Bupropion and cognitive-behavioral treatment for depression in smoking cessation

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied. However, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco: nicotine withdrawal can produce short-term low mood that antidepressants may relieve; and some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, harms, and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, most recently on 29 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people who smoked, comparing antidepressant medications with placebo or no pharmacological treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used differently. We excluded trials with fewer than six months of follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length for our analyses of harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months' follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Our secondary outcomes were harms and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropouts due to treatment. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 124 studies (48,832 participants) in this review, with 10 new studies added to this update version. Most studies recruited adults from the community or from smoking cessation clinics; four studies focused on adolescents (with participants between 12 and 21 years old). We judged 34 studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not change clinical interpretation of the results.  There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased smoking cessation rates when compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.49 to 1.72; I2 = 16%; 50 studies, 18,577 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that a combination of bupropion and varenicline may have resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I2 = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence to establish whether a combination of bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; I2 = 43%; 15 studies, 4117 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was moderate-certainty evidence that participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs than those taking placebo or no pharmacological treatment. However, results were imprecise and the CI also encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 23 studies, 10,958 participants). Results were also imprecise when comparing SAEs between people randomised to a combination of bupropion and NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.89; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 657 participants) and randomised to bupropion plus varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.42; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1268 participants). In both cases, we judged evidence to be of low certainty. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to AEs than placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.65; I2 = 2%; 25 studies, 12,346 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence that bupropion combined with NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 737 participants) or bupropion combined with varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.45; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1230 participants) had an impact on the number of dropouts due to treatment. In both cases, imprecision was substantial (we judged the evidence to be of low certainty for both comparisons). Bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.80; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7564 participants), and to combination NRT (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 720 participants). However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and single-form NRT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 7613 participants). We also found evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I2 = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), and some evidence that bupropion resulted in superior quit rates to nortriptyline (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants), although this result was subject to imprecision. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion may increase SAEs (moderate-certainty evidence when compared to placebo/no pharmacological treatment). There is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with people receiving placebo or no pharmacological treatment. Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo, although bupropion may be more effective. Evidence also suggests that bupropion may be as successful as single-form NRT in helping people to quit smoking, but less effective than combination NRT and varenicline. In most cases, a paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions regarding harms and tolerability. Further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over other licensed smoking cessation treatments; namely, NRT and varenicline. However, it is important that future studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation measure and report on harms and tolerability.

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.

Depression symptom profiles and long-term response to cognitive behavioral therapy plus contingency management for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Depression is heterogeneous in nature and using diagnostic categories limits insight into understanding psychopathology and its impact on treatment efficacy. This secondary analysis sought to: 1) identify distinct subpopulations of cigarette users with depression, and 2) examine their response to cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) + contingency management (CM) for smoking cessation at one year.

METHOD

The sample comprised 238 (74 % females) adults who smoke receiving CBT only or CBT + CM. A latent class analysis was conducted on baseline depressive symptoms measured using the Beck Depression Inventory-II. Generalized estimating equations assessed the main and interactive effects of class, time, treatment, and sex on smoking abstinence.

RESULTS

Three distinct classes were identified: C1 (n= 76/238), characterized by mild depression, loss of energy, pessimism, and criticism, C2 (n= 100/238) presenting moderate severity and decreased appetite, and C3 (n= 62/238) showing severe depression, increased appetite, and feelings of punishment. There was a significant cluster × treatment interaction, which indicated additive effects of CM over CBT alone for Class 1 and 2. Persons in Class 1 and 2 were 3.60 [95 % CI: 1.62, 7.97] and 2.65 [95 % CI: 1.19, 5.91] times more likely to be abstinent if CBT + CM was delivered rather than CBT only. No differential sex effects were observed on treatment response according to cluster.

CONCLUSIONS

Profiling depression symptom subtypes of cigarette users may be more informative to improve CM treatment response than merely focusing on total scores.

Serious Mental Illness and Smoking Cessation Treatment Utilization: the Role of Healthcare Providers

Healthcare provider barriers to cessation resources may be undercutting quit rates for smokers with serious mental illness (SMI). The study aim was to examine how providers influence cessation treatment utilization among smokers with SMI. Data were taken from a trial conducted among smokers in Minnesota Health Care Programs. The sample was split into groups of participants with SMI (n = 939) and without SMI (n = 1382). Analyses assessed whether the association between SMI and treatment utilization was mediated by healthcare provider-delivered treatment advice and healthcare provider bias. Results revealed higher rates of treatment utilization among smokers with SMI than those without SMI (45.9% vs 31.7%, p < 0.001); treatment advice and provider bias did not mediate this association. Subsequent individual regression analyses revealed positive associations between treatment advice and treatment utilization (β 0.21-0.25, p < 0.05), independent of SMI status. Strategies to increase low-income smokers' contacts with providers may reduce treatment utilization barriers among these smokers.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Whilst the pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco. Firstly, nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms and antidepressants may relieve these. Additionally, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, safety and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Specialized Register, which includes reports of trials indexed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO, clinicaltrials.gov, the ICTRP, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in May 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited smokers, and compared antidepressant medications with placebo or no treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used in a different way. We excluded trials with less than six months follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length in safety analyses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months follow-up, expressed as a risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. Similarly, we presented incidence of safety and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropout due to drug, as RRs (95% CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 115 studies (33 new to this update) in this review; most recruited adult participants from the community or from smoking cessation clinics. We judged 28 of the studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk did not change clinical interpretation of the results. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased long-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.52 to 1.77; I² = 15%; 45 studies, 17,866 participants). There was insufficient evidence to establish whether participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs compared to those taking placebo. Results were imprecise and CIs encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I² = 0%; 21 studies, 10,625 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded one level due to imprecision). We found high-certainty evidence that use of bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to adverse events of the drug than placebo (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.56; I² = 19%; 25 studies, 12,340 participants). Participants randomized to bupropion were also more likely to report psychiatric AEs compared with those randomized to placebo (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.37; I² = 15%; 6 studies, 4439 participants). We also looked at the safety and efficacy of bupropion when combined with other non-antidepressant smoking cessation therapies. There was insufficient evidence to establish whether combination bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.51; I² = 52%; 12 studies, 3487 participants), or whether combination bupropion and varenicline resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I² = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). We judged the certainty of evidence to be low and moderate, respectively; in both cases due to imprecision, and also due to inconsistency in the former. Safety data were sparse for these comparisons, making it difficult to draw clear conclusions. A meta-analysis of six studies provided evidence that bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.79; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 6286 participants), whilst there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and NRT (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; I² = 18%; 10 studies, 8230 participants). We also found some evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I² = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), whilst there was insufficient evidence to determine whether bupropion or nortriptyline were more effective when compared with one another (RR 1.30 (favouring bupropion), 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants). There was no evidence that any of the other antidepressants tested (including St John's Wort, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)) had a beneficial effect on smoking cessation. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion also increases the number of adverse events, including psychiatric AEs, and there is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with placebo. However, there is no clear evidence to suggest whether people taking bupropion experience more or fewer SAEs than those taking placebo (moderate certainty). Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo. Evidence suggests that bupropion may be as successful as NRT and nortriptyline in helping people to quit smoking, but that it is less effective than varenicline. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the other antidepressants tested, such as SSRIs, aid smoking cessation, and when looking at safety and tolerance outcomes, in most cases, paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions. Due to the high-certainty evidence, further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over front-line smoking cessation aids already available. However, it is important that where studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation are carried out they measure and report safety and tolerability clearly.

Psychological interventions for co-occurring depression and substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

