1
|
Streck JM, Rigotti NA, Livingstone-Banks J, Tindle HA, Clair C, Munafò MR, Sterling-Maisel C, Hartmann-Boyce J. Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2024; 5:CD001837. [PMID: 38770804 PMCID: PMC11106804 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd001837.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/22/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In 2020, 32.6% of the world's population used tobacco. Smoking contributes to many illnesses that require hospitalisation. A hospital admission may prompt a quit attempt. Initiating smoking cessation treatment, such as pharmacotherapy and/or counselling, in hospitals may be an effective preventive health strategy. Pharmacotherapies work to reduce withdrawal/craving and counselling provides behavioural skills for quitting smoking. This review updates the evidence on interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, to understand the most effective smoking cessation treatment methods for hospitalised smokers. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of any type of smoking cessation programme for patients admitted to an acute care hospital. SEARCH METHODS We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 7 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised and quasi-randomised studies of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients admitted to hospital quit. Interventions had to start in the hospital (including at discharge), and people had to have smoked within the last month. We excluded studies in psychiatric, substance and rehabilitation centres, as well as studies that did not measure abstinence at six months or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from smoking assessed at least six months after discharge or the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically-validated rates where reported. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS We included 82 studies (74 RCTs) that included 42,273 participants in the review (71 studies, 37,237 participants included in the meta-analyses); 36 studies are new to this update. We rated 10 studies as being at low risk of bias overall (low risk in all domains assessed), 48 at high risk of bias overall (high risk in at least one domain), and the remaining 24 at unclear risk. Cessation counselling versus no counselling, grouped by intensity of intervention Hospitalised patients who received smoking cessation counselling that began in the hospital and continued for more than a month after discharge had higher quit rates than patients who received no counselling in the hospital or following hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.49; 28 studies, 8234 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might account for an additional 76 quitters in every 1000 participants (95% CI 51 to 103). The evidence was uncertain (very low-certainty) about the effects of counselling interventions of less intensity or shorter duration (in-hospital only counselling ≤ 15 minutes: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1417 participants; and in-hospital contact plus follow-up counselling support for ≤ 1 month: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 7 studies, 4627 participants) versus no counselling. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that smoking cessation counselling for at least 15 minutes in the hospital without post-discharge support led to higher quit rates than no counselling in the hospital (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.58; 12 studies, 4432 participants). Pharmacotherapy versus placebo or no pharmacotherapy Nicotine replacement therapy helped more patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.67; 8 studies, 3838 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 62 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 9 to 126). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision (as CI encompassed the possibility of no difference), that varenicline helped more hospitalised patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 4 studies, 829 participants). Evidence for bupropion was low-certainty; the point estimate indicated a modest benefit at best, but CIs were wide and incorporated clinically significant harm and clinically significant benefit (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43, 4 studies, 872 participants). Hospital-only intervention versus intervention that continues after hospital discharge Patients offered both smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge had higher quit rates than patients offered counselling in hospital but not offered post-discharge support (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.38; 7 studies, 5610 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 34 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 to 55). Post-discharge interventions offering real-time counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.60, 8 studies, 2299 participants; low certainty-evidence) and those offering unscheduled counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 2 studies, 1598 participants; very low-certainty evidence) may have little to no effect on quit rates compared to control. Telephone quitlines versus control To provide post-discharge support, hospitals may refer patients to community-based telephone quitlines. Both comparisons relating to these interventions had wide CIs encompassing both possible harm and possible benefit, and were judged to be of very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias (post-discharge telephone counselling versus quitline referral: RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.51; 3 studies, 3260 participants; quitline referral versus control: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.96; 2 studies, 1870 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Offering hospitalised patients smoking cessation counselling beginning in hospital and continuing for over one month after discharge increases quit rates, compared to no hospital intervention. Counselling provided only in hospital, without post-discharge support, may have a modest impact on quit rates, but evidence is less certain. When all patients receive counselling in the hospital, high-certainty evidence indicates that providing both counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge increases quit rates compared to no post-discharge intervention. Starting nicotine replacement or varenicline in hospitalised patients helps more patients to quit smoking than a placebo or no medication, though evidence for varenicline is only moderate-certainty due to imprecision. There is less evidence of benefit for bupropion in this setting. Some of our evidence was limited by imprecision (bupropion versus placebo and varenicline versus placebo), risk of bias, and inconsistency related to heterogeneity. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies to implement, disseminate, and sustain interventions, and to ensure cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy initiated in the hospital is sustained after discharge.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joanna M Streck
- Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (MA), USA
- Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital / Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Nancy A Rigotti
