A randomized clinical trial of nicotine lozenge for smokeless tobacco use

Nicotine replacement therapy and oral health: a network meta-analysis of adverse effects in randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs) are the primary pharmacological option for smokers looking to quit. However, they can lead to oral health issues, including aphthous ulcers, gastric irritation resulting in tooth wear, mouth irritation, soreness, and dryness, which may decrease patient adherence. Dentists should be integrated into the tobacco cessation team to prevent, detect, and manage these oral side effects associated with NRT use. Therefore, the objective of this network meta-analysis is to examine the relationship between different forms of NRTs and their oral side effects.

METHODOLOGY

Databases were screened for literature and full text articles were obtained for eligible studies. Relevant data was extracted. NMA Studio was used to perform random-effects network meta-analysis to generate mixed treatment comparison pooled estimates from odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The forest plot was generated, and the network diagram was drawn for key comparisons. The OR and 95% CI were estimated from the data on the number of patients that reported the oral side effects in the included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 21 articles were included. The Risk of Bias assessment revealed a moderate to low risk across all domains for the included studies. The mixed treatment comparison pooled estimates indicated that nicotine gum was significantly associated with the occurrence of aphthous ulcers [2.25 (1.03, 4.90)] and gastric reflux/vomiting [4.40 (1.51, 12.80)]. Additionally, the results showed that nasal spray significantly caused mouth/throat irritation [5.37 (1.03, 27.92)] and taste disturbance [4.87 (2.83, 8.37)] in comparison to tested NRT interventions.

CONCLUSION

Significant oral side effects are associated with NRT use, as demonstrated in this study. Dentists should implement tobacco cessation methods in their practices, including pharmacotherapy, to effectively monitor these patients. Continuous education and certification programs should be mandatory for dentists who want to practice tobacco cessation. This should also be included in the undergraduate dental curriculum to help dentists gain confidence in prescribing NRT. Standard evidence-based guidelines should be published to outline possible methods for encouraging tobacco cessation in dental settings.

Oral side effects of locally delivered nicotine replacement therapy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy is the first choice pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. Oral side effects caused due to NRT lead to discontinuation of treatment. The objective of this meta-analysis was to look for the certainty of evidence on the number of patients that reported oral side effects due to the use of NRT.

METHOD

Eligible studies were selected and data extraction was carried out independently into a pre-tested data extraction form. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Tool. The heterogeneity between the studies was assessed using Chi-square and I2 tests. Mean difference and Odds ratio at 95% confidence interval were the effect estimates. GRADE working group approach was used to assess the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies were included with moderate to low risk of bias. The pooled estimates revealed a statistically significant number of patients developed mouth or throat irritation (2.54 [1.23, 5.25]), or oral soreness (2.22 [1.40, 3.55]) or gastric reflux or vomiting (1.97 [1.34, 2.90]) due to NRT.

CONCLUSION

It is important to understand that significant implications are caused due to NRT, on oral health. All patients on NRT must adhere to their regular dentist visits and must check their oral mucosa before initiating NRT.

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.

Betel Quid Addiction: A Review of Its Addiction Mechanisms and Pharmacological Management as an Emerging Modality for Habit Cessation

Areca-nut (AN) and added smokeless-tobacco (SLT) are considered agents that may cause addiction to betel-quid (BQ). However, the primary addictive substance in AN is not clearly understood. Objective: The present review evaluates possible addictive chemicals in AN with their mechanisms of action for progression to BQ dependence, as it is essential to overcome barriers in BQ cessation. It also identifies innovative treatment modalities in BQ cessation including the scope for research on pharmacotherapy using Monoamine-oxidase Inhibitors, Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors and Norepinephrine Dopamine Reuptake Inhibitors. Methods: This is a narrative review on addictive properties of BQ and trials undertaken to promote cessation of SLT or AN use. Results: Twenty interventional studies, three by behavioral therapy and seventeen using pharmacotherapy were reviewed. There was heterogeneity in reported follow up times, most studies reporting data at 12 weeks with abstinence rates of 45-55% for SLT cessation and at 8 weeks with abstinence rates around 35% for AN cessation. Conclusion: Even though literature reveals a few cessation programs through behavioral support for BQ addiction, its success has been limited in certain instances mainly due to addictive properties of AN, resulting in withdrawal and relapse. Hence, in line with pharmacotherapy in tobacco smoking cessation, potential pharmacological agents to assist in cessation of SLT and AN require more attention. Several clinical trials for SLT cessation have been carried out with varying levels of success using Nicotine Replacement Therapy and Varenicline while trials on antidepressants for SLT and AN cessation are also emerging.