Comorbid depression and substance use disorders are common and have poorer outcomes than either disorder alone. While effective psychological treatments for depression or substance use disorders are available, relatively few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have examined the efficacy of these treatments in people with these comorbid disorders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of psychological interventions delivered alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy for people diagnosed with comorbid depression and substance use disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to February 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Google Scholar and clinical trials registers. All systematic reviews identified, were handsearched for relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The review includes data from RCTs of psychological treatments for people diagnosed with comorbid depression and substance use disorders, using structured clinical interviews. Studies were included if some of the sample were experiencing another mental health disorder (e.g. anxiety); however, studies which required a third disorder as part of their inclusion criteria were not included. Studies were included if psychological interventions (with or without pharmacotherapy) were compared with no treatment, delayed treatment, treatment as usual or other psychological treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven RCTs of psychological treatments with a total of 608 participants met inclusion criteria. All studies were published in the USA and predominately consisted of Caucasian samples. All studies compared different types of psychological treatments. Two studies compared Integrated Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (ICBT) with Twelve Step Facilitation (TSF), another two studies compared Interpersonal Psychotherapy for Depression (IPT-D) with other treatment (Brief Supportive Therapy (BST) or Psychoeducation). The other three studies compared different types or combinations of psychological treatments. No studies compared psychological interventions with no treatment or treatment as usual control conditions. The studies included a diverse range of participants (e.g. veterans, prisoners, community adults and adolescents). All studies were at high risk of performance bias, other main sources were selection, outcome detection and attrition bias. Due to heterogeneity between studies only two meta-analyses were conducted. The first meta-analysis focused on two studies (296 participants) comparing ICBT to TSF. Very low-quality evidence revealed that while the TSF group had lower depression scores than the ICBT group at post-treatment (mean difference (MD) 4.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.43 to 6.66; 212 participants), there was no difference between groups in depression symptoms (MD 1.53, 95% CI -1.73 to 4.79; 181 participants) at six- to 12-month follow-up. At post-treatment there was no difference between groups in proportion of days abstinent (MD -2.84, 95% CI -8.04 to 2.35; 220 participants), however, the ICBT group had a greater proportion of days abstinent than the TSF group at the six- to 12-month follow-up (MD 10.76, 95% CI 3.10 to 18.42; 189 participants). There were no differences between the groups in treatment attendance (MD -1.27, 95% CI -6.10 to 3.56; 270 participants) or treatment retention (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; 296 participants). The second meta-analysis was conducted with two studies (64 participants) comparing IPT-D with other treatment (Brief Supportive Psychotherapy/Psychoeducation). Very low-quality evidence indicated IPT-D resulted in significantly lower depressive symptoms at post-treatment (MD -0.54, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.04; 64 participants), but this effect was not maintained at three-month follow-up (MD 3.80, 95% CI -3.83 to 11.43) in the one study reporting follow-up outcomes (38 participants; IPT-D versus Psychoeducation). Substance use was examined separately in each study, due to heterogeneity in outcomes. Both studies found very low-quality evidence of no significant differences in substance use outcomes at post-treatment (percentage of days abstinent, IPD versus Brief Supportive Psychotherapy; MD -2.70, 95% CI -28.74 to 23.34; 26 participants) or at three-month follow-up (relative risk of relapse, IPT-D versus Psychoeducation; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; 38 participants). There was also very low-quality evidence for no significant differences between groups in treatment retention (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.23; 64 participants). No adverse events were reported in any study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of this review are limited due to the low number and very poor quality of included studies. No conclusions can be made about the efficacy of psychological interventions (delivered alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy) for the treatment of comorbid depression and substance use disorders, as they are yet to be compared with no treatment or treatment as usual in this population. In terms of differences between psychotherapies, although some significant effects were found, the effects were too inconsistent and small, and the evidence of too poor quality, to be of relevance to practice.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation increase the likelihood of achieving abstinence in a quit attempt. It is plausible that providing support, or, if support is offered, offering more intensive support or support including particular components may increase abstinence further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of adding or increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition. We also looked at studies which directly compare behavioural interventions matched for contact time, where pharmacotherapy is provided to both groups (e.g. tests of different components or approaches to behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in June 2018 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline, that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount or type of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact (defined as face-to-face or telephone). The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, a different type of personal contact, written information, or no behavioural support at all. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women and trials which did not set out to assess smoking cessation at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates, if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-three studies, 36 of which were new to this update, met the inclusion criteria, representing 29,536 participants. Overall, we judged 16 studies to be at low risk of bias and 21 studies to be at high risk of bias. All other studies were judged to be at unclear risk of bias. Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of studies at high risk of bias. We pooled all studies comparing more versus less support in the main analysis. Findings demonstrated a benefit of behavioural support in addition to pharmacotherapy. When all studies of additional behavioural therapy were pooled, there was evidence of a statistically significant benefit from additional support (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.22, I² = 8%, 65 studies, n = 23,331) for abstinence at longest follow-up, and this effect was not different when we compared subgroups by type of pharmacotherapy or intensity of contact. This effect was similar in the subgroup of eight studies in which the control group received no behavioural support (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43, I² = 20%, n = 4,018). Seventeen studies compared interventions matched for contact time but that differed in terms of the behavioural components or approaches employed. Of the 15 comparisons, all had small numbers of participants and events. Only one detected a statistically significant effect, favouring a health education approach (which the authors described as standard counselling containing information and advice) over motivational interviewing approach (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.94, n = 378).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking increases quit rates. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 20%, based on a pooled estimate from 65 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness of specific components that comprise behavioural support.

Effectiveness of pharmacological or psychological interventions for smoking cessation in smokers with major depression or depressive symptoms: A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Smokers with major depressive disorder (MDD) or depressive symptoms (DS) represent a subgroup in need of attention, since they have specific clinical features and prognosis.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature (Cochrane, MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Web of Science databases from inception to June 2017) of randomized clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of pharmacological, psychological, or combined interventions for smoking cessation in subjects with current or past MDD/DS without medical or comorbid psychiatric disorder(s) was run following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Nicotine, varenicline, and staged-care intervention were more effective in smokers with current MDD; nicotine and fluoxetine plus nicotine were more effective in smokers with DS; naltrexone and nicotine plus fluoxetine were more effective in smokers with severe current DS. Cognitive-behavioral therapy and cognitive and behavioral cessation and relapse prevention skills training were superior to placebo in smokers with past MDD.

CONCLUSIONS

More research is needed into effectively addressing smoking in people with concurrent mental disorder. Data currently available need to be confirmed in randomized trials aimed at replicating the results and disentangling the effects of each therapeutic ingredient when a combination therapy is proposed. Studies on tolerability of treatments are warranted, as well as those aimed at identifying factors of vulnerability to adverse effects.

Pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation: effects by subgroup defined by genetically informed biomarkers

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation therapies are not effective for all smokers, and researchers are interested in identifying those subgroups of individuals (e.g. based on genotype) who respond best to specific treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether quit rates vary by genetically informed biomarkers within pharmacotherapy treatment arms and as compared with placebo. To assess the effects of pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation in subgroups of smokers defined by genotype for identified genome-wide significant polymorphisms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialised register, clinical trial registries, and genetics databases for trials of pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation from inception until 16 August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited adult smokers and reported pharmacogenomic analyses from trials of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies versus controls. Eligible trials included those with data on a priori genome-wide significant (P < 5 × 10-8) single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), replicated non-SNPs, and/or the nicotine metabolite ratio (NMR), hereafter collectively described as biomarkers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was smoking abstinence at six months after treatment. The secondary outcome was abstinence at end of treatment (EOT). We conducted two types of meta-analyses- one in which we assessed smoking cessation of active treatment versus placebo within genotype groups, and another in which we compared smoking cessation across genotype groups within treatment arms. We carried out analyses separately in non-Hispanic whites (NHWs) and non-Hispanic blacks (NHBs). We assessed heterogeneity between genotype groups using T², I², and Cochrane Q statistics.

MAIN RESULTS

Analyses included 18 trials including 9017 participants, of whom 6924 were NHW and 2093 NHB participants. Data were available for the following biomarkers: nine SNPs (rs1051730 (CHRNA3); rs16969968, rs588765, and rs2036527 (CHRNA5); rs3733829 and rs7937 (in EGLN2, near CYP2A6); rs1329650 and rs1028936 (LOC100188947); and rs215605 (PDE1C)), two variable number tandem repeats (VNTRs; DRD4 and SLC6A4), and the NMR. Included data produced a total of 40 active versus placebo comparisons, 16 active versus active comparisons, and 64 between-genotype comparisons within treatment arms.For those meta-analyses showing statistically significant heterogeneity between genotype groups, we found the quality of evidence (GRADE) to be generally moderate. We downgraded quality most often because of imprecision or risk of bias due to potential selection bias in genotyping trial participants. Comparisons of relative treatment effects by genotypeFor six-month abstinence, we found statistically significant heterogeneity between genotypes (rs16969968) for nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) versus placebo at six months for NHB participants (P = 0.03; n = 2 trials), but not for other biomarkers or treatment comparisons. Six-month abstinence was increased in the active NRT group as compared to placebo among participants with a GG genotype (risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 2.03), but not in the combined group of participants with a GA or AA genotype (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.26; ratio of risk ratios (RRR) GG vs GA or AA of 3.51, 95% CI 1.19 to 10.3). Comparisons of treatment effects between genotype groups within pharmacotherapy randomisation armsFor those receiving active NRT, treatment was more effective in achieving six-month abstinence among individuals with a slow NMR than among those with a normal NMR among NHW and NHB combined participants (normal NMR vs slow NMR: RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.78; n = 2 trials). We found no such differences in treatment effects between genotypes at six months for any of the other biomarkers among individuals who received pharmacotherapy or placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not identify widespread differential treatment effects of pharmacotherapy based on genotype. Some genotype groups within certain ethnic groups may benefit more from NRT or may benefit less from the combination of bupropion with NRT. The reader should interpret these results with caution because none of the statistically significant meta-analyses included more than two trials per genotype comparison, many confidence intervals were wide, and the quality of this evidence (GRADE) was generally moderate. Although we found evidence of superior NRT efficacy for NMR slow versus normal metabolisers, because of the lack of heterogeneity between NMR groups, we cannot conclude that NRT is more effective for slow metabolisers. Access to additional data from multiple trials is needed, particularly for comparisons of different pharmacotherapies.

Modelling a budgetary impact analysis for funding drug-based smoking cessation therapies for patients with major depressive disorder in Spain

BACKGROUND

Smoking is associated with high healthcare resource utilisation and cost to society. Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) exhibit high susceptibility to nicotine dependence. Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy are all indicated for smoking cessation; however funding by the Spanish national health system (SNHS) is limited. We modelled a budgetary impact analysis (BIA) to estimate the impact of the SNHS funding drug-based therapies for smoking cessation in smokers with MDD.

METHODS

The BIA compared the current unfunded scenario versus a funded scenario (varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy combined with medical follow-up and counselling) using the Spanish SNHS and societal perspectives. The BIA design was a hybrid model using a decision tree algorithm (population size: smokers with MDD) and Markov chains (smoking cessation attempts) over a 5-year horizon. Smoking cessation drug efficacy was derived from clinical trials, and smoking cessation costs avoided were taken from an analysis of the Spanish National Health Survey. Results were shown as incremental cost savings. Scenarios and threshold univariate sensitivity analyses tested model robustness.

RESULTS

The funded scenario resulted in an increase of 43,478 cessation attempts and 8930 fewer smokers after 5 years compared to the unfunded scenario. The cost of funding was €25.3 million and costs avoided were €26.5 million. There was a cumulative 5-year incremental cost saving of €1.2 million to Spanish society. Results were robust using alternative scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Funding smoking cessation drugs in patients with MDD is of economic benefit to Spain and could produce net savings from the third year of implementation.

