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

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.

Initiating Pharmacologic Treatment in Tobacco-Dependent Adults

There is a strong evidence base for the use of existing pharmacotherapies to support tobacco cessation, alone or in combination, ideally with concurrent behavioral interventions. Future pharmacotherapies under development may assist in the most refractory cases. Incorporating current and future therapies into a longitudinal chronic care model for tobacco dependence will help a diverse range of patients achieve independence from nicotine addiction.

Effects of varenicline and bupropion on laboratory smoking outcomes: Meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled human laboratory studies

Human laboratory studies are widely used to evaluate behavioural mechanisms of pharmacotherapy effects. Results from human laboratory studies examining smoking cessation pharmacotherapies have not been examined in aggregate. The current meta-analysis aimed to synthesize data from randomized, placebo-controlled human laboratory studies on the effects of non-nicotine pharmacotherapies on outcomes relevant for smoking cessation. Literature searches identified 15 human laboratory studies of varenicline (n = 697) and 9 studies of bupropion (n = 313) with sufficient data for inclusion. Studies involved acute or subacute pharmacotherapy treatment with administration durations ranging from a single dose to 8 weeks. Primary outcomes examined were craving, withdrawal and behavioural indices of smoking. Varenicline significantly reduced craving (Hedge's g = -0.36[-0.54,-0.17], p < 0.001), withdrawal (g = -0.25[-0.41,-0.09], p = 0.003) and behavioural indices of smoking (g = -0.36[-0.63,-0.08], p = 0.01) relative to placebo. In contrast, results were inconclusive regarding bupropion's effects on craving (g = -0.13[-0.32,0.05], p = 0.15), withdrawal (g = -0.15[-0.44,0.14], p = 0.31) and behavioural indices of smoking (g = -0.05[-0.35,0.24], p = 0.73) relative to placebo. Findings provide meta-analytic support that short-term varenicline treatment decreases craving, withdrawal symptoms and smoking behaviour under controlled laboratory conditions. However, findings also suggest the ability of human laboratory paradigms to detect pharmacotherapy effects may differ by treatment type. Pharmacotherapy discovery and evaluation efforts utilizing human laboratory methods should aim to align study designs and laboratory procedures with presumed therapeutic mechanisms when possible.

Tobacco Use and Treatment of Tobacco Dependence Among People With Human Immunodeficiency Virus: A Practical Guide for Clinicians

More than 40% of people with human immunodeficiency virus (PWH) in the United States smoke tobacco cigarettes. Among those on antiretroviral therapy, smoking decreases life expectancy more than human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) itself. Most PWH who smoke want to quit, but tobacco dependence treatment has not been widely integrated into HIV care. This article summarizes the epidemiology of tobacco use among PWH, health consequences of tobacco use and benefits of cessation in PWH, and studies of treatment for tobacco dependence among the general population and among PWH. We provide practical guidance for providers to treat tobacco dependence among PWH. A 3-step Ask-Advise-Connect framework includes asking about tobacco use routinely during clinical encounters, advising about tobacco cessation with emphasis on the benefits of cessation, and actively connecting patients to cessation treatments, including prescription of pharmacotherapy (preferably varenicline) and direct connection to behavioral interventions via telephone quitline or other means to increase the likelihood of a successful quit attempt.

The effect of Varenicline and Bupropion on smoking cessation: A network meta-analysis of 20 randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to investigate the effect of varenicline (VAR), bupropion (BUP), and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) on smoking cessation.

METHODS

Eight databases were searched in May 2021, and only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using varenicline, bupropion, or NRT (single or combined) for smoking cessation were included. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook tool. Stata 15.1 software was used to perform NMA, and the quality of the evidence was evaluated using Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA).

FINDINGS

Twenty RCTs involving 16,702 smokers were included. The risk of bias results showed that 10 RCTs were rated as high, three were low, and seven were unclear. A total of 21 pairs were compared based on seven interventions. The NMA showed that, compared to the placebo (PLA), the other six interventions had significant efficacy in smoking cessation, where VAR + BUP showed the best effect of all treatments (odds ratio (OR) = 6.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) [3.47, 10.66]). Moreover, VAR + BUP was superior to VAR + NRT (OR = 1.66, 95% CI [1.07, 2.59]) and the three monotherapies (VAR, BUP, and NRT). In the monotherapies, the results of pairwise comparisons of VAR, BUP, and NRT did not show significant differences. Finally, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value indicated that VAR + BUP had the greatest probability of becoming the best intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of VAR, BUP, and NRT alone increased the odds of smoking abstinence better than the placebo, combined interventions were superior to monotherapy, and VAR combined with other interventions had a better smoking cessation effect.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