Smokeless tobacco cessation interventions: A systematic review

Background & objectives:

Smokeless tobacco (SLT) consumption is a global health issue with about 350 million users and numerous adverse health consequences like oral cancer and myocardial disorders. Hence, cessation of SLT use is as essential as smoking cessation. An update on the available literature on SLT cessation intervention studies is provided here.

Methods:

Through an extensive literature search on SLT cessation intervention studies, using keywords such as smokeless tobacco, cessation, interventions, quitlines, brief advice, nicotine replacement therapy, nicotine gum, nicotine lozenge, nicotine patch, bupropion, varenicline, mHealth, etc., 59 eligible studies were selected. Furthermore, efficacy of the interventions was assessed from the reported risk ratios (RRs) [confidence intervals (CIs)] and quit rates.

Results:

Studies were conducted in Scandinavia, India, United Kingdom, Pakistan and the United States of America, with variable follow up periods of one month to 10 years. Behavioural interventions alone showed high efficacy in SLT cessation; most studies were conducted among adults and showed positive effects, i.e. RR [CI] 0.87 [0.7, 1.09] to 3.84 [2.33, 6.33], quit rate between 9-51.5 per cent, at six months. Regular telephone support/quitlines also proved beneficial. Among pharmacological modalities, nicotine lozenges and varenicline proved efficacious in SLT cessation.

Interpretation & conclusions:

Globally, there is limited information available on SLT cessation intervention trials, research on which must be encouraged, especially in the low-resource, high SLT burden countries; behavioural interventions are most suitable for such settings. Appropriate training/sensitization of healthcare professionals, and school-based SLT use prevention and cessation programmes need to be encouraged.

Nicotine replacement therapy versus control for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), including gum, transdermal patch, intranasal spray and inhaled and oral preparations, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to placebo or 'no NRT' interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search is July 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in people motivated to quit which compared NRT to placebo or to no treatment. We excluded trials that did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months, except for those in pregnancy (where less than six months, these were excluded from the main analysis). We recorded adverse events from included and excluded studies that compared NRT with placebo. Studies comparing different types, durations, and doses of NRT, and studies comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered in separate reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment 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) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 136 studies; 133 with 64,640 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The majority of studies were conducted in adults and had similar numbers of men and women. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day at the start of the studies. We judged the evidence to be of high quality; we judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias but restricting the analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the result. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.61). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 56 trials, 22,581 participants) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.75, 51 trials, 25,754 participants) for nicotine patch; 1.52 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.74, 8 trials, 4439 participants) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials, 976 participants) for nicotine inhalator; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials, 887 participants) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the definition of abstinence, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. A subset of six trials conducted in pregnant women found a statistically significant benefit of NRT on abstinence close to the time of delivery (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.69; 2129 participants); in the four trials that followed up participants post-partum the result was no longer statistically significant (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.86; 1675 participants). Adverse events from using NRT were related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. Attempts to quantitatively synthesize the incidence of various adverse effects were hindered by extensive variation in reporting the nature, timing and duration of symptoms. The odds ratio (OR) of chest pains or palpitations for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.88 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.57, 15 included and excluded trials, 11,074 participants). However, chest pains and palpitations were rare in both groups and serious adverse events were extremely rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that all of the licensed forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhalator and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50% to 60%, regardless of setting, and further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect. The relative effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT. NRT often causes minor irritation of the site through which it is administered, and in rare cases can cause non-ischaemic chest pain and palpitations.

Interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation

BACKGROUND

Use of smokeless tobacco (ST) can lead to tobacco dependence and long-term use can lead to health problems including periodontal disease, cancer, and cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of behavioural and pharmacologic interventions for the treatment of ST use.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialised register in June 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of behavioural or pharmacological interventions to help users of ST to quit with follow-up of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We summarised outcomes as risk ratios (RRs). For subgroups of trials with similar types of intervention and without substantial statistical heterogeneity, we estimated pooled effects using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 34 trials that met the inclusion criteria, of which nine were new for this update, representing over 16,000 participants. There was moderate quality evidence from two studies suggesting that varenicline increases ST abstinence rates (risk ratio [RR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.68, 507 participants). Pooled results from two trials of bupropion did not detect a benefit of treatment at six months or longer (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.44, 293 participants) but the confidence interval was wide. Neither nicotine patch (five trials, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.37, 1083 participants) nor nicotine gum (two trials, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.43, 310 participants) increased abstinence. Pooling five studies of nicotine lozenges did increase tobacco abstinence (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.59, 1529 participants) but confidence in this estimate is low as the result is sensitive to the exclusion of three trials which did not use a placebo control.Statistical heterogeneity was evident among the 17 trials of behavioural interventions: eight of them reported statistically and clinically significant benefits; six suggested benefit but with wide CIs and no statistical significance; and three had similar intervention and control quit rates and relatively narrow CIs. Heterogeneity was not explained by study design (individual or cluster randomization), whether participants were selected for interest in quitting, or specific intervention components. In a post hoc subgroup analysis, trials of behavioural interventions incorporating telephone support, with or without oral examination and feedback, were associated with larger effect sizes, but oral examination and feedback alone were not associated with benefit.In one trial an interactive website increased abstinence more than a static website. One trial comparing immediate cessation using nicotine patch versus a reduction approach using either nicotine lozenge or brand switching showed greater success for the abrupt cessation group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline, nicotine lozenges and behavioural interventions may help ST users to quit. Confidence in results for nicotine lozenges is limited. Confidence in the size of effect from behavioural interventions is limited because the components of behavioural interventions that contribute to their impact are not clear.

Randomized Controlled Trial of the Combined Effects of Web and Quitline Interventions for Smokeless Tobacco Cessation

BACKGROUND

Use of smokeless tobacco (moist snuff and chewing tobacco) is a significant public health problem but smokeless tobacco users have few resources to help them quit. Web programs and telephone-based programs (Quitlines) have been shown to be effective for smoking cessation. We evaluate the effectiveness of a Web program, a Quitline, and the combination of the two for smokeless users recruited via the Web.

OBJECTIVES

To test whether offering both a Web and Quitline intervention for smokeless tobacco users results in significantly better long-term tobacco abstinence outcomes than offering either intervention alone; to test whether the offer of Web or Quitline results in better outcome than a self-help manual only Control condition; and to report the usage and satisfaction of the interventions when offered alone or combined.

METHODS

Smokeless tobacco users (N= 1,683) wanting to quit were recruited online and randomly offered one of four treatment conditions in a 2×2 design: Web Only, Quitline Only, Web + Quitline, and Control (printed self-help guide). Point-prevalence all tobacco abstinence was assessed at 3- and 6-months post enrollment.

RESULTS

69% of participants completed both the 3- and 6-month assessments. There was no significant additive or synergistic effect of combining the two interventions for Complete Case or the more rigorous Intent To Treat (ITT) analyses. Significant simple effects were detected, individually the interventions were more efficacious than the control in achieving repeated 7-day point prevalence all tobacco abstinence: Web (ITT, OR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.03, 1.94, p = .033) and Quitline (ITT: OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.13, 2.11, p = .007). Participants were more likely to complete a Quitline call when offered only the Quitline intervention (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = .054, .093, p = .013), the number of website visits and duration did not differ when offered alone or in combination with Quitline. Rates of program helpfulness (p <.05) and satisfaction (p <.05) were higher for those offered both interventions versus offered only quitline.