- Tobacco Research and Treatment Center, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital / Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | | | - Hilary A Tindle
- Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Carole Clair
- Center for Primary Care and Public Health, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Marcus R Munafò
- School of Experimental Psychology and MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Department of Health Promotion and Policy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Abstract
Background Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e‐cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow‐up period of six months from baseline. Data collection and analysis We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow‐up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel‐Haenszel fixed‐effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs). Main results We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk. We found moderate‐certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I2 = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low‐certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I2 = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate‐certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I2 = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I2 = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low‐certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm. Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline found no clear evidence of difference in quit rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.26; I2 = 65%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I2 = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low‐certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I2 = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision. We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I2 = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low‐certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I2 = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual‐form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low‐certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit. Authors' conclusions Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual‐form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be no difference or a benefit from either medication for quitting smoking. Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard‐dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e‐cigarettes for smoking cessation. Can medications like varenicline and cytisine (nicotine receptor partial agonists) help people to stop smoking and do they cause unwanted effects? Key messages · Varenicline can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. Evidence shows it works better than bupropion and using only one type of nicotine replacement therapy (e.g. only patches). Quit rates might be similar to using more than one type of nicotine replacement therapy at the same time (e.g. patches and gum together). · Cytisine can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. It may work as well as varenicline, but future evidence may show that while it helps, it is not quite as helpful as varenicline. · Future studies should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other stop‐smoking medications, and should also investigate giving cytisine or varenicline at different doses and for different lengths of time. What are 'nicotine receptor partial agonists'? Smoking tobacco is extremely bad for people’s health. For people who smoke, quitting is the best thing they can do to improve their health. Many people find it difficult to quit smoking. Nicotine receptor partial agonists (NRPAs) are a type of medication used to help people to stop smoking. They help to reduce the withdrawal symptoms people experience when they stop smoking, like cravings and unpleasant mood changes. They also reduce the pleasure people usually experience when they smoke. The most widely‐available treatment in this drug type is varenicline. Cytisine is another, similar medication. They may cause unwanted effects such as feeling sick (nausea) and other stomach problems, difficulties sleeping, abnormal dreams, and headache. They may also lead to potentially serious unwanted effects, such as suicidal thoughts, heart problems and raised blood pressure. What did we want to find out? We wanted to find out if using NRPAs can help people to quit smoking, and if they cause unwanted effects. We wanted to know: · how many people stopped smoking for at least 6 months; and · how many people had unwanted effects. What did we do? We searched for studies that investigated NRPAs used to help people quit smoking. People in the studies had to be chosen at random to receive an NRPA, or another NRPA, placebo (medication like the NRPA but with no active ingredients) or no treatment. They had to be adult tobacco smokers who wanted to stop smoking. What did we find? We found 75 studies that compared NRPAs with: · placebo or no medicine; · nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches or gum; · bupropion (another medicine to help people stop smoking); · another NRPA; · e‐cigarettes. The USA hosted the most studies (28 studies). Other studies took place in a range of countries across the world, some in several countries. Main results People are more likely to stop smoking for at least six months using varenicline than using placebo (41 studies, 17,395 people), bupropion (9 studies, 7560 people), or just one type of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches alone (11 studies, 7572 people). They may be just as likely to quit as people using two or more kinds of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches and gum together (5 studies, 2344 people). Cytisine probably helps more people to stop smoking than placebo (4 studies, 4623 people) and may be just as effective as varenicline (2 studies, 2131 people). For every 100 people using varenicline to stop smoking, 21 to 25 might successfully stop, compared with only 18 of 100 people using bupropion, 18 of 100 people using a single form of nicotine‐replacement therapy, and 20 of 100 using two or more kinds of nicotine‐replacement therapy. For every 100 people using cytisine to stop smoking, 18 to 23 might successfully stop. The most common unwanted effect of varenicline is nausea, but this is mostly at mild or moderate levels and usually clears over time. People taking varenicline likely have an increased chance of a more serious unwanted effect that could result in going to hospital, however these are still rare (2.7% to 4% of people on varenicline, compared with 2.7% of people without) and may include many that are unrelated to varenicline. People taking cytisine may also have a slightly increased chance of serious unwanted effects compared with people not taking it, but this may be less likely compared with varenicline. What are the limitations of the evidence? The evidence for some of our results is very reliable. We’re very confident that varenicline helps people to quit smoking better than many alternatives. We’re less sure of some other results because fewer or smaller studies provided evidence. Several results suggest one treatment is better or less harmful than another, but the opposite could still be true. How up to date is the evidence? The evidence is up to date to 29 April 2022.