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

PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTIONS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

DATA SOURCES

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

REVIEW METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

FUTURE WORK

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

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

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

Exenatide Adjunct to Nicotine Patch Facilitates Smoking Cessation and May Reduce Post-Cessation Weight Gain: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Approved pharmacological treatments for smoking cessation are modestly effective, underscoring the need for improved pharmacotherapies. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists attenuate the rewarding effects of nicotine in preclinical studies. We examined the efficacy of extended-release exenatide, a GLP-1R agonist, combined with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT, patch) for smoking cessation, craving, and withdrawal symptoms, with post-cessation body weight as a secondary outcome.

METHODS

Eighty-four prediabetic and/or overweight smokers were randomized (1 : 1) to once-weekly placebo or exenatide, 2 mg, subcutaneously. All participants received NRT (21 mg) and brief smoking cessation counseling. Seven-day point prevalence abstinence (expired CO level ≤5 ppm), craving, withdrawal, and post-cessation body weight were assessed following 6 weeks of treatment. A Bayesian approach for analyzing generalized linear models yielded posterior probabilities (PP) to quantify the evidence favoring hypothesized effects of treatment on the study outcomes.

RESULTS

Exenatide increased the risk for smoking abstinence compared to placebo (46.3% and 26.8%, respectively), (risk ratio [RR] = 1.70; 95% credible interval = [0.96, 3.27]; PP = 96.5%). Exenatide reduced end-of-treatment craving in the overall sample and withdrawal among abstainers. Post-cessation body weight was 5.6 pounds lower in the exenatide group compared to placebo (PP = 97.4%). Adverse events were reported in 9.5% and 2.3% of participants in the exenatide and placebo groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Exenatide, in combination with the NRT improved smoking abstinence, reduced craving and withdrawal symptoms, and decreased weight gain among abstainers. Findings suggest that the GLP-1R agonist strategy is worthy of further research in larger, longer duration studies.

IMPLICATIONS

Despite considerable progress in tobacco control, cigarette smoking remains the leading cause of preventable disease, disability, and death. In this pilot study, we showed that extended-release exenatide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, added to the nicotine patch, improved abstinence and mitigated post-cessation body weight gain compared to patch alone. Further research is needed to confirm these initial positive results.

Cessation classification likelihood increases with higher expired-air carbon monoxide cutoffs: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Expired-air carbon monoxide (CO) is commonly used to biochemically verify smoking status. The CO cutoff and CO monitor brand may affect the probability of classifying smokers as abstinent, thus influencing conclusions about the efficacy of cessation trials. No systematic reviews have tested this hypothesis. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis examining whether the likelihood of smoking cessation classification varied due to CO cutoff and monitor brand.

METHODS

Eligible studies (k = 122) longitudinally assessed CO-verified cessation in adult smokers in randomized trials. Primary meta-regressions separately assessed differences in quit classification likelihood due to continuous and categorical CO cutoffs (Low, 3-4 parts per million [ppm]; [SRNT] Recommended, 5-6 ppm; Moderate, 7-8 ppm; and High, 9-10 ppm); exploratory analyses compared likelihood outcomes between monitor brands: Bedfont and Vitalograph.

RESULTS

The likelihood of quit classification increased 18% with each 1 ppm increase above the lowest cutoff (3 ppm). Odds of classification as quit significantly increased between each cutoff category and High: 261% increase from Low; 162% increase from Recommended; and 150% increase from Moderate. There were no differences in cessation classification between monitor brands.

CONCLUSIONS

As expected, higher CO cutoffs were associated with greater likelihood of cessation classification. The lack of CO monitor brand differences may have been due to model-level variance not able to be followed up in the present dataset. Researchers are advised to report outcomes using a range of cutoffs-including the recommended range (5-6 ppm)-and the CO monitor brand/model used. Using higher CO cutoffs significantly increases likelihood of quit classification, possibly artificially elevating treatment strategies.