CONCLUSION

Combining Web and Quitline interventions did not result in additive or synergistic effects, as have been found for smoking. Both interventions were more effective than a self-help control condition in helping motivated smokeless tobacco users quit tobacco. Intervention usage and satisfaction were related to the amount intervention content offered. Usage of the Quitline intervention decreased when offered in combination, though rates of helpfulness and recommendations were higher when offered in combination.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00820495; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00820495.

Randomized trial of nicotine lozenges and phone counseling for smokeless tobacco cessation

INTRODUCTION

Relatively few treatment programs have been developed specifically for smokeless tobacco (ST) users who want to quit. Their results suggest that self-help materials, telephone counseling, and nicotine lozenges are efficacious. This study provides the first direct examination of the separate and combined effects of telephone counseling and lozenges.

METHODS

We recruited ST users online (N = 1067) and randomly assigned them to 1 of 3 conditions: (a) a lozenge group (n = 356), who were mailed 4-mg nicotine lozenges; (b) a coach calls group (n = 354), who were offered 3 coaching phone calls; or (c) a lozenge + coach calls group (N = 357), who received both lozenges and coaching calls. Additionally, all participants were mailed self-help materials. Self-reported tobacco abstinence was assessed at 3 and 6 months after randomization.

RESULTS

Complete-case and intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses for all tobacco abstinence were performed at 3 months, 6 months, and both 3 and 6 months (repeated point prevalence). ITT analyses revealed a highly similar result: the lozenge + coach calls condition was significantly more successful in encouraging tobacco abstinence than either the lozenge group or the coach calls group, which did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining nicotine lozenges and phone counseling significantly increased tobacco abstinence rates compared with either intervention alone, whereas coach calls and lozenges were equivalent. The study confirms the high tobacco abstinence rates for self-help ST cessation interventions and offers guidance to providing tobacco treatment to ST users.

A double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial of varenicline for smokeless tobacco dependence in India

INTRODUCTION

The rate of smokeless tobacco use in India is 20%; its use causes serious health problems, and no trial has assessed behavioral or pharmacological treatments for this public health concern. This trial evaluated varenicline for treating smokeless tobacco dependence in India.

METHODS

This was a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial of varenicline (12 weeks, 1mg, twice per day) with 237 smokeless tobacco users in India. All participants received behavioral counseling. Outcomes included self-reported and biochemically verified abstinence at the end of treatment (EOT), lapse and recovery events, safety, and medication adherence.

RESULTS

Self-reported EOT abstinence was significantly greater for varenicline (43%) versus placebo (31%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.6, 95% CI = 1.2-4.2, p = .009). Biochemically confirmed EOT abstinence was greater for varenicline versus placebo (25.2% vs. 19.5%), but this was not statistically different (AOR = 1.6, 95% CI = 0.84-3.1, p = .15). Compared with placebo, varenicline did not reduce the risk for a lapse (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.69-1.1, p = .14), but it did increase the likelihood of recovery to abstinence (HR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.02-1.4, p = .02). Greater adherence increased EOT cessation rates for varenicline (39% vs. 18%, p = .003) but not for placebo (28% vs. 14%, p = .06). There were no significant differences between varenicline and placebo in rate of side effects, serious adverse events, hypertension, or stopping or reducing medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline is safe for treating smokeless tobacco dependence in India, and further examination of this medication for this important public health problem is warranted.

A randomized phase II clinical trial of high-dose nicotine patch therapy for smokeless tobacco users

INTRODUCTION

Nicotine patch therapy has not been shown to be efficacious for increasing long-term (≥6 months) tobacco abstinence rates among smokeless tobacco (ST) users. Higher doses of nicotine patch therapy may be needed to increase tobacco abstinence rates in this population of tobacco users.

METHODS

We randomized ST users who used ≥3 cans/pouches per week to either 8 weeks of high-dose nicotine patch therapy (42mg/day) or matching placebo patch. Subjects were followed for 6 months after randomization.