Collapse
|
3
|
Livingstone-Banks J, Fanshawe TR, Thomas KH, Theodoulou A, Hajizadeh A, Hartman L, Lindson N. Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 5:CD006103. [PMID: 37142273 PMCID: PMC10169257 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006103.pub8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e-cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from baseline. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs). MAIN RESULTS We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk. We found moderate-certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I2 = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low-certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I2 = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I2 = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low-certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I2 = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low-certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm. Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline showed that more people in the varenicline arm quit smoking (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I2 = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I2 = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I2 = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I2 = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual-form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low-certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual-form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be a benefit from varenicline for quitting smoking, however further evidence could strengthen this finding or demonstrate a benefit from cytisine. Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard-dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Kyla H Thomas
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Annika Theodoulou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Anisa Hajizadeh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Lilian Hartman
- University of Oxford Medical School, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Safiri S, Nejadghaderi SA, Abdollahi M, Carson‐Chahhoud K, Kaufman JS, Bragazzi NL, Moradi‐Lakeh M, Mansournia MA, Sullman MJM, Almasi‐Hashiani A, Taghizadieh A, Collins GS, Kolahi A. Global, regional, and national burden of cancers attributable to tobacco smoking in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019. Cancer Med 2022; 11:2662-2678. [PMID: 35621231 PMCID: PMC9249976 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.4647] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/18/2021] [Revised: 01/17/2022] [Accepted: 02/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cancers are leading causes of mortality and morbidity, with smoking being recognized as a significant risk factor for many types of cancer. We aimed to report the cancer burden attributable to tobacco smoking by sex, age, socio-demographic index (SDI), and cancer type in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019. METHODS The burden of cancers attributable to smoking was reported between 1990 and 2019, based upon the Comparative Risk Assessment approach used in the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study 2019. RESULTS Globally, in 2019 there were an estimated 2.5 million cancer-related deaths (95% UI: 2.3 to 2.7) and 56.4 million DALYs (51.3 to 61.7) attributable to smoking. The global age-standardized death and DALY rates of cancers attributable to smoking per 100,000 decreased by 23.0% (-29.5 to -15.8) and 28.6% (-35.1 to -21.5), respectively, over the period 1990-2019. Central Europe (50.4 [44.4 to 57.6]) and Western Sub-Saharan Africa (6.7 [5.7 to 8.0]) had the highest and lowest age-standardized death rates, respectively, for cancers attributable to smoking. In 2019, the age-standardized DALY rate of cancers attributable to smoking was highest in Greenland (2224.0 [1804.5 to 2678.8]) and lowest in Ethiopia (72.2 [51.2 to 98.0]). Also in 2019, the global number of DALYs was highest in the 65-69 age group and there was a positive association between SDI and the age-standardized DALY rate. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study clearly illustrate that renewed efforts are required to increase utilization of evidence-based smoking cessation support in order to reduce the burden of smoking-related diseases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Saeid Safiri
- Aging Research InstituteTabriz University of Medical SciencesTabrizIran
- Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of MedicineTabriz University of Medical SciencesTabrizIran
| | - Seyed Aria Nejadghaderi
- Aging Research InstituteTabriz University of Medical SciencesTabrizIran
- Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis Expert Group (SRMEG)Universal Scientific Education and Research Network (USERN)TehranIran
| | - Morteza Abdollahi
- Social Determinants of Health Research CenterShahid Beheshti University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
| | - Kristin Carson‐Chahhoud
- Australian Centre for Precision HealthUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideSouth AustraliaAustralia
- School of MedicineUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideSouth AustraliaAustralia
| | - Jay S. Kaufman
- Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, Faculty of MedicineMcGill UniversityQuebecCanada
| | | | - Maziar Moradi‐Lakeh
- Preventive Medicine and Public Health Research CenterIran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
| | - Mohammad Ali Mansournia
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public HealthTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
| | - Mark J. M. Sullman