Implementation of a free smoking-cessation program in a Lebanese academic medical center

INTRODUCTION

Despite the exceptionally high prevalence of tobacco use in Lebanon, few cessation programs exist. The American University of Beirut (AUB) developed one of the first smoking-cessation programs in the country in 2015, and the program became free-of-charge to patients in 2018. The program offers initial visit(s) with a primary care provider, in-person and/or telephone counseling, acupuncture, and medications.

METHODS

We assessed patient characteristics, treatments used, and patient outcomes in the first year of implementing the free smoking-cessation program, compared to the original program. We compared 87 smokers who initiated treatment in the free program with 47 patients in the original program.

RESULTS

At baseline, smokers in the free program were younger, smoked fewer cigarettes per day, and had lower CO levels than smokers in the original program. At 1 month follow-up, 72.9% were abstinent in the free program, compared with 42.2% in the original program (p<0.001). Smokers who had ≥2 primary care visits and those who had ≥1 acupuncture visits had higher rates of abstinence at 1 month and those who were prescribed bupropion had higher rates of abstinence at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of the free smoking cessation program demonstrates preliminary efficacy, with telephone support offering potential for scalability.

Nicotine Replacement Therapy and Healthy Lifestyle Psychoeducation for Smoking Reduction in Acute Psychiatric Inpatients: A Cluster-Randomized Parallel Study

BACKGROUND

Effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapies in acute psychiatric inpatient settings remains under-researched. The aim of this study was to compare effectiveness and acceptability of 3 different forms of nicotine replacement therapy in achieving smoking reduction among acute psychiatric inpatients.

METHODS

This cluster-randomized, parallel study compared effectiveness and acceptability of nicotine inhalers, nicotine gum, and nicotine patches for smoking reduction in the acute psychiatric inpatient setting. The primary outcome was the exhaled breath carbon monoxide (CO) level change from baseline at weeks 4 and 8. Secondary outcomes included changes in nicotine withdrawal symptoms and psychiatric symptom severity.

RESULTS

Three hundred ten inpatients on the acute care wards were randomly assigned to nicotine inhalers (n = 184), gum (n = 71), and patches (n = 55). Only the nicotine inhaler group showed statistically significant reduction in CO level from baseline at both weeks 4 and 8 (P < 0.001 and P = 0.032, respectively). The nicotine inhaler and the patch group showed significant decrease in nicotine withdrawal symptoms from baseline at both weeks 4 and 8. Meanwhile, the nicotine inhaler and the gum group showed significant decrease in psychiatric symptom severity from baseline at both weeks 4 and 8. Post hoc comparisons revealed that the inhaler group had a greater decrease in psychiatric symptom severity compared with the patch group.

CONCLUSIONS

Nicotine inhalers may be an effective choice for smoking reduction in acute psychiatric inpatient settings given its significant effects on CO level, withdrawal symptoms, and psychiatric symptom severity, particularly during the first 4 weeks of treatment.

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.

Nicotine Effects, Body Weight Concerns and Smoking: A Literature Review

How people become addicted to cigarette smoking and remain addicted despite repeated attempts to quit requires piecing together a rather complex puzzle. The present review contextualizes the role of nicotine and smoking sensory stimulation on maintaining smoking, describes nicotine's effects on feeding behavior and body weight, and explores the impact of smoking outcome expectancies, including the belief that nicotine suppresses appetite and body weight, on the decision to smoke or vape (use of e-cigarettes). The analysis concludes with a review of rat models of human nicotine intake that attempt to isolate the effects of nicotine on appetite and weight gain. Animal research replicates with relative closeness phenomena observed in smokers, but the rat model falls short of replicating the long-term weight gain observed post-smoking cessation.

Impact of specialist and primary care stop smoking support on socio-economic inequalities in cessation in the United Kingdom: a systematic review and national equity initial review completed 22 January 2019; final version accepted 19 July 2019 analysis

AIM

To assess the impact of UK specialist and primary care-based stop smoking support on socio-economic inequalities in cessation.

METHODS

Systematic review and narrative synthesis, with a national equity analysis of stop smoking services (SSS). Ten bibliographic databases were searched for studies of any design, published since 2012, which evaluated specialist or primary care-based stop smoking support by socio-economic status (SES) or within a disadvantaged group. Studies could report on any cessation-related outcome. National Statistics were combined to estimate population-level SSS reach and impact among all smokers by SES. Overall, we included 27 published studies and three collated, national SSS reports for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland (equivalent data for Wales were unavailable).