Group behaviour therapy programmes for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Group therapy offers individuals the opportunity to learn behavioural techniques for smoking cessation, and to provide each other with mutual support.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of group-delivered behavioural interventions in achieving long-term smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, using the terms 'behavior therapy', 'cognitive therapy', 'psychotherapy' or 'group therapy', in May 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials that compared group therapy with self-help, individual counselling, another intervention or no intervention (including usual care or a waiting-list control). We also considered trials that compared more than one group programme. We included those trials with a minimum of two group meetings, and follow-up of smoking status at least six months after the start of the programme. We excluded trials in which group therapy was provided to both active therapy and placebo arms of trials of pharmacotherapies, unless they had a factorial design.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data in duplicate on the participants, the interventions provided to the groups and the controls, including programme length, intensity and main components, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in participants smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each trial, and biochemically-validated rates where available. We analysed participants lost to follow-up as continuing smokers. We expressed effects as a risk ratio for cessation. Where possible, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect (Mantel-Haenszel) model. We assessed the quality of evidence within each study and comparison, using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-six trials met our inclusion criteria for one or more of the comparisons in the review. Thirteen trials compared a group programme with a self-help programme; there was an increase in cessation with the use of a group programme (N = 4395, risk ratio (RR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52 to 2.33, I2 = 0%). We judged the GRADE quality of evidence to be moderate, downgraded due to there being few studies at low risk of bias. Fourteen trials compared a group programme with brief support from a health care provider. There was a small increase in cessation (N = 7286, RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.43, I2 = 59%). We judged the GRADE quality of evidence to be low, downgraded due to inconsistency in addition to risk of bias. There was also low quality evidence of benefit of a group programme compared to no-intervention controls, (9 trials, N = 1098, RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.80 to 3.76 I2 = 55%). We did not detect evidence that group therapy was more effective than a similar intensity of individual counselling (6 trials, N = 980, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.28, I2 = 9%). Programmes which included components for increasing cognitive and behavioural skills were not shown to be more effective than same-length or shorter programmes without these components.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Group therapy is better for helping people stop smoking than self-help, and other less intensive interventions. There is not enough evidence to evaluate whether groups are more effective, or cost-effective, than intensive individual counselling. There is not enough evidence to support the use of particular psychological components in a programme beyond the support and skills training normally included.

Cigarette smoking and depression comorbidity: systematic review and proposed theoretical model

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Despite decades of research on co-occurring smoking and depression, cessation rates remain consistently lower for depressed smokers than for smokers in the general population, highlighting the need for theory-driven models of smoking and depression. This paper provides a systematic review with a particular focus upon psychological states that disproportionately motivate smoking in depression, and frame an incentive learning theory account of smoking-depression co-occurrence.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, PsychINFO and CINAHL to December 2014, which yielded 852 papers. Using pre-established eligibility criteria, we identified papers focused on clinical issues and motivational mechanisms underlying smoking in established, adult smokers (i.e. maintenance, quit attempts and cessation/relapse) with elevated symptoms of depression. Two reviewers determined independently whether papers met review criteria. We included 297 papers in qualitative synthesis.

RESULTS

Our review identified three primary mechanisms that underlie persistent smoking among depressed smokers: low positive affect, high negative affect and cognitive impairment. We propose a novel application of incentive learning theory which posits that depressed smokers experience greater increases in the expected value of smoking in the face of these three motivational states, which promotes goal-directed choice of smoking behavior over alternative actions.

CONCLUSIONS

The incentive learning theory accounts for current evidence on how depression primes smoking behavior and provides a unique framework for conceptualizing psychological mechanisms of smoking maintenance among depressed smokers. Treatment should focus upon correcting adverse internal states and beliefs about the high value of smoking in those states to improve cessation outcomes for depressed smokers.

The Role of Physical Activity Enjoyment on the Acute Mood Experience of Exercise among Smokers with Elevated Depressive Symptoms

PROBLEM

Depressive symptoms are consistently shown to be related to poor smoking cessation outcomes. Aerobic exercise is a potential treatment augmentation that, given its antidepressant and mood enhancing effect, may bolster cessation outcomes for smokers with elevated depressive symptoms. Lower enjoyment of physical activity may inhibit the acute mood enhancing effects of aerobic exercise. The current study investigated the associations between depressive symptoms, physical activity enjoyment and the acute mood experience from exercise among low-active smokers with elevated depressive symptoms.

METHOD

Daily smokers with elevated depressive symptoms (N=159; Mage = 45.1, SD = 10.79; 69.8% female) were recruited for a randomized controlled exercise-based smoking cessation trial. Participants self-reported levels of depressive symptoms, physical activity enjoyment, and rated their mood experience (assessed as "mood" and "anxiety") before and after a standardized aerobic exercise test.

RESULTS

Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that depressive symptom severity accounted for significant unique variance in physical activity enjoyment (R2 =.041, t = -2.61, p = .010), beyond the non-significant effects of gender and level of tobacco dependence. Additionally, physical activity enjoyment was a significant mediator of the association between depressive symptom severity and acute mood experience ("mood" and "anxiety") following the exercise test.

CONCLUSIONS

Physical activity enjoyment may explain, at least in part, how depressive symptom severity is linked to the acute mood experience following a bout of activity. Interventions that target increasing physical activity enjoyment may ultimately assist in enhancing the mood experience from exercise, and therefore improve smoking cessation likelihood, especially for smokers with elevated depressive symptoms.

The Role of Self-Efficacy, Adaptive Coping, and Smoking Urges in Long-Term Cessation Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Smoking cessation self-efficacy and adaptive coping are posited as two important treatment targets in smoking cessation interventions, especially in the context of handling strong urges to smoke. Yet, less is known about whether intervention-related changes in these constructs predict long-term smoking outcomes. The current study aimed to examine changes in smoking urges, smoking cessation self-efficacy, and adaptive coping following a health-focused and cognitive-behavioral telephone-delivered smoking cessation treatment, and the association to smoking reduction during long-term, 12-month follow-up.

METHODS

Participants (n = 61) were daily smokers enrolled in a 12-week pilot trial that tested the efficacy of two different health-focused interventions with an adjunct of traditional telephone-delivered cessation counseling. Smoking urges, smoking cessation self-efficacy, and adaptive coping were assessed as baseline and immediately post-treatment. Average of seven-day cigarettes use per day were assessed at post-treatment, and 6- and 12-months post-baseline follow-up timepoints.

RESULTS

Smoking urges were significantly lower post-treatment, and smoking cessation self-efficacy and adaptive coping were significantly higher post-treatment, relative to baseline. After adjusting for baseline values, post-treatment smoking urges were significantly positively associated with cigarette use at post-treatment and 6-month follow-up. Post-treatment smoking cessation self-efficacy, but not adaptive coping, was significantly negatively predictive of cigarette use at post-treatment and 6- and 12-month follow-up timepoints. Post-treatment smoking cessation self-efficacy emerged as significant indirect predictor of the association between post-treatment smoking urges and post-treatment cigarette use.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that target smoking cessation self-efficacy may facilitate long-term reductions in smoking among daily smokers undergoing a quit attempt.

Combination Therapies for Smoking Cessation: A Hierarchical Bayesian Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT

Treatment guidelines recommend the use of combination therapies for smoking cessation, particularly behavioral therapy (BT) as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy. However, these guidelines rely on previous reviews with important limitations. This study's objective was to evaluate the efficacy of combination therapies compared with monotherapies, using the most rigorous data available.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs of pharmacotherapies, BTs, or both were conducted. The Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed databases were systematically searched from inception to July 2015. Inclusion was restricted to RCTs reporting biochemically validated abstinence at 12 months. Direct and indirect comparisons were made in 2015 between therapies using hierarchical Bayesian models.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The search identified 123 RCTs meeting inclusion criteria (60,774 participants), and data from 115 (57,851 participants) were meta-analyzed. Varenicline with BT increased abstinence more than other combinations of a pharmacotherapy with BT (varenicline versus bupropion: OR=1.56, 95% credible interval [CrI]=1.07, 2.34; varenicline versus nicotine patch: OR=1.65, 95% CrI=1.10, 2.51; varenicline versus short-acting nicotine-replacement therapies: OR=1.68, 95% CrI=1.15, 2.53). Adding BT to any pharmacotherapy compared with pharmacotherapy alone was inconclusive, owing to wide CrIs (OR=1.17, CrI=0.60, 2.12). Nicotine patch with short-acting nicotine-replacement therapy appears safe and increases abstinence versus nicotine-replacement monotherapy (OR=1.63, CrI=1.06, 3.03). Data are limited concerning other pharmacotherapy combinations and their safety and tolerability.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that combination therapy benefits may be less than previously thought. Combined with BT, varenicline increases abstinence more than other pharmacotherapy with BT combinations.

New Pharmacological Agents to Aid Smoking Cessation and Tobacco Harm Reduction: What Has Been Investigated, and What Is in the Pipeline?