RESULTS

Fifty-two subjects were randomized. Compared with placebo, high-dose nicotine patch therapy was associated with significantly higher prolonged tobacco abstinence at end-of-treatment (44% vs. 22%, odds ratio [OR] = 2.7, p = .050) and 3 months (40% vs. 19%, OR = 2.9, p = .047). High-dose nicotine patch therapy was associated with significant weight gain attenuation among tobacco abstinence subjects at 3 months (p = .013) and 6 months (p = .018). Compared with placebo, high-dose nicotine patch therapy was associated with nonsignificantly lower nicotine withdrawal scores. Adverse events were not significantly increased with high-dose nicotine patch therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

High-dose nicotine patch therapy is safe and increases short-term tobacco abstinence rates among ST users who use ≥3 cans/pouches per week. High-dose nicotine patch therapy is associated with significant long-term attenuation of weight gain. Future studies to investigate the long-term efficacy of high-dose nicotine patch therapy and the comparative efficacy of this approach compared with standard nicotine patch doses for ST users seems warranted.

Smokeless tobacco cessation in South Asian communities: a multi-centre prospective cohort study

AIM

To evaluate smokeless tobacco cessation in communities of South Asian origin.

DESIGN

Multi-centre prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Three tobacco cessation services offering specialist smokeless tobacco cessation outreach clinic support to South Asians (Bangladeshi, Indian and Pakistani) resident in England.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 239 South Asian participants seeking to stop smokeless tobacco use between November 2010 and December 2011.

MEASUREMENTS

Socio-demographics, tobacco use and dependence, self-reported abstinence at 4 weeks and satisfaction measures.

FINDINGS

Participants' mean age was 45 [standard deviation (SD) = 13] years, were predominantly female (76%), of Bangladeshi origin (74%), either home carers (53%) or not working (29%). Sixty-three per cent were recruited from community locations, 21% through a clinical contact and 16% through friends and family. Mean daily number of smokeless tobacco intakes was 10 (SD = 7) and the mean dependence score was 4.5 (SD = 1.9). Sixty-three per cent of participants achieved continuous abstinence 4 weeks after quitting. Using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) versus not using it [OR = 3.47, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.25, 9.62] and below median (≤ 8) daily smokeless tobacco intakes (OR = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.07, 3.40) predicted successful abstinence.

CONCLUSION

South Asian smokeless tobacco users resident in England accessing services to help them stop appear to have short-term success rates comparable with smokers attending stop-smoking services, with higher success rates being reported by those using nicotine replacement therapy.

Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were: To determine the effect of NRT compared to placebo in aiding smoking cessation, and to consider whether there is a difference in effect for the different forms of NRT (chewing gum, transdermal patches, oral and nasal sprays, inhalers and tablets/lozenges) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes. To determine whether the effect is influenced by the dosage, form and timing of use of NRT; the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; or the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated. To determine whether combinations of NRT are more likely to lead to successful quitting than one type alone. To determine whether NRT is more or less likely to lead to successful quitting compared to other pharmacotherapies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search July 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or to no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the type of participants, the dose, duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up. 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) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 150 trials; 117 with over 50,000 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The risk ratio (RR) of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.60 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53 to 1.68). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 55 trials) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.52 to 1.78, 43 trials) for nicotine patch; 1.95 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.36, 6 trials) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials) for nicotine inhaler; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials) for nicotine nasal spray. One trial of oral spray had an RR of 2.48 (95% CI 1.24 to 4.94). The effects were largely independent of the duration of therapy, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. The effect was similar in a small group of studies that aimed to assess use of NRT obtained without a prescription. In highly dependent smokers there was a significant benefit of 4 mg gum compared with 2 mg gum, but weaker evidence of a benefit from higher doses of patch. There was evidence that combining a nicotine patch with a rapid delivery form of NRT was more effective than a single type of NRT (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.51, 9 trials). The RR for NRT used for a short period prior to the quit date was 1.18 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.40, 8 trials), just missing statistical significance, though the efficacy increased when we pooled only patch trials and when we removed one trial in which confounding was likely. Five studies directly compared NRT to a non-nicotine pharmacotherapy, bupropion; there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.18). A combination of NRT and bupropion was more effective than bupropion alone (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.45, 4 trials). Adverse effects from using NRT are related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. There is no evidence that NRT increases the risk of heart attacks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All of the commercially available forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhaler and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50 to 70%, regardless of setting. The effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT.