RESULTS

Primary care providers and SSS in the United Kingdom were particularly effective at engaging and supporting disadvantaged smokers. Low SES groups were more likely to have their smoking status assessed, to receive general practitioner brief cessation advice/SSS referral and to attempt a quit with SSS support. Although disadvantaged SSS clients were less successful in quitting, increased service reach offset these lower quit rates, resulting in higher service impact among smokers from low SES groups. Interventions that offer tailored and targeted support have the potential to improve quit outcomes among disadvantaged smokers.

CONCLUSIONS

Equity-orientated stop smoking support can compensate for lower quit rates among disadvantaged smokers through the use of equity-based performance targets, provision of targeted services and the development of tailored interventions.

E-cigarettes compared with nicotine replacement therapy within the UK Stop Smoking Services: the TEC RCT

BACKGROUND

Over the past few years, a large number of smokers in the UK have stopped smoking with the help of e-cigarettes. So far, UK Stop Smoking Services (SSSs) have been reluctant to include e-cigarettes among their treatment options because data on their efficacy compared with the licensed medications are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to compare the efficacy of refillable e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products, when accompanied by weekly behavioural support.

DESIGN

A randomised controlled trial comparing e-cigarettes and NRT.

SETTING

Three sites that provide local SSSs.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were 886 smokers seeking help to quit smoking, aged ≥ 18 years, not pregnant or breastfeeding, with no strong preference to use or not to use NRT or e-cigarettes in their quit attempt, and currently not using NRT or e-cigarettes. A total of 886 participants were randomised but two died during the study (one in each study arm) and were not included in the analysis.

INTERVENTIONS

The NRT arm (n = 446) received NRT of their choice (single or combination), provided for up to 12 weeks. The e-cigarette arm (n = 438) received an e-cigarette starter pack and were encouraged to buy addtional e-liquids and e-cigarette products of their choice. Both arms received the same standard behavioural support. Participants attended weekly sessions at their SSS and provided outcome data at 4 weeks. They were then followed up by telephone at 6 and 12 months. Participants reporting abstinence or at least 50% reduction in cigarette consumption at 12 months were invited to attend for carbon monoxide (CO) validation. Participants/researchers could not be blinded to the intervention.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was CO-validated sustained abstinence rates at 52 weeks. Participants lost to follow-up or not providing biochemical validation were included as non-abstainers. Secondary outcomes included abstinence at other time points, reduction in smoke intake, treatment adherence and ratings, elicited adverse reactions, and changes in self-reported respiratory health. A cost-efficacy analysis of the intervention was also conducted.

RESULTS

The 1-year quit rate was 9.9% in the NRT arm and 18.0% in the e-cigarette arm (risk ratio 1.83, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.58; p < 0.001). The e-cigarette arm had significantly higher validated quit rates at all time points. Participants in the e-cigarette arm showed significantly better adherence and experienced fewer urges to smoke throughout the initial 4 weeks of their quit attempt than those in the NRT arm, and gave their allocated product more favourable ratings. They were also more likely to be still using their allocated product at 1 year (39.5% vs. 4.3%, χ2 = 161.4; p < 0.001). Participants assigned to e-cigarettes reported significantly less coughing and phlegm at 1 year than those assigned to NRT (controlling for smoking status). A detailed economic analysis confirmed that, because e-cigarettes incur lower NHS costs than NRT and generate a higher quit rate, e-cigarette use is more cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

The results may not be generalisable to other types of smokers or settings, or to cartridge-based e-cigarettes.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the context of multisession treatment for smokers seeking help, e-cigarettes were significantly more effective than NRT. If SSSs provide e-cigarette starter packs, it is likely to boost their success rates and improve their cost-efficacy.

FUTURE WORK

The efficacy of e-cigarettes provided with different levels of support will show whether smokers should be encouraged to switch to vaping within support services or whether e-cigarettes can be recommended with less intensive or no support.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60477608.

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. 23, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The trial was supported by the Cancer Research UK Prevention Trials Unit (grant A16893).

Smoking cessation interventions for potential use in the lung cancer screening setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Current guidelines recommend delivery of smoking cessation interventions with lung cancer screening (LCS). Unfortunately, there are limited data to guide clinicians and policy-makers in choosing cessation interventions in this setting. Several trials are underway to fill this evidence gap, but results are not expected for several years.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature on the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions among populations eligible for LCS. We searched PubMed, Medline, and PsycINFO for randomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions published from 2010-2017. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they sampled individuals likely to be eligible for LCS based on age and smoking history, had sample sizes >100, follow-up of 6- or 12-months, and were based in North America, Western Europe, Australia, or New Zealand.

