Response to Transdermal Selegiline Smoking Cessation Therapy and Markers in the 15q24 Chromosomal Region

Genomic medicine to reduce tobacco and related disorders: Translation to precision prevention and treatment

Genomic medicine can enhance prevention and treatment. First, we propose that advances in genomics have the potential to enhance assessment of disease risk, improve prognostic predictions, and guide treatment development and application. Clinical implementation of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) has emerged as an area of active research. The pathway from genomic discovery to implementation is an iterative process. Second, we provide examples on how genomic medicine has the potential to solve problems in prevention and treatment using two examples: Lung cancer screening and evidence-based tobacco treatment are both under-utilized and great opportunities for genomic interventions. Third, we discuss the translational process for developing genomic interventions from evidence to implementation by presenting a model to evaluate genomic evidence for clinical implementation, mechanisms of genomic interventions, and patient desire for genomic interventions. Fourth, we present potential challenges in genomic interventions including a great need for evidence in all diverse populations, little evidence on treatment algorithms, challenges in accommodating a dynamic evidence base, and implementation challenges in real world clinical settings. Finally, we conclude that research to identify genomic markers that are associated with smoking cessation success and the efficacy of smoking cessation treatments is needed to empower people of all diverse ancestry. Importantly, genomic data can be used to help identify patients with elevated risk for nicotine addiction, difficulty quitting smoking, favorable response to specific pharmacotherapy, and tobacco-related health problems.

Efficacy and safety of selegiline across different psychiatric disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis of oral and transdermal formulations

Selegiline is an irreversible, selective type-B monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) approved for Parkison's disease-oral and major depressive disorder-transdermal formulation) resulting in non-selective MAOI activity at oral doses≥20 mg/day. The present systematic review and meta-analysis appraises the evidence of different formulations/dosages of selegiline across different psychiatric conditions. We inquired PubMed/MEDLINE/Cochrane-Central/WHO-ICTRP/Clarivate-WebOfScience and the Chinese-Electronic-Journal Database from inception to 10/26/2022 for selegiline trials involving psychiatric patients. Random-effects meta-analyses assessed heterogeneity, publication/risk biases, and confidence in the evidence, followed by sensitivity, subgroup, and meta-regression analyses. Co-primary outcomes were: changes in symptom score (standardized mean difference=SMD) and author-defined response (risk ratios=RRs). RRs of adverse events and all-cause discontinuation were secondary and acceptability outcomes, respectively. Systematic-review included 42 studies; meta-analysis, 23. Selegiline outperformed placebo in depressive symptom reduction (SMD=-0.96, 95%C.I.=-1.78, -0.14, k = 10, n = 1,308), depression (RR=1.61, 95%C.I.=1.20, 2.15, k = 9, n = 1,238) and atypical-depression response (RR=2.23, 95%C.I.=1.35, 3.68, k = 3, n = 136). Selegiline failed to outperform the placebo in negative (k = 4) or positive symptoms of schizophrenia (k = 4), attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms reduction (k = 2), and smoking abstinence rate (k = 4). Selegiline did not differ from methylphenidate and ADHD scores (k = 2). No significant difference emerged in acceptability, incident diarrhea, headache, dizziness, and nausea RRs, in contrast to xerostomia (RR=1.58, 95%C.I. =1.03, 2.43, k = 6, n = 1,134), insomnia (RR=1.61, 95%C.I.=1.19, 2.17, k = 10, n = 1,768), and application-site reaction for transdermal formulation (RR=1.81, 95%C.I.=1.40, 2.33, k = 6, n = 1,662). Confidence in findings was low/very-low for most outcomes; moderate for depressive symptoms reduction (transdermal). Selegiline proved effective, safe, and well-tolerated for depressive disorders, yet further evidence is warranted about specific psychiatric disorders.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

A systematic review of genetic variation within nicotinic acetylcholine receptor genes and cigarette smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine produces its effects by binding to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs). Variants of genes encoding properties of nAChRs are candidates for affecting likelihood of smoking cessation.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted summarizing evidence of associations between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of nAChR genes and smoking cessation. From 24 articles meeting inclusion criteria, summary odds ratios (ORs) for associations between nine SNPs and smoking cessation were calculated from 26 studies (N = 233-29,072) stratified by gene, ancestry, study design, and pharmacotherapy; SNPs in linkage disequilibrium were pooled. Results for a tenth SNP from two GWAS were summarized.

RESULTS

People of European ancestry with minor alleles of CHRNA5 rs16969968 and CHRNA3 rs1051730 had longer time to cessation [HR = 0.90, 95 % CI 0.88 - 0.92 (n = 2 studies)] and lower odds of cessation [OR = 0.88, 95 % CI 0.80 - 0.97 (n = 5 cohort studies), OR = 0.64, 95 % CI 0.45 - 0.90 (n = 4 placebo arms)]. Risk of persistent smoking associated with these alleles was attenuated in smokers receiving nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Recipients of bupropion alone or with NRT with these alleles had higher, though not statistically significant, odds of cessation. Results for CHRNA5 rs588765 and rs680244 were similar to rs16969968/rs1051730 findings. Evidence was limited for other SNPs.