A wide range of support is available to help smokers to quit and to aid attempts at harm reduction, including three first-line smoking cessation medications: nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and bupropion. Despite the efficacy of these, there is a continual need to diversify the range of medications so that the needs of tobacco users are met. This paper compares the first-line smoking cessation medications with (1) two variants of these existing products: new galenic formulations of varenicline and novel nicotine delivery devices; and (2) 24 alternative products: cytisine (novel outside Central and Eastern Europe), nortriptyline, other tricyclic antidepressants, electronic cigarettes, clonidine (an anxiolytic), other anxiolytics (e.g. buspirone), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, supplements (e.g. St John's wort), silver acetate, Nicobrevin, modafinil, venlafaxine, monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), opioid antagonists, nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) antagonists, glucose tablets, selective cannabinoid type 1 receptor antagonists, nicotine vaccines, drugs that affect gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) transmission, drugs that affect N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, dopamine agonists (e.g. levodopa), pioglitazone (Actos; OMS405), noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors and the weight management drug lorcaserin. Six 'ESCUSE' criteria-relative efficacy, relative safety, relative cost, relative use (overall impact of effective medication use), relative scope (ability to serve new groups of patients) and relative ease of use-are used. Many of these products are in the early stages of clinical trials; however, cytisine looks most promising in having established efficacy and safety with low cost. Electronic cigarettes have become very popular, appear to be efficacious and are safer than smoking, but issues of continued dependence and possible harms need to be considered.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medication to aid smoking cessation, compared to a minimal intervention or usual care, and to identify whether there are different effects depending on characteristics of the treatment setting, intervention, population treated, or take-up of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support for smoking cessation, compared to a control receiving usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by two authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by another.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three studies with a total of more than 25,000 participants met the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of studies recruited people in healthcare settings or with specific health needs. Most studies provided NRT. Behavioural support was typically provided by specialists in cessation counselling, who offered between four and eight contact sessions. The planned maximum duration of contact was typically more than 30 minutes but less than 300 minutes. Overall, studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, and findings were not sensitive to the exclusion of any of the six studies rated at high risk of bias in one domain. One large study (the Lung Health Study) contributed heterogeneity due to a substantially larger treatment effect than seen in other studies (RR 3.88, 95% CI 3.35 to 4.50). Since this study used a particularly intensive intervention which included extended availability of nicotine gum, multiple group sessions and long term maintenance and recycling contacts, the results may not be comparable with the interventions used in other studies, and hence it was not pooled in other analyses. Based on the remaining 52 studies (19,488 participants) there was high quality evidence (using GRADE) for a benefit of combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care, brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.68 to 1.98) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 36%).The pooled estimate for 43 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.18) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Compared to the first version of the review, previous weak evidence of differences in other subgroup analyses has disappeared. We did not detect differences between subgroups defined by motivation to quit, treatment provider, number or duration of support sessions, or take-up of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Updating this review with an additional 12 studies (5,000 participants) did not materially change the effect estimate. Although trials differed in the details of their populations and interventions, we did not detect any factors that modified treatment effects apart from the recruitment setting. We did not find evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects.

Additional behavioural support as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Effective pharmacotherapies are available to help people who are trying to stop smoking, but quitting can still be difficult and providing higher levels of behavioural support may increase success rates further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in May 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount of behavioural support. The intervention condition had to involve person-to-person contact. The control condition could receive less intensive personal contact, or just written information. We did not include studies that used a contact-matched control to evaluate differences between types or components of support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author prescreened search results and two authors agreed inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials. One author extracted data and another checked them.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically-validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria with over 18,000 participants in the relevant arms. There was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 18%) so we pooled all studies in the main analysis. There was evidence of a small but statistically significant benefit from more intensive support (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.24) for abstinence at longest follow-up. All but four of the included studies provided four or more sessions of support to the intervention group. Most trials used NRT. We did not detect significant effects for studies where the pharmacotherapy was nortriptyline (two trials) or varenicline (one trial), but this reflects the absence of evidence.In subgroup analyses, studies that provided at least four sessions of personal contact for the intervention and no personal contact for the control had slightly larger estimated effects (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45; 6 trials, 3762 participants), although a formal test for subgroup differences was not significant. Studies where all intervention counselling was via telephone (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41; 6 trials, 5311 participants) also had slightly larger effects, and the test for subgroup differences was significant, but this subgroup analysis was not prespecified. In this update, the benefit of providing additional behavioural support was similar for the subgroup of trials in which all participants, including controls, had at least 30 minutes of personal contact (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.32; 21 trials, 5166 participants); previously the evidence of benefit in this subgroup had been weaker. This subgroup was not prespecified and a test for subgroup differences was not significant. We judged the quality of the evidence to be high, using the GRADE approach. We judged a small number of trials to be at high risk of bias on one or more domains, but findings were not sensitive to their exclusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking has a small but important effect. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10% to 25%, based on a pooled estimate from 47 trials. Subgroup analysis suggests that the incremental benefit from more support is similar over a range of levels of baseline support.

Smoking cessation and reduction in people with chronic mental illness

The high prevalence of cigarette smoking and tobacco related morbidity and mortality in people with chronic mental illness is well documented. This review summarizes results from studies of smoking cessation treatments in people with schizophrenia, depression, anxiety disorders, and post-traumatic stress disorder. It also summarizes experimental studies aimed at identifying biopsychosocial mechanisms that underlie the high smoking rates seen in people with these disorders. Research indicates that smokers with chronic mental illness can quit with standard cessation approaches with minimal effects on psychiatric symptoms. Although some studies have noted high relapse rates, longer maintenance on pharmacotherapy reduces rates of relapse without untoward effects on psychiatric symptoms. Similar biopsychosocial mechanisms are thought to be involved in the initiation and persistence of smoking in patients with different disorders. An appreciation of these common factors may aid the development of novel tobacco treatments for people with chronic mental illness. Novel nicotine and tobacco products such as electronic cigarettes and very low nicotine content cigarettes may also be used to improve smoking cessation rates in people with chronic mental illness.

Feasibility of a group cessation program for co-smokers of cannabis and tobacco

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and effects of a group cessation program for cannabis and tobacco co-smokers.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Using a repeated-measures design with pre-, post- and six months follow-up assessments, feasibility (intervention utilisation, safety and acceptability) and changes in substance use behaviour and mental health were evaluated. The intervention consisted of five to six group sessions and was based on current treatment techniques (e.g. motivational interviewing, cognitive-behavioural therapy, and self-control training). In total, 77 adults who used cannabis at least once weekly and cigarettes or similar products at least once daily participated in the study.

RESULTS

Within nine months, the target sample size was reached. Treatment retention was 62.3%, and only three participants discontinued treatment due to severe problems (concentration problems, sleeping problems, depressive symptoms, and/or distorted perceptions). In total, 41.5% and 23.4% reported abstinence from cigarettes, cannabis or both at the end of treatment and the follow-up, respectively. The individual abstinence rates for cigarettes and cannabis were 32.5% and 23.4% (end of treatment) and 10.4% and 19.5% (follow-up), and 13% (end of treatment) and 5.2% (follow-up) achieved dual abstinence validated for tobacco abstinence. Over the study period, significant decreases in tobacco and cannabis use frequencies and significant improvements in additional outcomes (drinking problems, symptoms of cannabis use disorder, nicotine dependence, depression and anxiety) were achieved.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The evaluated intervention for co-smokers is feasible regarding recruitment, intervention retention and safety. The promising results regarding substance use and mental health support a randomised controlled trial to evaluate effectiveness.

Exercise and Counseling for Smoking Cessation in Smokers With Depressive Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial

OBJECTIVE

Despite various strategies to help smokers with depressive disorders to quit, the smoking relapse rate remains high. The purpose of this pilot study was to estimate the effects of adding an exercise and counseling intervention to standard smoking cessation treatment for smokers with depressive disorders. We hypothesized that the exercise and counseling intervention would lead to improved abstinence, reduced depressive symptoms, and increased physical activity.

METHODS

Seventy smokers with current depressive disorders were randomly assigned to standard smoking cessation treatment plus exercise and counseling (n = 35) or standard treatment plus a time-to-contact control intervention on health education (n = 35). Both programs involved 10 sessions over 8 weeks. The primary outcome was continuous abstinence since the quit date and was measured at week 8 (end of the intervention) and again at 12-, 24-, and 52-week follow-ups.

RESULTS

Nearly 60% of participants were female (n = 41), 38 (52.3%) were single, 37 (52.9%) had education beyond high school, and 32 (45.7%) met criteria for major depressive disorder or dysthymia. Participants in the two treatment conditions differed at baseline only in marital status (χ(2) = 4.28, df = 1, p =.04); and smoking abstinence self-efficacy, t(66) = -2.04, p =.04). The dropout rate did not differ significantly between groups and participants attended 82% and 75% of the intervention and control sessions, respectively. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that, at 12 weeks after the beginning of the intervention, continuous abstinence did not vary significantly between the intervention and control groups: 48.5% versus 28.5%, respectively, ORadj = 0.40, 95% CI [0.12-1.29], p =.12. There were no group differences in depressive symptoms, but the intervention group did outperform the control group on the 6-minute walking test (Mint = 624.84, SD = 8.17, vs. Mcon = 594.13, SD = 8.96, p =.015) and perceived physical control (Mint = 2.84, SD = 0.16, vs. Mcon = 2.27, SD = 0.18, p =.028). The sample was not large enough to ensure adequate statistical power.

CONCLUSIONS

This finding, while preliminary, suggests that an exercise and counseling intervention may yield better results than health education in improving smoking abstinence. This study is registered at www.clinincaltrials.gov under # NCT01401569.

Anxiety, depression, and cigarette smoking: a transdiagnostic vulnerability framework to understanding emotion-smoking comorbidity

Research into the comorbidity between emotional psychopathology and cigarette smoking has often focused upon anxiety and depression's manifest symptoms and syndromes, with limited theoretical and clinical advancement. This article presents a novel framework to understanding emotion-smoking comorbidity. We propose that transdiagnostic emotional vulnerabilities-core biobehavioral traits reflecting maladaptive responses to emotional states that underpin multiple types of emotional psychopathology-link various anxiety and depressive psychopathologies to smoking. This framework is applied in a review and synthesis of the empirical literature on 3 transdiagnostic emotional vulnerabilities implicated in smoking: (a) anhedonia (Anh; diminished pleasure/interest in response to rewards), (b) anxiety sensitivity (AS; fear of anxiety-related sensations), and (c) distress tolerance (DT; ability to withstand distressing states). We conclude that Anh, AS, and DT collectively (a) underpin multiple emotional psychopathologies, (b) amplify smoking's anticipated and actual affect-enhancing properties and other mechanisms underlying smoking, (c) promote progression across the smoking trajectory (i.e., initiation, escalation/progression, maintenance, cessation/relapse), and (d) are promising targets for smoking intervention. After existing gaps are identified, an integrative model of transdiagnostic processes linking emotional psychopathology to smoking is proposed. The model's key premise is that Anh amplifies smoking's anticipated and actual pleasure-enhancing effects, AS amplifies smoking's anxiolytic effects, and poor DT amplifies smoking's distress terminating effects. Collectively, these processes augment the reinforcing properties of smoking for individuals with emotional psychopathology to heighten risk of smoking initiation, progression, maintenance, cessation avoidance, and relapse. We conclude by drawing clinical and scientific implications from this framework that may generalize to other comorbidities.