Predictors of successful short-term tobacco cessation in UK resident female Bangladeshi tobacco chewers

AIM

  To identify predictors of short-term smokeless tobacco cessation in Bangladeshi women resident in the United Kingdom.

DESIGN

  Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

  A tobacco cessation service offering culturally tailored smokeless tobacco cessation support.

PARTICIPANTS

  A total of 419 Bangladeshi women chewing paan with tobacco.

MEASUREMENTS

  Demographics, tobacco use and dependence and cessation attempt process and outcomes.

FINDINGS

  Client mean age was 48.92 [95% confidence interval (CI) 47.5, 50.34] years and the mean area social deprivation score was 3.65 (95% CI 3.33, 3.97). Mean daily smokeless tobacco intakes, as paan, was 9.96 (95% CI 9.22, 10.7); 69.8% were recruited from primary care, 78.8% received behavioural support and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and the remainder behavioural support alone. Self-reported 4-week continuous abstinence was 58.3%, predicted by NRT use [odds ratio (OR) = 4.93, 95% CI 2.02, 12.00], community recruitment (OR = 1.84, 95% CI 1.01, 3.35) and relatively lower social deprivation (IMD) score (OR = 1.98, 95% CI 1.18, 3.33).

CONCLUSION

  Bangladeshi women in the UK attending clinics to help cessation of paan with tobacco appear to be more likely to be successful in the short term if they use nicotine replacement therapy, are recruited via the community and have relatively lower levels of social deprivation.

Comparing an immediate cessation versus reduction approach to smokeless tobacco cessation

INTRODUCTION

Relatively few studies have investigated pharmacological or behavioral treatment of smokeless tobacco (ST) users who do not have immediate quit plans. In this study, we compared a reduction treatment approach with an immediate cessation approach in a population of ST users who reported no immediate plans to quit.

METHODS

Subjects randomly assigned to the immediate cessation condition set a quit date soon after enrollment and were offered 2 weeks of nicotine patch therapy to help in their cessation efforts. Subjects assigned to the ST reduction group were provided with their choice of either 4 mg nicotine lozenge or ST brand switching to help them reduce their ST use or levels of nicotine exposure, respectively. Quit date was 6 weeks after the onset of treatment. Follow-up was at 12 weeks and 26 weeks postenrollment and 26 weeks postquit.

RESULTS

Both 7-day point prevalence abstinence and prolonged abstinence rates following the quit date were significantly higher in the immediate cessation group versus the reduction group at 12 and 26 weeks (all p values ≤ .04) and for prolonged abstinence at 6 months postquit (p = .002). Significant reductions in ST use among nonquitters were observed for both groups (p < .0001) with no differences between groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that immediate cessation with an established quit date resulted in greater cessation success than a gradual reduction approach among ST users who do not have an immediate quit plan but are motivated to quit.

Pharmacological interventions for the treatment of smokeless tobacco use

Smokeless tobacco (SLT) is used in a variety of forms throughout the world. Long-term SLT use is associated with adverse health consequences. Effective pharmacotherapies are needed to treat SLT users who want to achieve tobacco abstinence. In the current review, we discuss the pharmacological interventions identified in a recent meta-analysis of interventions for SLT users, with inclusion of additional articles identified by searching PubMed up to August 2011. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) has been demonstrated to increase short-term tobacco abstinence rates and to alleviate craving and withdrawal symptoms among SLT users trying to quit. Bupropion sustained release has been shown to decrease craving and attenuate post-cessation weight gain among SLT users trying to quit. Varenicline is the only available medication demonstrated to increase long-term (≥6 months) tobacco abstinence rates among SLT users. Overall, findings from studies investigating pharmacotherapies for SLT users have been relatively disappointing. SLT reduction interventions may hold some promise for increasing abstinence rates among SLT users not interested in quitting. Additional investigations of higher dose NRT and combination pharmacotherapy are needed to advance the treatment of SLT users.