CONCLUSION

Evidence consistently indicates the minor alleles of four SNPs within CHRNA3 or CHRNA5 are risk alleles for cessation failure. Analysis by pharmacotherapy revealed bupropion may be the most efficacious intervention for people with these alleles.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Can the use of varenicline improve the efficacy of pharmacotherapy for nicotine addiction?

Introduction: Smoking is a huge medical and social problem in Poland, with as many as about 24% of Poles being addicted to nicotine. Approximately 6 million people worldwide die every year from conditions that are closely related to tobacco addiction, such as cancer and cardiovascular, metabolic or lung diseases. The difficulty in combatting nicotine dependence is largely due to the complex mechanism of this addiction. The motivation of a patient to quit smoking is of great importance in the difficult withdrawal process. Strengthening this motivation is one of the most important tasks of physicians and addiction therapists.

Overview of literature: Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) has been the most widely known way to break away from smoking addiction for many years now. It involves delivering nicotine to the body in ways that are less harmful than through tobacco smoke. As a consequence, the cravings for nicotine are reduced, making it easier for the patient to break with the addiction. Clinical trials have shown that the use of NRT is associated with a 50-70% increased chance of maintaining abstinence from smoking compared to placebo. There are many NRT products, including nicotine chewing gum, nicotine patches, lozenges, dissolvable nicotine sticks, or inhalers. Bupropion is a selective dopamine–noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor. This drug is one of the most commonly used in the pharmacotherapy of depression in the United States. At the same time, it has been found to have a positive effect on people trying to break up with the habit of smoking cigarettes. The mechanism of action remains unknown in this case, but studies clearly indicate the efficacy of bupropion, which is comparable to the efficacy of NRT. Varenicline is a partial agonist selective for α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. It has a higher affinity for these receptors than nicotine. By stimulating them, it causes an increase in dopamine secretion (but to a lesser extent than cigarette smoking), helping in this way ease withdrawal symptoms.

Conclusions: Varenicline has higher efficacy than bupropion and NRTs. Simultaneous use of two NRT forms increases the effectiveness of this method to a level comparable to varenicline. Contrary to previous reports, it seems that varenicline does not increase self-aggressive behaviour and the risk of suicide. The effectiveness of antinicotinic drugs depends on the sex of the patient. For both sexes, the most effective drug is varenicline. It is slightly more effective in women than in men. By contrast, NRT and bupropion show greater therapeutic potential in men.

From genes to treatments: a systematic review of the pharmacogenetics in smoking cessation

Smoking cessation treatment outcomes may be heavily influenced by genetic variations among smokers. Therefore, identifying specific variants that affect response to different pharmacotherapies is of major interest to the field. In the current study, we systematically review all studies published in or after the year 1990 which examined one or more gene-drug interactions for smoking cessation treatment. Out of 644 citations, 46 articles met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. We summarize evidence on several genetic polymorphisms (CHRNA5-A3-B4, CYP2A6, DBH, CHRNA4, COMT, DRD2, DRD4 and CYP2B6) and their potential moderating pharamacotherarpy effects on patient cessation efficacy rates. These findings are promising and call for further research to demonstrate the effectiveness of genetic testing in personalizing treatment decision-making and improving outcome.

Pathways to precision medicine in smoking cessation treatments

Cigarette smoking is highly addictive and modern genetic research has identified robust genetic influences on nicotine dependence. An important step in translating these genetic findings to clinical practice is identifying the genetic factors affecting smoking cessation in order to enhance current smoking cessation treatments. We reviewed the significant genetic variants that predict nicotine dependence, smoking cessation, and response to cessation pharmacotherapy. These data suggest that genetic risks can predict smoking cessation outcomes and moderate the effect of pharmacological treatments. Some pharmacogenetic findings have been replicated in meta-analyses or in multiple smoking cessation trials. The variation in efficacy between smokers with different genetic markers supports the notion that personalized smoking cessation intervention based upon genotype could maximize the efficiency of such treatment while minimizing side effects, thus influencing the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm. In summary, as precision medicine is revolutionizing healthcare, smoking cessation may be one of the first areas where genetic variants may identify individuals at increased risk. Current evidence strongly suggests that genetic variants predict cessation failure and that cessation pharmacotherapy effectiveness is modulated by biomarkers such as nicotinic cholinergic receptor α5 subunit (CHRNA5) genotypes or nicotine metabolism ratio (NMR). These findings strengthen the case for the development and rigorous testing of treatments that target patients with different biological risk profiles.