RESULTS

Three investigators independently screened 3,813 abstracts and identified 332 for full-text review. Of these, 85 trials were included and grouped into categories based on the primary intervention: electronic/web-based, in-person counseling, pharmacotherapy, and telephone counseling. At 6-month follow-up, electronic/web-based (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% CI 1.03-1.25), in-person counseling (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.25-1.70), and pharmacotherapy (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33-1.77) interventions significantly increased the odds of abstinence. Telephone counseling increased the odds but did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.98-1.50). At 12-months, in-person counseling (OR 1.28 95% CI 1.10-1.50) and pharmacotherapy (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17-1.84) remained efficacious, although the decrement in efficacy was of similar magnitude across all intervention categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Several categories of cessation interventions are promising for implementation in the LCS setting.

A feasibility study with embedded pilot randomised controlled trial and process evaluation of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation in patients with periodontitis

Background

Tobacco smoking is a major risk factor for several oral diseases, including periodontitis, and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are increasingly being used for smoking cessation. This study aimed to assess the viability of delivering and evaluating an e-cigarette intervention for smoking cessation within the dental setting, prior to a definitive study.

Methods

A feasibility study, comprising a pilot randomised controlled trial and qualitative process evaluation, was conducted over 22 months in the Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Dental Clinical Research Facility, UK. The pilot trial comprised a two-armed, parallel group, individually randomised, controlled trial, with 1:1 allocation. Participant eligibility criteria included being a tobacco smoker, having periodontitis and not currently using an e-cigarette. All participants received standard non-surgical periodontal therapies and brief smoking cessation advice. The intervention group additionally received an e-cigarette starter kit with brief training. Proposed outcomes for a future definitive trial, in terms of smoking behaviour and periodontal/oral health, were collected over 6 months to assess data yield and quality and estimates of parameters. Analyses were descriptive, with 95% confidence intervals presented, where appropriate.

Results

Eighty participants were successfully recruited from a range of dental settings. Participant retention was 73% (n = 58; 95% CI 62–81%) at 6 months. The e-cigarette intervention was well received, with usage rates of 90% (n = 36; 95% CI 77–96%) at quit date. Twenty percent (n = 8; 95% CI 11–35%) of participants in the control group used an e-cigarette at some point during the study (against advice). The majority of the outcome measures were successfully collected, apart from a weekly smoking questionnaire (only 30% of participants achieved ≥ 80% completion). Reductions in expired air carbon monoxide over 6 months of 6 ppm (95% CI 1–10 ppm) and 12 ppm (95% CI 8–16 ppm) were observed in the control and intervention groups, respectively. Rates of abstinence (carbon monoxide-verified continuous abstinence for 6 months) for the two groups were 5% (n = 2; 95% CI 1–17%; control group) and 15% (n = 6; 95% CI 7–29%; intervention group).

Conclusions

Data suggest that a definitive trial is feasible and that the intervention may improve smoking quit rates. Insights were gained into how best to conduct the definitive trial and estimates of parameters to inform design were obtained.

Trial registration

ISRCTN, ISRCTN17731903; registered 19 September 2016 http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN17731903.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40814-019-0451-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Review of the role of cigarette smoking in diabetic foot

Diabetic foot ulceration has been a serious issue over the past decades in Asia, causing economic and social problems. Therefore, it is important to identify and reduce the risk factors of diabetic foot. Cigarette smoking has been reported to be associated with diabetes and its macrovascular complications, but the relationship between smoking and diabetic foot ulcers is still unclear. In the present review, we summarize the effects of cigarette smoking on diabetic foot ulcers with respect to peripheral neuropathy, vascular alterations and wound healing. One underlying mechanism of these impacts might be the smoking-induced oxidative stress inside the cells. At the end of this review, the current mainstream therapies for smoking cessation are also outlined. We believe that it is urgent for all diabetic patients to quit smoking so as to reduce their chances of developing foot ulcers and to improve the prognosis of diabetic foot ulcers.