[Smokeless tobacco]

Use of smokeless tobacco (ST) (chewing tobacco and snuff) can lead to a number of consequences detrimental to health. ST rapidly delivers high doses of nicotine, which can lead to dependence and is also a source of carcinogenic nitrosamines. Changes usually develop in the mouth area where the ST is most often placed. Non-malignant oral lesions include leuko-oedema, hyperkeratotic lesions of the oral mucosa and localised periodontal disease. Oral premalignant lesions are leukoplakia, erythroplakia, submucosal fibrosis and lichen planus. Betel chewing, with or without tobacco, may increase the incidence of oral cancer. There is conflicting evidence with regard to snuff users about the risk of oral and gastro-oesophageal cancer. ST use is a risk factor for pancreatic cancer and may increase the risk of fatal myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke. During pregnancy, ST is associated with an increase in pre-eclampsia, preterm delivery and stillbirth. Nicotine replacement therapy and bupropion reduce withdrawal symptoms and tobacco craving during ST cessation. However, they have not been shown to help long-term abstinence. Information concerning the potential hazards of ST products should be incorporated into educational programmes to discourage its use and to help users to quit. Smokeless tobacco is not recommended to help smoking cessation.

A pilot study of the efficacy of varenicline for the treatment of smokeless tobacco users in Midwestern United States

INTRODUCTION

Long-term smokeless tobacco (ST) use is known to increase the risk for oropharyngeal cancer, heart attack, and stroke. Varenicline has recently been demonstrated to increase ST abstinence rates among Swedish snus users. We have conducted a pilot study to obtain preliminary evidence of efficacy of varenicline for the treatment of ST users in Midwestern United States.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled Phase II clinical trial to evaluate the potential efficacy of 12 weeks of varenicline for the treatment of ST users with an a priori decision rule that a 1-tailed p < .20 for the comparison of the primary endpoint was evidence to conclude that future studies were warranted. Subjects were followed for 6 months after randomization.

RESULTS

We randomized 76 subjects (38 varenicline and 38 placebo). Subjects were similar at baseline with a mean age of 41 years, and all were male. The biochemically confirmed point prevalence tobacco abstinence rates at end of treatment were 55.3% for varenicline and 42.1% for placebo (p = .126) and 47.4% and 31.6% (p = .080), respectively, at 6 months. Point prevalence ST abstinence rates at end of treatment for varenicline were 57.9% and 42.1% for placebo (p = .084) and 57.9% and 31.6% (p = .011), respectively, at 6 months. Varenicline was associated with significantly less craving compared with placebo. Varenicline was well tolerated with nausea and sleep disturbance being the most common side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline decreases craving and may be effective for increasing tobacco abstinence rates among ST users. Larger trials may be warranted to confirm these results.

[Smokeless tobacco]

The use of snus (smokeless tobacco) can be detrimental to health. Containing carcinogenic nitrosamines (Swedish snus do not contain nitrosamine). Snus delivers rapidly high doses of nicotine which can lead to dependence. It do not induce bronchial carcinoma differently smoked tobacco. Lesions usually develop in the area of the mouth where the snus is placed. Non-malignant oral lesions include leukoedema, hyperkeratotic lesions of the oral mucosa and localised periodontal disease. The most frequently occurring premalignant lesion is leukoplakia. Studies reveal conflicting evidence about the risk of oral and gastroesophageal cancer with regard to snus users. However, the use of snus has proved to be a risk factor in developing pancreatic cancer and increases the risk of fatal myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke. During pregnancy, snus is associated with an increased risk of pre-eclampsia and premature delivery. Nicotine substitution therapy and bupropion and varenicline reduce withdrawal symptoms and tobacco craving during snus cessation. However, they have not been shown to assist in long-term abstinence. Information concerning potential hazards of using snus products must be incorporated into health educational programmes in order to discourage its use. Snus is not a recommended product to help in stopping to smoke.

Interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation

BACKGROUND

Use of smokeless tobacco (ST) can lead to nicotine addiction and long-term use can lead to health problems including periodontal disease, cancer, and cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of behavioural and pharmacologic interventions for the treatment of ST use.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Dissertation Abstracts Online, and Scopus. Date of last search: October 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of behavioural or pharmacological interventions to help users of ST to quit with follow up of at least six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. We summarised as odds ratios. For subgroups of trials with similar types of intervention and without substantial statistical heterogeneity, we estimated pooled effects using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method.

MAIN RESULTS

Data from one study suggest that varenicline increases ST abstinence rates (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.6, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.08 to 2.36) among Swedish snus users.Two trials of bupropion SR did not detect a benefit of treatment at six months or longer (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.57). Nicotine replacement therapy (patch, gum, and lozenge) was not observed to increase tobacco abstinence rates (OR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.42). There was statistical heterogeneity among the 14 trials of behavioural interventions; seven of them reported statistically and clinically significant benefits, four suggested benefit but with wide CIs, whilst two had similar intervention and control quit rates and relatively narrow CIs. Heterogeneity was not explained by the design (individual or cluster randomization), whether participants were selected for interest in quitting, or specific intervention components. Most trials included either telephone counselling, an oral examination and feedback about any ST induced mucosal changes, or both. In a post-hoc subgroup analysis there was some evidence that behavioural interventions which include telephone counselling might increase abstinence rates more than interventions with less contact. In one trial an interactive website increased abstinence more than a static website.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline and behavioural interventions may help ST users to quit. Behavioural interventions incorporating telephone counselling or an oral examination are likely to increase abstinence rates.

Stopping smokeless tobacco with varenicline: randomised double blind placebo controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of varenicline (a licensed cigarette smoking cessation aid) in helping users of smokeless tobacco to quit.

DESIGN

Double blind, placebo controlled, parallel group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Medical clinics (mostly primary care) in Norway and Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

Men and women aged ≥18 who used smokeless tobacco at least eight times a day, with no abstinence period over three months within one year before screening, who wanted to quit all tobacco use. Participants were excluded if they used any other form of tobacco (except smokeless tobacco) or medication to stop smoking within three months of screening or had any pre-existing medical or psychiatric condition.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline 1 mg twice daily (titrated during the first week) or placebo for 12 weeks, with 14 weeks' follow-up after treatment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was the four week continuous abstinence rate at the end of treatment (weeks 9-12) confirmed with cotinine concentration. A secondary end point was continuous abstinence rate for weeks 9-26. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated.

RESULTS

431 participants (213 varenicline; 218 placebo) were randomised and received at least one dose of study drug. Participants' demographics and baseline use of smokeless tobacco were similar (89% (189) and 90% (196), respectively, were men; mean age in both groups was 43.9; participants used smokeless tobacco products about 15 times a day, and about 80% first used smokeless tobacco within 30 minutes after awakening). Continuous abstinence rate at week 9-12 was higher in the varenicline group than the placebo group (59% (125) v 39% (85); relative risk 1.60, 95% confidence interval 1.32 to 1.87, P<0.001; risk difference 20%; number needed to treat 5). The advantage of varenicline over placebo persisted through 14 weeks of follow-up (continuous abstinence rate at week 9-26 was 45% (95) v 34% (73); relative risk 1.42, 1.08 to 1.79, P=0.012; risk difference 11%; number needed to treat 9). The most common adverse events in the varenicline group compared with the placebo group were nausea (35% (74) v 6% (14)), fatigue (10% (22) v 7% (15)), headache (10% (22) v 9% (20)), and sleep disorder (10% (22) v 7% (15)). Few adverse events led to discontinuation of treatment (9% (19) and 4% (9), respectively), and serious adverse events occurred in two (1%) and three (1%) participants, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Varenicline can help people to give up smokeless tobacco and has an acceptable safety profile. The response rate in the placebo group in this study was high, suggesting a population less resistant to treatment than smokers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00717093.