- Department of Life and Health SciencesUniversity of NicosiaNicosiaCyprus
- Department of Social SciencesUniversity of NicosiaNicosiaCyprus
| | - Amir Almasi‐Hashiani
- Department of Epidemiology, School of HealthArak University of Medical SciencesArakIran
| | - Ali Taghizadieh
- Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases Research CenterTabriz University of Medical SciencesTabrizIran
| | - Gary S. Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, Botnar Research CentreUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research CentreOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustOxfordUK
| | - Ali‐Asghar Kolahi
- Social Determinants of Health Research CenterShahid Beheshti University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Thomas KH, Dalili MN, López-López JA, Keeney E, Phillippo D, Munafò MR, Stevenson M, Caldwell DM, Welton NJ. Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2021; 25:1-224. [PMID: 34668482 DOI: 10.3310/hta25590] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kyla H Thomas
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Michael N Dalili
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - José A López-López
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Edna Keeney
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - David Phillippo
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Marcus R Munafò
- Faculty of Life Sciences, School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.,MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.,UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Matt Stevenson
- Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Deborah M Caldwell
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Nicky J Welton
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Carson-Chahhoud KV, Smith BJ, Peters MJ, Brinn MP, Ameer F, Singh K, Fitridge R, Koblar SA, Jannes J, Veale AJ, Goldsworthy S, Hnin K, Esterman AJ. Two-year efficacy of varenicline tartrate and counselling for inpatient smoking cessation (STOP study): A randomized controlled clinical trial. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0231095. [PMID: 32348306 PMCID: PMC7190140 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231095] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2019] [Accepted: 03/15/2020] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Varenicline tartrate is superior for smoking cessation to other tobacco cessation therapies by 52 weeks, in the outpatient setting. We aimed to evaluate the long-term (104 week) efficacy following a standard course of inpatient-initiated varenicline tartrate plus Quitline-counselling compared to Quitline-counselling alone. METHODS Adult patients (n = 392, 20-75 years) admitted with a smoking-related illnesses to one of three hospitals, were randomised to receive either 12-weeks of varenicline tartrate (titrated from 0.5mg daily to 1mg twice-daily) plus Quitline-counselling, (n = 196) or Quitline-counselling alone, (n = 196), with continuous abstinence from smoking assessed at 104 weeks. RESULTS A total of 1959 potential participants were screened for eligibility between August 2008 and December 2011. The proportion of participants who remained continuously abstinent (intention-to-treat) at 104 weeks were significantly greater in the varenicline tartrate plus counselling arm (29.2% n = 56) compared to counselling alone (18.8% n = 36; p = 0.02; odds ratio 1.78; 95%CI 1.10 to 2.86, p = 0.02). Twenty-two deaths occurred during the 104 week study (n = 10 for varenicline tartrate plus counselling and n = 12 for Quitline-counselling alone). All of these participants had known or developed underlying co-morbidities. CONCLUSIONS This is the first study to examine the efficacy and safety of varenicline tartrate over 104 weeks within any setting. Varenicline tartrate plus Quitline-counselling was found to be an effective opportunistic treatment when initiated for inpatient smokers who had been admitted with tobacco-related disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristin V. Carson-Chahhoud
- Australian Centre for Precision Health, School of Health Sciences, The University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- School of Medicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Brian J. Smith
- School of Medicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Matthew J. Peters
- Thoracic Medicine, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Malcolm P. Brinn
- Australian Centre for Precision Health, School of Health Sciences, The University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Faisal Ameer
- Respiratory Medicine, Ipswich Hospital, Ipswich, Queensland, Australia
| | - Kuljit Singh
- School of Medicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- Cardiology Department, Gold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
| | - Robert Fitridge
- Division of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Simon A. Koblar
- Stroke Research Programme, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Jim Jannes
- Stroke Research Programme, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- Stroke Unit, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Antony J. Veale
- Respiratory Medicine Department, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Sharon Goldsworthy
- Pharmacy Department, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Khin Hnin
- Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Adrian J. Esterman