The effect of a behavioral activation treatment for substance use on post-treatment abstinence: a randomized controlled trial

AIMS

To compare outcomes for a behavioral activation group treatment for substance use [life enhancement treatment for substance use (LETS ACT)] versus a time and group size-matched control condition delivered in a residential treatment setting.

DESIGN

Single-site two-arm parallel-group randomized clinical trial with follow-up assessment at 3, 6 and 12 months post-treatment.

SETTING

Residential substance use treatment facility in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were 263 adults [mean age 42.7 (11.8); 29.5% female; 95.4% African American; 73.2% court mandated] whose insurance dictated 30-day (65.9%) or 90-day (34.1%) treatment duration.

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

LETS ACT (n = 142) is a treatment developed originally for depression and modified for substance use. It teaches participants to increase positively reinforcing value-driven activities in order to counter depression and relapse. The control group [supportive counseling (SC); n = 121] received time and group size-matched supportive counseling. Treatment was delivered in five or eight 1-hour sessions depending on patient length of stay.

MEASUREMENTS

Percentage abstinent at follow-up, percentage of substance use days among those reporting use, depressive symptoms [Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)] and adverse consequences of drug use [Short Inventory of Problems-Alcohol and Drug (SIP-AD)].

FINDINGS

LETS ACT had significantly higher abstinence rates at 3 months [odds ratio (OR) = 2.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.3-3.7], 6 months (OR = 2.6, 95% CI= 1.3-5.0) and 12 months (OR = 2.9, 95% CI = 1.3-6.1) post-treatment compared with SC. LETS ACT participants reported significantly fewer adverse consequences from substance use at 12 months post-treatment [B = 4.50, standard error (SE) = 2.17, 95% CI = 0.22-8.78]. Treatment condition had no effect on percentage substance use days among those who resumed use or on change in depressive symptoms; the latter decreased over time only in those who remained abstinent after residential treatment irrespective of condition (B = 0.43, SE = 0.11, 95% confidence interval = 0.22-0.65).

CONCLUSIONS

A behavioral activation group treatment for substance use (LETS ACT) appears to increase the likelihood of abstinence and reduce adverse consequences from substance use up to 12 months post-treatment.

Effect of 0.5 mg versus 1 mg varenicline for smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial

AIMS

Varenicline is used in smoking cessation. The aims of the trial were to test for differences between standard 1- and 0.5-mg doses (both twice daily during 8 weeks) in (1) abstinence, (2) adherence and (3) side effects.

DESIGN

Open-label randomized parallel-group controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. All those randomized were included in the final sample using an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach.

SETTING

Stop-Smoking Clinic of the Virgen Macarena University Hospital in Seville, Spain.

PARTICIPANTS

The study comprised smokers (n = 484), 59.5% of whom were men with a mean age of 50.67 years and a smoking history of 37.5 pack-years.

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

Participants were randomized to 1 mg (n = 245) versus 0.5 mg (n = 239) and received behavioural support, which consisted of a baseline visit and six follow-ups during 1 year.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was continuous self-reported abstinence during 1 year, with biochemical verification. The secondary outcomes were adherence and side effects. Also measured were baseline demographics, medical history and smoking characteristics.

FINDINGS

Abstinence rates at 1 year were 46.5% with 1 mg versus 46.4% with 0.5 mg [odds ratio (OR) = 0.997; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.7-1.43; P = 1.0]; Bayes factor in favour of H0 = 238.507, Bayes factor against H0 = 0.004. Treatment adherence was similar in both regimens (OR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.8-1.7; P = 0.44). Side effects were reported in 19.3% of cases with 1 mg versus 12.1% with 0.5 mg, although with no significant differences between regimens (OR = 1.73; 95% CI = 0.94-3.18; P = 0.093).

CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be no difference in smoking cessation effectiveness between 1 mg and 0.5 mg varenicline, both administered twice daily for 8 weeks, with similar rates of abstinence (46.5% versus 46.4%), adherence and side effects.

Impact of large-scale distribution and subsequent use of free nicotine patches on primary care physician interaction

BACKGROUND

Large-scale distribution efforts of free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) have been documented to be cost-effective interventions for increasing smoking quit rates. However, despite nearly a dozen studies evaluating their effectiveness, none have examined whether free NRT provision promotes further primary care help-seeking and the impact that it may have on cessation efforts.