The Role of Depression in the Uptake and Maintenance of Cigarette Smoking

Cigarette smoking and depression both account for significant morbidity, mortality, and economic burden. The prevalence of both smoking and depression increase across mid-to-late adolescence and show high rates of comorbidity. While little is known about why smoking is disproportionately higher among depressed adolescents than adolescents without depression, emerging research has begun to offer some initial insights. The high rates of comorbidity between depression and smoking emphasize the importance of identifying intervention targets to inform smoking prevention efforts for this high-risk group. Interventions during adolescence may lessen the prevalence of depression-prone adult smokers. Depression is over-represented among adult smokers and contributes to lower smoking cessation rates. Negative mood management and pharmacotherapy have been the central focus of smoking cessation interventions for depression-prone populations to date. Converging lines of research highlight novel smoking cessation targets such as the maintenance of positive mood and reward regulation. Smoking cessation research in depression-prone smokers is critical to identify efficacious treatments that will ultimately decrease the excess smoking burden for this population.

Reward and affective regulation in depression-prone smokers

BACKGROUND

There is a disproportionately high smoking prevalence among individuals who are prone to depression. While depression has been conceptualized as a disorder of dysregulated positive affect and disrupted reward processing, little research has been conducted to determine the role of smoking in these processes among depression-prone smokers.

METHODS

Depression-prone smokers (DP+; n = 34) and smokers not depression-prone (DP-; n = 49) underwent two laboratory sessions, one while smoking abstinent and one while smoking ad libitum, to assess the relative reinforcing value of smoking and reward sensitivity. Using experience sampling methods, participants completed self-report measures of subjective reward, positive affect, and negative affect across 3 days while smoking as usual and 3 days while smoking abstinent.

RESULTS

DP+ were two times more likely to work for cigarette puffs versus money in a progressive ratio, choice task (odds ratio 2.05; 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 4.06, p = .039) compared with DP-. Reward sensitivity as measured by the signal detection task did not yield any significant findings. Mixed models regressions revealed a three-way interaction (depression group, smoking phase, and time) for subjective reward, negative affect, and positive affect. For all three of these outcomes, the slopes for DP- and DP+ differed significantly from each other (ps < .05) and the effect of smoking (versus abstinence) over time was greater for DP+ than DP- smokers (ps < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that the effects of smoking on reward and positive affect regulation are specific to DP+ smokers and highlight novel targets for smoking cessation treatment in this population.

Effects of sequential fluoxetine and gender on prequit depressive symptoms, affect, craving, and quit day abstinence in smokers with elevated depressive symptoms: a growth curve modeling approach

Although the important roles of postquit affect and withdrawal symptoms in the process of smoking cessation have been well established, little is known about the relations between prequit affective trajectories and cessation outcome on the target quit date (TQD). This study examined whether a 16-week course of fluoxetine initiated 8 weeks prequit ("sequential" fluoxetine) improved TQD abstinence relative to placebo through its effects on prequit depressive symptoms, affect (withdrawal-relevant negative affect, general negative affect, and positive affect), and craving to smoke among 206 smokers with elevated depressed symptoms. The moderating effects of gender were also examined. In total, 83 smokers (40%) failed to achieve abstinence on TQD, with no difference between treatment conditions or gender. Overall structural equation models showed that fluoxetine had significant indirect effects on TQD abstinence through changes in prequit withdrawal-relevant negative affect and craving, but not depressive symptoms. However, multigroup analyses revealed gender differences. Sequential fluoxetine reduced prequit depressive symptoms, withdrawal-relevant negative affect, and craving only among women. Reduction in prequit depressive symptoms and craving among women, and withdrawal-relevant negative affect among men was associated with TQD abstinence. Moreover, exploratory analysis showed negative trend-level indirect effects of fluoxetine on TQD abstinence via increased side effects, regardless of gender. This study demonstrated the importance of considering gender when examining treatment efficacy. Identifying ways to further reduce prequit depressive symptoms and craving for women and withdrawal-relevant negative affect for men whereas alleviating side effects may help smokers with elevated depressed symptoms achieve the first smoking cessation milestone.

Cognitive deficits specific to depression-prone smokers during abstinence

Cigarette smoking is associated with a higher prevalence of depressive symptoms and individuals with elevated symptoms of depression have more difficulty quitting smoking. Depression is accompanied by cognitive deficits similar to those observed during nicotine withdrawal. Depressed smokers may smoke to alleviate these cognitive symptoms, which are exacerbated upon smoking abstinence. We hypothesized that following overnight abstinence, depression-prone smokers (DP+; past history and current depression symptoms; n = 34) would exhibit deficits in short-term and working memory, and experience greater attentional bias for affective stimuli, compared with smokers with no history or current symptoms of depression (DP-; n = 34). All participants underwent two laboratory sessions, once while smoking abstinent and once while smoking ad libitum (order counterbalanced, abstinence biochemically verified). Smokers completed measures of short-term memory (STM; word recognition task), working memory (N-back task), and attentional bias (Emotional Stroop task). The DP+ group showed declines in STM during abstinence compared with smoking, whereas the DP- group did not (interaction p = .02). There were small decrements in working memory accuracy during abstinence (p = .05), but this did not interact with depression status. During the Emotional Stroop task, the DP+ group showed an attentional bias toward positive versus neutral stimuli during abstinence compared with smoking (interaction p = .01). This study provides initial evidence that depressive symptoms may moderate abstinence-induced deficits in STM and shift attentional bias toward emotionally salient stimuli during abstinence. These cognitive changes may prompt relapse and may help identify novel targets for nicotine dependence treatment aimed at attenuating these deficits to improve cessation rates.

A Case Series of a Behavioral Activation−Enhanced Smoking Cessation Program for Inpatient Substance Users With Elevated Depressive Symptoms

Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease in the world and represents a critical public health problem. Smokers with substance use disorders and depressive symptoms have particular difficulties quitting smoking and represent an underserved population. The current study utilized a novel behavioral activation (BA)−enhanced smoking cessation treatment with three clients in residential substance use treatment who had elevated depressive symptoms. We present detailed descriptions of the treatment they received and the challenges they faced. Our clients, who received five individual BA-enhanced smoking cessation sessions and two follow-up booster sessions, benefited significantly from the BA treatment. Over an 8-week follow-up period, they did not relapse to smoking and experienced significant decreases in depressive symptoms. This suggests BA may be a beneficial treatment strategy for this particularly challenging population.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

There are at least three reasons to believe antidepressants might help in smoking cessation. Firstly, nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms or precipitate a major depressive episode and antidepressants may relieve these. Secondly, nicotine may have antidepressant effects that maintain smoking, and antidepressants may substitute for this effect. Finally, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways (e.g. inhibiting monoamine oxidase) or receptors (e.g. blockade of nicotinic-cholinergic receptors) underlying nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the effect and safety of antidepressant medications to aid long-term smoking cessation. The medications include bupropion; doxepin; fluoxetine; imipramine; lazabemide; moclobemide; nortriptyline; paroxetine; S-Adenosyl-L-Methionine (SAMe); selegiline; sertraline; St. John's wort; tryptophan; venlafaxine; and zimeledine.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register which includes reports of trials indexed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in July 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized trials comparing antidepressant medications to placebo or an alternative pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. We also included trials comparing different doses, using pharmacotherapy to prevent relapse or re-initiate smoking cessation or to help smokers reduce cigarette consumption. We excluded trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in patients smoking at baseline, expressed as a risk ratio (RR). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four new trials were identified since the 2009 update, bringing the total number of included trials to 90. There were 65 trials of bupropion and ten trials of nortriptyline, with the majority at low or unclear risk of bias. There was high quality evidence that, when used as the sole pharmacotherapy, bupropion significantly increased long-term cessation (44 trials, N = 13,728, risk ratio [RR] 1.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49 to 1.76). There was moderate quality evidence, limited by a relatively small number of trials and participants, that nortriptyline also significantly increased long-term cessation when used as the sole pharmacotherapy (six trials, N = 975, RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78). There is insufficient evidence that adding bupropion (12 trials, N = 3487, RR 1.9, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.51) or nortriptyline (4 trials, N = 1644, RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.55) to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) provides an additional long-term benefit. Based on a limited amount of data from direct comparisons, bupropion and nortriptyline appear to be equally effective and of similar efficacy to NRT (bupropion versus nortriptyline 3 trials, N = 417, RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; bupropion versus NRT 8 trials, N = 4096, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09; no direct comparisons between nortriptyline and NRT). Pooled results from four trials comparing bupropion to varenicline showed significantly lower quitting with bupropion than with varenicline (N = 1810, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.83). Meta-analyses did not detect a significant increase in the rate of serious adverse events amongst participants taking bupropion, though the confidence interval only narrowly missed statistical significance (33 trials, N = 9631, RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.69). There is a risk of about 1 in 1000 of seizures associated with bupropion use. Bupropion has been associated with suicide risk, but whether this is causal is unclear. Nortriptyline has the potential for serious side-effects, but none have been seen in the few small trials for smoking cessation.There was no evidence of a significant effect for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors on their own (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.22, N = 1594; 2 trials fluoxetine, 1 paroxetine, 1 sertraline) or as an adjunct to NRT (3 trials of fluoxetine, N = 466, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.82). Significant effects were also not detected for monoamine oxidase inhibitors (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.79, N = 827; 1 trial moclobemide, 5 selegiline), the atypical antidepressant venlafaxine (1 trial, N = 147, RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.32), the herbal therapy St John's wort (hypericum) (2 trials, N = 261, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.53), or the dietary supplement SAMe (1 trial, N = 120, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.07).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The antidepressants bupropion and nortriptyline aid long-term smoking cessation. Adverse events with either medication appear to rarely be serious or lead to stopping medication. Evidence suggests that the mode of action of bupropion and nortriptyline is independent of their antidepressant effect and that they are of similar efficacy to nicotine replacement. Evidence also suggests that bupropion is less effective than varenicline, but further research is needed to confirm this finding. Evidence suggests that neither selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (e.g. fluoxetine) nor monoamine oxidase inhibitors aid cessation.