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, The University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Littlewood RA, Claus ED, Wilcox CE, Mickey J, Arenella PB, Bryan AD, Hutchison KE. Moderators of smoking cessation outcomes in a randomized-controlled trial of varenicline versus placebo. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2017; 234:3417-3429. [PMID: 28889258 DOI: 10.1007/s00213-017-4721-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2016] [Accepted: 08/14/2017] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE Varenicline has gained a reputation as the optimal intervention for treatment resistant smokers, yet more than half of those who try it do not succeed. To better understand individual differences in the effectiveness of varenicline, this study evaluates the effectiveness of varenicline for smoking cessation in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial and examines the influence of psychological factors on treatment outcome. METHOD Two hundred five cigarette smokers interested in quitting were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of varenicline or placebo. Outcomes examined were CO-confirmed continuous abstinence for the past month, average number of cigarettes smoked per day, and 7-day point prevalence. RESULTS Varenicline-treated participants were more likely than placebo to achieve continuous abstinence at the end of treatment (OR = 3.29; RR = 2.62), and 7-day point prevalence rates showed an effect of medication at each time point. Participants in both groups significantly reduced their smoking during the course of treatment and follow-up, and the medication by visit interaction was significant in the expected direction. Impulsivity and personality style emerged as moderators of the relationship between medication condition and treatment outcome. CONCLUSIONS In addition to replicating efficacy results for varenicline versus placebo, the present study shows that the efficacy of pharmacotherapy is influenced by psychological factors. In an era where pharmacotherapy is often perceived as the "silver bullet," we are reminded that smoking cessation is a dynamic process and intervention must be adaptable to address individual differences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rae A Littlewood
- Mind Research Network and Lovelace Biomedical and Environmental Research Institute, 1101 Yale Blvd NE, Albuquerque, NM, 87106, USA.
| | - Eric D Claus
- Mind Research Network and Lovelace Biomedical and Environmental Research Institute, 1101 Yale Blvd NE, Albuquerque, NM, 87106, USA
| | | | - Jessica Mickey
- Mind Research Network and Lovelace Biomedical and Environmental Research Institute, 1101 Yale Blvd NE, Albuquerque, NM, 87106, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
A Mixed Method Review of Tobacco Cessation for the Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation Clinician. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev 2017; 37:160-174. [PMID: 28448378 DOI: 10.1097/hcr.0000000000000268] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To systematically survey the literature, describe the current tobacco science, and perform a mixed method review of randomized control trials of tobacco research in the cardiopulmonary population. METHODS Mixed method review was conducted on major resource databases. Inclusion criteria were English language with a minimum follow-up of 6 months, published between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2016; adult smokers ≥18 years of age with cardiovascular and/or pulmonary disease; initiation of subject recruitment from hospital or community; tobacco cessation (TC) as the main aim of the study; biometric validation of smoking status; first-line TC medications; and nonpharmacological treatments. RESULTS The pooling of the 10 studies through forest plot analysis revealed the effect of tobacco continuous abstinence rates significant at 3, 6, and 12 months (total OR = 3.73; 95% CI, 2.58-5.38). Also, tobacco point prevalence rates of TC treatments demonstrated overall effects that were significant at the different end points (total OR = 2.63; 95% CI, 1.90-3.64). In both cases, the higher ORs were found in the 3 months end point. Most successful interventions consisted of a combination of pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapy (predominantly counseling). CONCLUSIONS The evidence continues to support the recommended first-line TC pharmacotherapy and nonpharmacological practices published in the 2008 national guidelines. Implications for cardiopulmonary rehabilitation clinicians are discussed.
Collapse
|
9
|
Jiménez Ruiz CA, de Granda Orive JI, Solano Reina S, Riesco Miranda JA, de Higes Martinez E, Pascual Lledó JF, Garcia Rueda M, Lorza Blasco JJ, Signes Costa-Miñana J, Valencia Azcona B, Villar Laguna C, Cristóbal Fernández M. Guidelines for the Treatment of Smoking in Hospitalized Patients. Arch Bronconeumol 2016; 53:387-394. [PMID: 28017455 DOI: 10.1016/j.arbres.2016.11.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/19/2016] [Revised: 10/23/2016] [Accepted: 11/03/2016] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Abstract
Between 15 and 27% of patients admitted to Spanish hospitals are smokers. Hospitalization is an ideal time for a smoker to decide to quit. We performed a MEDLINE search of controlled, randomized or observational studies associated with helping hospitalized patients quit smoking, published between January 1, 2002 and September 30, 2015. On the basis of the results of those studies, we have issued some recommendations for the treatment of smoking in hospitalized patients. The recommendations were drawn up according to the GRADE system. Offering the smoker psychological counselling and prolonging follow-up for at least 4 weeks after discharge is the most effective recommendation for helping hospitalized patients to quit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carlos A Jiménez Ruiz
- PII Tabaquismo, Unidad Especializada en Tabaquismo, Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica (SEPAR), Madrid, España.