Toward the implementation of genomic applications for smoking cessation and smoking-related diseases

The incorporation of genomic information into routine care settings is a burgeoning area for investigation in behavioral medicine. The past decade has witnessed rapid advancements in knowledge of genetic biomarkers associated with smoking behaviors and tobacco-related morbidity and mortality, providing the basis for promising genomic applications in clinical and community settings. We assessed the current state of readiness for implementing genomic applications involving variation in the α5 nicotinic cholinergic receptor subunit gene CHRNA5 and smoking outcomes (behaviors and related diseases) using a process that could be translatable to a wide range of genomic applications in behavioral medicine. We reviewed the scientific literature involving CHRNA5 genetic variation and smoking cessation, and then summarized and synthesized a chain of evidence according to analytic validity, clinical validity, clinical utility, and ethical, legal, and social implications (ACCE), a well-established set of criteria used to evaluate genomic applications. Our review identified at least three specific genomic applications for which implementation may be considered, including the use of CHRNA5 genetic test results for informing disease risk, optimizing smoking cessation treatment, and motivating smoking behavior change. For these genomic applications, we rated analytic validity as convincing, clinical validity as adequate, and clinical utility and ethical, legal, and social implications as inadequate. For clinical genomic applications involving CHRNA5 variation and smoking outcomes, research efforts now need to focus on establishing clinical utility. This approach is compatible with pre-implementation research, which is also needed to accelerate translation, improve innovation design, and understand and refine system processes involved in implementation. This study informs the readiness to incorporate smoking-related genomic applications in real-world settings and facilitates cross-disciplinary collaboration to accelerate the integration of evidence-based genomics in behavioral medicine.

Preparing the Way: Exploiting Genomic Medicine to Stop Smoking

Clinical medicine of the future is poised to use an individual's genomic data to predict disease risk and guide clinical care. The treatment of cigarette smoking and tobacco use disorder represents a prime area for genomics implementation. The genes CHRNA5 and CYP2A6 are strong genomic contributors that alter the risk of heaviness of smoking, tobacco use disorder, and smoking-related diseases in humans. These biomarkers have proven analytical and clinical validity, and evidence for their clinical utility continues to grow. We propose that these biomarkers harbor the potential of enabling the identification of elevated disease risk in smokers, personalizing smoking cessation treatments, and motivating behavioral changes. We must prepare for the integration of genomic applications into clinical care of patients who smoke.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Network analysis of the genomic basis of the placebo effect

The placebo effect is a phenomenon in which patients who are given an inactive treatment (e.g., inert pill) show a perceived or actual improvement in a medical condition. Placebo effects in clinical trials have been investigated for many years especially because placebo treatments often serve as the control arm of randomized clinical trial designs. Recent observations suggest that placebo effects may be modified by genetics. This observation has given rise to the term "placebome," which refers to a group of genome-related mediators that affect an individual's response to placebo treatments. In this study, we conduct a network analysis of the placebome and identify a placebome module in the comprehensive human interactome using a seed-connector algorithm. The placebome module is significantly enriched with neurotransmitter signaling pathways and brain-specific proteins. We validate the placebome module using a large cohort of the Women's Genome Health Study (WGHS) trial and demonstrate that the placebome module is significantly enriched with genes whose SNPs modify the outcome in the placebo arm of the trial. To gain insights into placebo effects in different diseases and drug treatments, we use a network proximity measure to examine the closeness of the placebome module to different disease modules and drug target modules. The results demonstrate that the network proximity of the placebome module to disease modules in the interactome significantly correlates with the strength of the placebo effect in the corresponding diseases. The proximity of the placebome module to molecular pathways affected by certain drug classes indicates the existence of placebo-drug interactions. This study is helpful for understanding the molecular mechanisms mediating the placebo response, and sets the stage for minimizing its effects in clinical trials and for developing therapeutic strategies that intentionally engage it.

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

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

Biomarkers of Response to Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapies: Progress to Date

For the past 30 years, research examining predictors of successful smoking cessation treatment response has focused primarily on clinical variables, such as levels of tobacco dependence, craving, and self-efficacy. However, recent research has begun to determine biomarkers (such as genotype, nicotine and metabolite levels, and brain imaging findings) that may have utility in predicting smoking cessation. For genotype, genes associated with nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) and related proteins have been found to predict response to first-line medications (e.g. nicotine replacement therapy [NRT], bupropion, or varenicline) or quitting over time without a controlled treatment trial. For nicotine and metabolite levels, function of the cytochrome P450 2A6 liver enzyme, which can be assessed with the nicotine metabolite ratio or via genotype, has been found to predict response, with slow nicotine metabolizers having less severe nicotine dependence and a greater likelihood of quitting with NRT than normal metabolizers. For brain imaging, decreased activation of brain regions associated with emotion regulation and increased connectivity in emotion regulation networks, increased responsiveness to pleasant cues, and altered activation with the Stroop effect have been found in smokers who quit with the first-line medications listed above or counseling. In addition, our group recently demonstrated that lower pre-treatment brain nAChR density is associated with a greater chance of quitting smoking with NRT or placebo. Several of these studies found that specific biomarkers may provide additional information for predicting response beyond subjective symptom or rating scale measures, thereby giving an initial indication that biomarkers may, in the future, be useful for guiding smoking cessation treatment intensity, duration, and type.