Positive Psychotherapy for Smoking Cessation: Treatment Development, Feasibility and Preliminary Results

Low positive and high negative affect predict low rates of smoking abstinence among smokers making a quit attempt. Positive Psychotherapy can both increase positive affect and decrease negative affect and therefore may be a useful adjunct to behavioral smoking counseling. The purpose of the present study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a Positive Psychotherapy for Smoking Cessation (PPT-S) intervention that integrates standard smoking cessation counseling with nicotine patch and a package of positive psychology interventions. We delivered PPT-S to 19 smokers who were low in positive affect at baseline. Rates of session attendance and satisfaction with treatment were high, and most participants reported using and benefiting from the positive psychology interventions. Almost one-third of participants (31.6%) sustained smoking abstinence for 6 months after their quit date. Future studies to assess the relative efficacy of PPT-S compared to standard smoking cessation treatment are warranted.

Randomized trial of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion and NRT plus bupropion for smoking cessation: effectiveness in clinical practice

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Bupropion was introduced for smoking cessation following a pivotal trial showing that it gave improved efficacy over the nicotine patch and also suggesting combination treatment was beneficial. We tested in clinical practice for an effectiveness difference between bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), whether the combination improves effectiveness and whether either treatment might be more beneficial for certain subgroups of smokers.

DESIGN

Open-label randomized controlled trial with 6-month follow-up.

SETTING

Four UK National Health Service (NHS) smoking cessation clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers (n = 1071) received seven weekly behavioural support sessions and were randomized to an NRT product of their choice (n = 418), bupropion (n = 409) or NRT plus bupropion (n = 244).

MEASURES

The primary outcome was self-reported cessation over 6 months, with biochemical verification at 1 and 6 months. Also measured were baseline demographics, health history, smoking characteristics and unwanted events during treatment.

FINDINGS

Abstinence rates for bupropion (27.9%) and NRT (24.2%) were not significantly different (odds ratio = 1.21, 95% confidence interval = 0.883-1.67), and the combination rate (24.2%) was similar to that for either treatment alone. There was some evidence that the relative effectiveness of bupropion and NRT differed according to depression (χ(2) = 2.86, P = 0.091), with bupropion appearing more beneficial than NRT in those with a history of depression (29.8 versus 18.5%). Several unwanted symptoms were more common with bupropion.

CONCLUSION

There is no difference in smoking cessation effectiveness among bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy and their combination when used with behavioural support in clinical practice. There is some evidence that bupropion is more beneficial than nicotine replacement therapy for smokers with a history of depression.

Anxiety and depressive symptoms and affective patterns of tobacco withdrawal

BACKGROUND

The complex concordance and discordance across and within anxiety and depressive symptoms complicates understanding of the relation between emotional symptoms and manifestations of tobacco withdrawal. The goal of this study was to parse the broad variation in anxiety and depressive symptoms into conceptually discrete components and explore their relative predictive influence on affective patterns of acute tobacco withdrawal.

METHODS

We employed a within-participant experimentally manipulated tobacco abstinence design involving: (i) a baseline visit at which past-week depression and anxiety symptoms were assessed and (ii) two counterbalanced experimental visits-one after ad lib smoking and one after 16-h of tobacco abstinence-at which state affect was assessed. Participants were community-dwelling adults (N=187) smoking 10+ cig/day for at least two years without an active mood disorder.

RESULTS

Anxiety-related general distress symptoms (e.g., tension, nervousness) predicted greater abstinence-induced increases in various negative affective states but not changes in positive affect (βs .17-.33). Depression-related general distress symptoms (e.g., sadness, worthlessness) predicted greater abstinence-induced increases in acute depressed affect only (βs .24-.25). Anhedonic symptoms (e.g., diminished interest, lack of pleasure) predicted larger abstinence-induced decreases in acute positive affect only (βs .17-.20). Anxious Arousal symptoms (e.g., shakiness, heart racing) predicted larger abstinence-induced increases in fatigue and depressive affect (βs .15-.24).

CONCLUSION

Different components of anxiety and depressive symptoms are associated with unique affective patterns of acute tobacco withdrawal. These results provide insight into the affective mechanisms underlying tobacco dependence and could inform smoking cessation treatment approaches tailored to individuals with emotional distress.

Influence of a dopamine pathway additive genetic efficacy score on smoking cessation: results from two randomized clinical trials of bupropion

AIMS

To evaluate the associations of treatment and an additive genetic efficacy score (AGES) based on dopamine functional polymorphisms with time to first smoking lapse and point prevalence abstinence at end of treatment among participants enrolled into two randomized clinical trials of smoking cessation therapies.

DESIGN

Double-blind pharmacogenetic efficacy trials randomizing participants to active or placebo bupropion. Study 1 also randomized participants to cognitive-behavioral smoking cessation treatment (CBT) or this treatment with CBT for depression. Study 2 provided standardized behavioural support.

SETTING

Two hospital-affiliated clinics (study 1), and two university-affiliated clinics (study 2).

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 792 self-identified white treatment-seeking smokers aged ≥18 years smoking ≥10 cigarettes per day over the last year.

MEASUREMENTS

Age, gender, Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence, dopamine pathway genotypes (rs1800497 [ANKK1 E713K], rs4680 [COMT V158M], DRD4 exon 3 variable number of tandem repeats polymorphism [DRD4 VNTR], SLC6A3,3' VNTR) analyzed both separately and as part of an AGES, time to first lapse and point prevalence abstinence at end of treatment.

FINDINGS

Significant associations of the AGES (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06-1.14, P = 0.009) and of the DRD4 VNTR (HR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.17-1.41, P = 0.0073) were observed with time to first lapse. A significant AGES by pharmacotherapy interaction was observed (β standard error = -0.18 [0.07], P = 0.016), such that AGES predicted risk for time to first lapse only for individuals randomized to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

A score based on functional polymorphisms relating to dopamine pathways appears to predict lapse to smoking following a quit attempt, and the association is mitigated in smokers using bupropion.

The relationship between nicotine cessation and mental disorders in a nationally representative sample

The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between Axis I and II mental disorders, quality of life, and nicotine dependence cessation in a nationally representative sample. Data came from Wave 2 of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), a nationally representative survey of adults in the United States (N = 34,653). People who met DSM-IV criteria for nicotine dependence previously but who had abstained from nicotine in the last year (nicotine cessation) were compared to people currently dependent on nicotine as well as lifetime abstainers using multivariate logistic regression. Outcomes of interest included DSM-IV Axis I and II mental disorders, treatment seeking for mental disorders, and quality of life measures. In adjusted models, individuals who ceased nicotine use in the last year were less likely to have past-year mood [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.82, p < 0.001] and substance use disorders (AOR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.52-0.82, p < 0.001) compared to those with current nicotine dependence. They were also less likely to have narcissistic and borderline personality disorders. Compared to those with current nicotine dependence, cessation was associated with an improved quality of life, both physically (beta = 1.65; standard error 0.40, p < 0.001) and mentally (beta = 2.17, standard error 0.39, p < 0.001). In conclusion, nicotine dependence cessation was associated with reduced likelihood of several mental disorders and a higher quality of life compared to those with current nicotine dependence. These findings provide further support for public health policy aimed at smoking cessation.

Efficacy of sequential use of fluoxetine for smoking cessation in elevated depressive symptom smokers

INTRODUCTION

Fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, was examined in the treatment of smokers with elevated depressive symptoms. Specifically, this randomized, open-label clinical trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of three logical, real-world alternatives for providing smoking cessation treatment to smokers with elevated depressive symptoms.

METHODS

In a sample of 216 smokers (mean Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale score = 11.41), participants were randomly assigned to (a) transdermal nicotine patch (TNP), beginning on quit date and continuing for 8 weeks thereafter; (b) standard administration of antidepressant pharmacotherapy with fluoxetine (20mg), beginning 2 weeks before quit date and continuing for 8 weeks following quit date + TNP (ST-FLUOX); or (c) sequential administration of fluoxetine (20mg), beginning 8 weeks before quit date and continuing for 8 weeks following quit date + TNP (SEQ-FLUOX). All participants received 5 sessions of brief behavioral smoking cessation treatment.

RESULTS

Findings indicate that SEQ-FLUOX resulted in significantly higher point prevalence abstinence than ST-FLUOX at 6-month follow-up (OR = 2.35; 95% CI = 1.10-5.02, p < .03), a difference that was reduced at the 12-month assessment. Furthermore, sequential fluoxetine treatment, compared with standard fluoxetine treatment, resulted in significantly lower levels of depressive symptoms throughout smoking cessation treatment (p < .025) and significantly lower nicotine withdrawal-related negative affect (p < .004) immediately after quitting.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that if one is going to prescribe fluoxetine for smoking cessation in smokers with elevated depressive symptoms, it is best to begin prescribing fluoxetine well before the target quit date.