| | - Jose Ignacio de Granda Orive
- Área de Tabaquismo, Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica (SEPAR), Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, España
| | | | - Juan Antonio Riesco Miranda
- Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica (SEPAR) EPOC y Tabaco, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), Servicio de Neumología, Hospital San Pedro de Alcántara, Cáceres, España
| | - Eva de Higes Martinez
- Grupo Emergente Tabaquismo, Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Fundación Alcorcón, Alcorcón, Madrid, España
| | | | - Marcos Garcia Rueda
- Unidad de Tabaquismo, Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Carlos Haya, Málaga, España
| | | | - Jaime Signes Costa-Miñana
- PII de Tabaquismo, Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica (SEPAR), Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Clínico de Valencia, Valencia, España
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Cahill K, Lindson‐Hawley N, Thomas KH, Fanshawe TR, Lancaster T. Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 2016:CD006103. [PMID: 27158893 PMCID: PMC6464943 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006103.pub7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 190] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). OBJECTIVES To review the efficacy of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register for trials, using the terms ('cytisine' or 'Tabex' or 'dianicline' or 'varenicline' or 'nicotine receptor partial agonist') in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO using MeSH terms and free text to identify controlled trials of interventions for smoking cessation and prevention. We contacted authors of trial reports for additional information where necessary. The latest update of the specialised register was in May 2015, although we have included a few key trials published after this date. We also searched online clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials which compared the treatment drug with placebo. We also included comparisons with bupropion and nicotine patches where available. We excluded trials which did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from start of treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data on the type of participants, the dose and duration of treatment, the outcome measures, the randomisation procedure, concealment of allocation, and completeness of follow-up.The main outcome measured was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, and preferred biochemically validated rates where they were reported. Where appropriate we pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS Two trials of cytisine (937 people) found that more participants taking cytisine stopped smoking compared with placebo at longest follow-up, with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 3.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.01 to 7.87; low-quality evidence). One recent trial comparing cytisine with NRT in 1310 people found a benefit for cytisine at six months (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.80).One trial of dianicline (602 people) failed to find evidence that it was effective (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.75). This drug is no longer in development.We identified 39 trials that tested varenicline, 27 of which contributed to the primary analysis (varenicline versus placebo). Five of these trials also included a bupropion treatment arm. Eight trials compared varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Nine studies tested variations in varenicline dosage, and 13 tested usage in disease-specific subgroups of patients. The included studies covered 25,290 participants, 11,801 of whom used varenicline.The pooled RR for continuous or sustained abstinence at six months or longer for varenicline at standard dosage versus placebo was 2.24 (95% CI 2.06 to 2.43; 27 trials, 12,625 people; high-quality evidence). Varenicline at lower or variable doses was also shown to be effective, with an RR of 2.08 (95% CI 1.56 to 2.78; 4 trials, 1266 people). The pooled RR for varenicline versus bupropion at six months was 1.39 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.54; 5 trials, 5877 people; high-quality evidence). The RR for varenicline versus NRT for abstinence at 24 weeks was 1.25 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; 8 trials, 6264 people; moderate-quality evidence). Four trials which tested the use of varenicline beyond the 12-week standard regimen found the drug to be well-tolerated during long-term use. The number needed to treat with varenicline for an additional beneficial outcome, based on the weighted mean control rate, is 11 (95% CI 9 to 13). The most commonly reported adverse effect of varenicline was nausea, which was mostly at mild to moderate levels and usually subsided over time. Our analysis of reported serious adverse events occurring during or after active treatment suggests there may be a 25% increase in the chance of SAEs among people using varenicline (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.49; 29 trials, 15,370 people; high-quality evidence). These events include comorbidities such as infections, cancers and injuries, and most were considered by the trialists to be unrelated to the treatments. There is also evidence of higher losses to follow-up in the control groups compared with the intervention groups, leading to a likely underascertainment of the true rate of SAEs among the controls. Early concerns about a possible association between varenicline and depressed mood, agitation, and suicidal behaviour or ideation led to the addition of a boxed warning to the labelling in 2008. However, subsequent observational cohort studies and meta-analyses have not confirmed these fears, and the findings of the EAGLES trial do not support a causal link between varenicline and neuropsychiatric disorders, including suicidal ideation and suicidal behaviour. The evidence is not conclusive, however, in people with past or current psychiatric disorders. Concerns have also been raised that varenicline may slightly increase cardiovascular events in people already at increased risk of those illnesses. Current evidence neither supports nor refutes such an association, but we await the findings of the CATS trial, which should establish whether or not this is a valid concern. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Cytisine increases the chances of quitting, although absolute quit rates were modest in two recent trials. Varenicline at standard dose increased the chances of successful long-term smoking cessation between two- and three-fold compared with pharmacologically unassisted quit attempts. Lower dose regimens also conferred benefits for cessation, while reducing the incidence of adverse events. More participants quit successfully with varenicline than with bupropion or with NRT. Limited evidence suggests that varenicline may have a role to play in relapse prevention. The most frequently recorded adverse effect of varenicline is nausea, but mostly at mild to moderate levels and tending to subside over time. Early reports of possible links to suicidal ideation and behaviour have not been confirmed by current research.Future trials of cytisine may test extended regimens and more intensive behavioural support.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate Cahill
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesRadcliffe Observatory QuarterWoodstock RoadOxfordUKOX2 6GG
| | - Nicola Lindson‐Hawley
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesRadcliffe Observatory QuarterWoodstock RoadOxfordUKOX2 6GG
| | - Kyla H Thomas
- University of BristolSchool of Social and Community MedicineCanynge Hall39 Whatley RoadBristolUKBS8 2PS
| | - Thomas R Fanshawe
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesRadcliffe Observatory QuarterWoodstock RoadOxfordUKOX2 6GG
| | - Tim Lancaster
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesRadcliffe Observatory QuarterWoodstock RoadOxfordUKOX2 6GG
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Sterling LH, Windle SB, Filion KB, Touma L, Eisenberg MJ. Varenicline and Adverse Cardiovascular Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Am Heart Assoc 2016; 5:JAHA.115.002849. [PMID: 26903004 PMCID: PMC4802486 DOI: 10.1161/jaha.115.002849] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
Background Varenicline is an efficacious smoking‐cessation drug. However, previous meta‐analyses provide conflicting results regarding its cardiovascular safety. The publication of several new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provides an opportunity to reassess this potential adverse drug reaction. Methods and Results We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs that compare varenicline with placebo for smoking cessation. RCTs reporting cardiovascular serious adverse events and/or all‐cause mortality during the treatment period or within 30 days of treatment discontinuation were eligible for inclusion. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs were generated by using DerSimonian–Laird random‐effects models. Thirty‐eight RCTs met our inclusion criteria (N=12 706). Events were rare in both varenicline (57/7213) and placebo (43/5493) arms. No difference was observed for cardiovascular serious adverse events when comparing varenicline with placebo (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.72–1.49). Similar findings were obtained when examining cardiovascular (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.57–1.89) and noncardiovascular patients (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.64–1.64). Deaths were rare in both varenicline (11/7213) and placebo (9/5493) arms. Although 95% CIs were wide, pooling of all‐cause mortality found no difference between groups (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.50–1.52), including when stratified by participants with (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.40–3.83) and without (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.40–1.48) cardiovascular disease. Conclusions We found no evidence that varenicline increases the rate of cardiovascular serious adverse events. Results were similar among those with and without cardiovascular disease. Given varenicline's efficacy as a smoking cessation drug and the long‐term cardiovascular benefits of cessation, it should continue to be prescribed for smoking cessation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lee H Sterling
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital/McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Sarah B Windle
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital/McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Kristian B Filion
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital/McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Lahoud Touma
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital/McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Mark J Eisenberg
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital/McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Division of Cardiology, Jewish General Hospital/McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|