not mediated by changes in cue-specific craving during the pre-quit period of treatment-seeking smokers.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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.