Factors associated with smoking among operating engineers

Although disparities in smoking prevalence between white collar workers and blue collar workers have been documented, reasons for these disparities have not been well studied. The objective of this study was to determine variables associated with smoking among Operating Engineers, using the Health Promotion Model as a guide. With cross-sectional data from a convenience sample of 498 Operating Engineers, logistic regression was used to determine personal and health behaviors associated with smoking. Approximately 29% of Operating Engineers currently smoked cigarettes. Multivariate analyses showed that younger age, unmarried, problem drinking, physical inactivity, and a lower body mass index were associated with smoking. Operating Engineers were at high risk of smoking, and smokers were more likely to engage in other risky health behaviors, which supports bundled health behavior interventions.

Smoking cessation interventions for smokers with current or past depression

BACKGROUND

Individuals with current or past depression are often smokers who are more nicotine dependent, more likely to suffer from negative mood changes after nicotine withdrawal, and more likely to relapse to smoking after quitting than the general population, which contributes to their higher morbidity and mortality from smoking-related illnesses. It remains unclear what interventions can help them to quit smoking.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions, with and without specific mood management components, in smokers with current or past depression.

SEARCH METHODS

In April 2013, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, other reviews, and asked experts for information on trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Criteria for including studies in this review were that they had to be randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing smoking cessation interventions in adult smokers with current or past depression. Depression was defined as major depression or depressive symptoms. We included studies where subgroups of participants with depression were identified, either pre-stated or post hoc. The outcome was abstinence from smoking after six months or longer follow-up. We preferred prolonged or continuous abstinence and biochemically validated abstinence where available.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

When possible, we estimated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with the Mantel-Haenszel method (fixed-effect model). We also performed subgroup analyses, by length of follow-up, depression measurement, depression group in study, antidepressant use, published or unpublished data, format of intervention, level of behavioural support, additional pharmacotherapy, type of antidepressant medication, and additional nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-nine RCTs were included of which 33 trials investigated smoking cessation interventions with specific mood management components for depression. In smokers with current depression, meta-analysis showed a significant positive effect for adding psychosocial mood management to a standard smoking cessation intervention when compared with standard smoking cessation intervention alone (11 trials, N = 1844, RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.92). In smokers with past depression we found a similar effect (13 trials, N = 1496, RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.77). Meta-analysis resulted in a positive effect, although not significant, for adding bupropion compared with placebo in smokers with current depression (5 trials, N = 410, RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.27). There were not enough trial data to evaluate the effectiveness of fluoxetine and paroxetine for smokers with current depression. Bupropion (4 trials, N = 404, RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.31 to 3.18) might significantly increase long-term cessation among smokers with past depression when compared with placebo, but the evidence for bupropion is relatively weak due to the small number of studies and the post hoc subgroups for all the studies. There were not enough trial data to evaluate the effectiveness of fluoxetine, nortriptyline, paroxetine, selegiline, and sertraline in smokers with past depression.Twenty-three of the 49 trials investigated smoking cessation interventions without specific components for depression. There was heterogeneity between the trials which compared psychosocial interventions with standard smoking cessation counselling for both smokers with current and past depression. Therefore, we did not estimate a pooled effect. One trial compared nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) versus placebo in smokers with current depression and found a positive, although not significant, effect (N = 196, RR 2.64, 95% CI 0.93 to 7.45). Meta-analysis also found a positive, although not significant, effect for NRT versus placebo in smokers with past depression (3 trials, N = 432, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.60). Three trials compared other pharmacotherapy versus placebo and six trials compared other interventions in smokers with current or past depression. Due to heterogeneity between the interventions of the included trials we did not estimate pooled effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that adding a psychosocial mood management component to a standard smoking cessation intervention increases long-term cessation rates in smokers with both current and past depression when compared with the standard intervention alone. Pooled results from four trials suggest that use of bupropion may increase long-term cessation in smokers with past depression. There was no evidence found for the use of bupropion in smokers with current depression. There was not enough evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of the other antidepressants in smokers with current or past depression. There was also not enough evidence to evaluate the group of trials that investigated interventions without specific mood management components for depression, including NRT and psychosocial interventions.

Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor variation and response to smoking cessation therapies

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) with 7-day point prevalence abstinence (abstinence) in randomized clinical trials of smoking cessation therapies in individuals grouped by pharmacotherapy randomization to inform the development of personalized smoking cessation therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We quantified association of four SNPs at three nAChRs with abstinence in eight randomized clinical trials. Participants were 2633 outpatient treatment-seeking, self-identified European ancestry individuals smoking at least 10 cigarettes/day, recruited through advertisement, prescribed pharmacotherapy, and provided with behavioral therapy. Interventions included nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, varenicline, placebo (PLA), or combined NRT and bupropion, and five modes of group and individual behavioral therapy. Outcome measures tested in multivariate logistic regression were end of treatment and 6 month (6MO) abstinence, with demographic, behavioral, and genetic covariates.

RESULTS

'Risk' alleles previously associated with smoking heaviness were significantly (P<0.05) associated with reduced abstinence in the PLA pharmacotherapy group (PG) at 6MO [for rs588765, odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 0.41 (0.17-0.99)], and at end of treatment and at 6MO [for rs1051730, 0.42 (0.19-0.93) and 0.31 (0.12-0.80)], and with increased abstinence in the NRT PG at 6MO [for rs588765, 2.07 (1.11-3.87) and for rs1051730, 2.54 (1.29-4.99)]. We observed significant heterogeneity in rs1051730 effects (F=2.48, P=0.021) between PGs.

CONCLUSION

chr15q25.1 nAChR SNP risk alleles for smoking heaviness significantly increase relapse with PLA treatment and significantly increase abstinence with NRT. These SNP-PG associations require replication in independent samples for validation, and testing in larger sample sizes to evaluate whether similar effects occur in other PGs.

Two decades of smoking cessation treatment research on smokers with depression: 1990-2010

INTRODUCTION

Adults with depression smoke at higher rates than other adults leaving a large segment of this population, who already incur increased health-related risks, vulnerable to the enormous harmful consequences of smoking. Yet, the impact that depression has on smoking cessation is not clear due to the mixed results of past research. The primary aims of this review were to synthesize the research examining the relationship of depression to smoking cessation outcomes over a 20-year period, to examine the gender and racial composition of these studies, and to identify directions for future research.

METHODS

Potential articles published between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2010 were identified through a MEDLINE search of the terms "clinical trial," "depression," and "smoking cessation." 68 studies used all three terms and met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The majority of studies examined either a past diagnosis of major depression or current depression symptoms. Within the few studies that examined the interaction of gender and depression on smoking cessation, depression had a greater impact on treatment outcomes for women than men. No study reported examining the interactive impact of race and depression on treatment outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although attention to the relationship of depression and smoking cessation outcomes has increased over the past 20 years, little information exists to inform a treatment approach for smokers with Current Major Depressive Disorder, Dysthymia, and Minor Depression and few studies report gender and racial differences in the relationship of depression and smoking cessation outcomes, thus suggesting major areas for targeted research.

Smoking cessation, depression, and exercise: empirical evidence, clinical needs, and mechanisms

INTRODUCTION

Smoking is significantly more common among persons with major depressive disorders (MDDs). Furthermore, smokers with MDD report more difficulties when they quit smoking (greater withdrawal symptoms, higher probability of relapse). The aim of this narrative review is to describe research on exercise and depression and exercise and smoking cessation.

METHODS

We have critically reviewed various smoking cessation intervention programs for depressive smokers examining (a) the protective effect of exercise against relapse for smokers with MDD and (b) the benefits of exercise for treating withdrawal symptoms. We have also reviewed the current literature investigating the mechanisms between exercise-depression and exercise-smoking.

RESULTS

This review suggests that exercise may reduce depressive symptoms following cessation and provide a useful strategy for managing withdrawal symptoms in smokers with MDD. Various psychological, biological, and genetic hypotheses have been tested (e.g., distraction hypothesis, expectations hypothesis, cortisol hypothesis) and few have obtained significant results.

CONCLUSIONS

It might be beneficial for health professionals to recommend physical activity and promote supervised exercise sessions for smokers with MDD during smoking cessation. Future research needs to examine relationships between exercise, smoking, and depression with transdisciplinary and ecological momentary assessment.

Past major depression and smoking cessation outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis update

AIMS

To update our prior meta-analysis that showed past major depression (MD+) to be unrelated to smoking cessation outcome.

METHODS

Eligible trials included 14 from our original review and 28 identified through an updated systematic review (2000-2009). We coded for assessment of past MD, exclusion for recent MD episode (MDE; ≤6 months versus no exclusion), duration/modality of cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT; face-to-face versus self-help) and other factors. To minimize influence of experimental treatments that may selectively benefit MD+ smokers we analyzed placebo/lowest intensity control arms only. Study-specific ORs for the effect of past MD on short-term (≤3 months) and long-term (≥6 months) abstinence were estimated and combined using random effects. Two-way interaction models of past MD with study methodology and treatment factors were used to evaluate hypothesized moderators of the past MD-abstinence association.

RESULTS

MD+ smokers had 17% lower odds of short-term abstinence (n = 35, OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.72-0.95, P = 0.009) and 19% lower odds of long-term abstinence (n = 38, OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.67-0.97, P = 0.023) than MD- smokers after excluding the sole study of varenicline because of its antidepressant properties. The association between past MD and abstinence was affected by methodological (recent MDE exclusion, type of MD assessment) and treatment (CBT modality) factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Past major depression has a modest adverse effect on abstinence during and after smoking cessation treatment. An increased focus on the identification of effective treatments or treatment adaptations that eliminate this disparity in smoking cessation for MD+ smokers is needed.

Behavioural interventions as adjuncts to pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Effective pharmacotherapies are available to help people who are trying to stop smoking, but quitting can still be difficult and providing higher levels of behavioural support may increase success rates further.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of increasing the intensity of behavioural support for people using smoking cessation medications, and to assess whether there are different effects depending on the type of pharmacotherapy, or the amount of support in each condition.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2012 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline that evaluated the addition of personal support or compared two or more intensities of behavioural support.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which all participants received pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation and conditions differed by the amount of behavioural support. Controls could receive less intensive personal contact, or just written information. We did not include studies that used a contact matched control to evaluate differences between types or components of support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by both authors. Data were extracted by one author and checked by the other.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria with over 15,000 participants in the relevant arms. There was very little evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 3%) so all studies were pooled in the main analysis. There was evidence of a small but statistically significant benefit from more intensive support (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.24) for abstinence at longest follow-up. All but two of the included studies provided four or more sessions of support. Most trials used nicotine replacement therapy. Significant effects were not detected for studies where the pharmacotherapy was nortriptyline (two trials) or varenicline (one trial), but this reflects the absence of evidence. In subgroup analyses, studies that provided at least four sessions of personal contact for the intervention and no personal contact for the control had slightly larger effects (six trials, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45), as did studies where all intervention counselling was via telephone (six trials, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.41). Weaker evidence for a benefit of providing additional behavioural support was seen in the trials where all participants, including those in the control condition, had at least 30 minutes of personal contact (18 trials, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.25). None of the differences between subgroups were significant, and the last two subgroup analyses were not prespecified. No trials were judged at high risk of bias on any domain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Providing behavioural support in person or via telephone for people using pharmacotherapy to stop smoking has a small but important effect. Increasing the amount of behavioural support is likely to increase the chance of success by about 10 to 25%, based on a pooled estimate from 38 trials. A subgroup analysis of a small number of trials suggests the benefit could be a little greater when the contrast is between a no contact control and a behavioural intervention that provides at least four sessions of contact. Subgroup analysis also suggests that there may be a smaller incremental benefit from providing even more intensive support via more or longer sessions over and above some personal contact.

The DRD4 exon III VNTR, bupropion, and associations with prospective abstinence

INTRODUCTION

DRD4 Exon III Variable Number of Tandem Repeat (VNTR) variation was found to interact with bupropion to influence prospective smoking abstinence, in a recently published longitudinal analyses of N = 331 individuals from a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of bupropion and intensive cognitive-behavioral mood management therapy.

METHODS

We used univariate, multivariate, and longitudinal logistic regression to evaluate gene, treatment, time, and interaction effects on point prevalence and continuous abstinence at end of treatment, 6 months, and 12 months, respectively, in N = 416 European ancestry participants in a double-blind pharmacogenetic efficacy trial randomizing participants to active or placebo bupropion. Participants received 10 weeks of pharmacotherapy and 7 sessions of behavioral therapy, with a target quit date 2 weeks after initiating both therapies. VNTR genotypes were coded with the long allele dominant resulting in 4 analysis categories. Covariates included demographics, dependence measures, depressive symptoms, and genetic ancestry. We also performed genotype-stratified secondary analyses.

RESULTS

We observed significant effects of time in longitudinal analyses of both abstinence outcomes, of treatment in individuals with VNTR long allele genotypes for both abstinence outcomes, and of covariates in some analyses. We observed non-significantly larger differences in active versus placebo effect sizes in individuals with VNTR long allele genotypes than in individuals without the VNTR long allele, in the directions previously reported.

CONCLUSIONS

VNTR by treatment interaction differences between these and previous analyses may be attributable to insufficient size of the replication sample. Analyses of multiple randomized clinical trials will enable identification and validation of factors mediating treatment response.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medication to aid smoking cessation, compared to a minimal intervention or usual care, and to identify whether there are different effects depending on characteristics of the treatment setting, intervention, population treated, or take-up of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2012 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support for smoking cessation, compared to a control receiving usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by both authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by the other.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one studies with a total of more than 20,000 participants met the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of studies recruited people in healthcare settings or with specific health needs. Most studies provided NRT. Behavioural support was typically provided by specialists in cessation counselling, who offered between four and eight contact sessions. The planned maximum duration of contact was typically more than 30 minutes but less than 300 minutes. Overall, studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, and findings were not sensitive to the exclusion of any of the three studies rated at high risk of bias in one domain. One large study (the Lung Health Study) contributed heterogeneity due to a substantially larger treatment effect than seen in other studies (RR 3.88, 95% CI 3.35 to 4.50). Since this study used a particularly intensive intervention which included extended availability of nicotine gum, multiple group sessions and long term maintenance and recycling contacts, the results may not be comparable with the interventions used in other studies, and hence it was not pooled in other analyses. Based on the remaining 40 studies (15,021 participants) there was good evidence for a benefit of combination pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.00) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 40%). The pooled estimate for 31 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.81 to 2.34) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Pooled estimates were lower in a subgroup of trials where the behavioural intervention was provided by specialist counsellors versus trials where counselling was linked to usual care (specialist: RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.55 to 1.93, 28 trials; usual provider: RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.91 to 3.02, 8 trials) but this was largely attributable to the small effect size in two trials using specialist counsellors where the take-up of the planned intervention was low, and one usual provider trial with alarge effect. There was little indirect evidence that the relative effect of an intervention differed according to whether participants in a trial were required to be motivated to make a quit attempt or not. There was only weak evidence that studies offering more sessions had larger effects and there was not clear evidence that increasing the duration of contact increased the effect, but there was more evidence of a dose-response relationship when analyses were limited to trials where the take-up of treatment was high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Further trials would be unlikely to change this conclusion. We did not find strong evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects but this could be because intensive interventions are less likely to be delivered in full.

The relationship of major depressive disorder and gender to changes in smoking for current and former smokers: longitudinal evaluation in the US population

AIMS

Although depression and smoking are correlated highly, the relationship of major depressive disorder (MDD) to smoking cessation and relapse remains unclear. This study compared changes in smoking for current and former smokers with and without current and life-time MDD over a 3-year period.

DESIGN

Analysis of two waves of longitudinal data from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (wave 1, 2001-02; wave 2, 2004-05).

SETTING

Data were collected through face-to-face interviews from non-institutionalized United States civilians, aged 18 years and older, in 50 states and the District of Columbia.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 11 973 adults (54% male) classified as current or former daily smokers at wave 1 and completed wave 2.

MEASUREMENTS

Classification as current or former smokers at wave 1 and wave 2.

FINDINGS

Smoking status remained stable for most participants. Wave 1 current daily smokers with current MDD [odds ratio (OR) = 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03, 1.85] and life-time MDD (OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.15, 2.01) were more likely than those without the respective diagnosis to report continued smoking at wave 2. Wave 1 former daily smokers with current MDD (OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.26, 0.76) were less likely to report continued abstinence at wave 2. None of the gender × MDD diagnosis interactions were significant. Patterns of results remained similar when analyses were limited to smokers with nicotine dependence.

CONCLUSIONS

Current and life-time major depressive disorders are associated with a lower likelihood of quitting smoking and current major depressive disorder is associated with greater likelihood of smoking relapse.

Sustained-release bupropion for smoking cessation in a Chinese sample: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

Bupropion is a first-line pharmacological aid for smoking cessation; however, no clinical trials have been conducted in a Chinese population.

METHODS

We enrolled 248 smokers in a hospital-based, randomized, smoking cessation trial conducted at four outpatient centers in Beijing. A total of 123 participants received an 8-week course of sustained-release bupropion (Bup-SR) and 125 participants received 8 weeks of placebo. All participants received brief education and counseling on smoking cessation. We determined rates of abstinence and smoking reduction based on chemical verification and self-report at 8 and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

At the end of the medication treatment (8 weeks) and at the end of the trial (12 weeks), the abstinence rates for Bup-SR were 29.3% and 39.8%, respectively, and 10.4% and 8.0% for placebo, respectively (both p < .001). Bup-SR was also superior to placebo in reducing cigarettes per day and urinary cotinine levels.

CONCLUSION

Bup-SR is efficacious for smoking cessation in healthy Chinese patients treated in the outpatient setting. It is well tolerated with a few mild side effects.

Racial/ethnic differences in the longitudinal progression of co-occurring negative affect and cigarette use: from adolescence to young adulthood

AIMS

This study examined the longitudinal progression of the co-occurrence of cigarette use and negative affect among the general population of U.S. adolescents and young adults and between racial/ethnic groups.

METHODS

Data for this study consisted of Waves 4, 6, and 8 of the NLSY97 longitudinal study containing a nationally representative sample of U.S. adolescents and young adults. A total of 7979 adolescents (Mean age at Wave 4=17.98, SD=1.44, 49% female) were included in the analyses. To investigate the co-morbidity between negative affect and cigarette use, a latent factor of negative affect and single indicator of cigarette consumption were examined at each wave. A three wave Bivariate Autoregressive Cross-Lagged Effect Model was estimated to test the conjoint trajectory of negative affect and smoking.

RESULTS

For all racial/ethnic groups prior negative affect status influenced future negative affect between waves and prior negative affect was positively related to increases in smoking in subsequent waves. The longitudinal trajectory of negative affect for the three racial/ethnic groups was the same, but racial/ethnic group differences were observed in the strength of the longitudinal relationship between previous and future cigarette use. Specifically, the following racial/ethnic differences were observed, even after controlling for the effect of SES; White young adults were found to exhibit the strongest association between cigarette use in the first two waves, followed by Hispanic individuals and lastly by African Americans. In the last two waves, African American young adults were found to have the strongest association between cigarette use at the latter two waves, followed by White individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

Both negative affect and cigarette consumption influence each other during the transition between late adolescence and young adulthood but the magnitude of the associations between cigarettes use across waves differed between racial/ethnic groups. Implications for prevention and treatment programs include considering both cigarette use and negative affect as two factors that jointly impact each other and that should be targeted simultaneously.