METHODS

In the context of a randomized controlled trial, a secondary analysis was conducted on 1000 adult regular smokers randomized to be mailed a 5-week supply of nicotine patches or to a no intervention control group. Recipients and users of free nicotine patches at an 8 week follow-up were successfully case matched to controls based on age, gender, baseline level of nicotine dependence and intent to quit (n = 201 per group). Differences in physician interaction between the two groups were evaluated at both 8 week and 6 month follow-ups. The impact of physician interaction on self-reported smoking abstinence at each follow-up was also examined.

RESULTS

Although no differences in physician interaction were noted between groups at the 8 week follow-up, at the 6 month follow-up, nicotine patch users reported greater frequency of discussing smoking with their physician (43.9%), as compared to the control group (30.3%) (p = 0.011). Across both groups, over 90% of those that discussed smoking with a physician were encouraged to quit and approximately 70% were provided with additional support. Separate ANOVAs revealed no significant impact of physician interaction on cessation (p > 0.05), regardless of group or follow-up period, however, at the 6 month follow-up, nicotine patch users who discussed cessation with a physician had made serious quit attempts at significantly greater rates (72.6%), compared to controls (49.1%) (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Irrespective of group, the majority of smokers in the present study did not discuss cessation with their physician. Recipients and users of nicotine patches however, were more likely to discuss smoking with their physician, suggesting that the provision of free NRT particularly to those who are likely to use it may facilitate opportunities for benefits beyond the direct pharmacological effects of the medication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov , NCT01429129 . Registered: 2 September 2011.

A comparison of the efficacy of varenicline and bupropion and an evaluation of the effect of the medications in the context of the smoking cessation programme

BACKGROUND

Within the context of the support program for smoking cessation, initiated by the Turkish Ministry of Health in 2011, those who present at 'smoking cessation' centres and are found to be suitable for pharmacological treatment are given varenicline and bupropion free of charge. As the smoking cessation programme is centralized, the selection of the medication is made randomly to provide a fixed distribution rate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of both varenicline and bupropion in smoking cessation and to evaluate the effect of the smoking cessation programme.

METHODS

A total of 405 individuals who met the study criteria were included in the study. Smoking habits and degree of dependence were determined in all the participants with the Fagerstrom test for nicotine dependence (FTND) and bupropion or varenicline therapy was initiated in those who were eligible. Patients were followed up at 15 days then at 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 months after smoking cessation. A level of CO < 5 ppm and 'point prevalence abstinence' were used as the criteria of success for smoking cessation and this evaluation showed the non-smoking status in the previous 7 days.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 35.19 ± 7.73 years and 82.8% (n = 334) were male. Of the participants, 60.2% (n = 244) were given varenicline and 39.8% (n = 161) bupropion. The mean FTND and package/year was not significantly different between the groups. The rates of success in the 1st and 2nd weeks, and 1st, 3rd and 6th months were significantly higher in the varenicline group than in the bupropion group (p < 0.05). At the end of one year, the rate of smoking cessation was determined as 13.9% (n = 34) in the varenicline group and 6.2% (n = 10) in the bupropion gruop. The difference was statistically significant (p = 0.015). At the end of 1 year when the previous 7 days smoking status was evaluated with the 'point prevalence abstinence' measurement as the success criteria, success rates were 20.5% with varenicline and 18.6% with bupropion and the difference was not significant (p = 0.646). The individuals who used the medications for 45 days or longer were more successful in smoking cessation (p < 0.001). The most common reasons given for discontinuing the medication were the side-effects (31.5%). No significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the side-effects observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the rates of smoking cessation in all the other control points were higher with varenicline than with bupropion, no significant difference was found between the success rates of varenicline and bupropion used in smoking cessation based on the last 7 days at the end of one year. Those who used the medications for 45 days or longer were more successful in smoking cessation.

[Psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for harmful tobacco use and tobacco dependency]

Tobacco consumption is one of the major preventable health risk factors. In Germany approximately 110,000 people prematurely die from tobacco-related diseases and approximately 50% of regular smokers are considered to be tobacco dependent. Nevertheless, motivation to quit smoking is low and the long-term abstinence rates after attempts to stop smoking without professional support are far below 10%. As part of the S3 treatment guidelines 78 recommendations for motivation and early interventions for smokers unwilling to quit as well as psychotherapeutic and pharmacological support for smokers willing to quit were formulated after an systematic search of the current literature. More than 50 professional associations adopted the recommendations and background information in a complex certification process. In this article the scientific evidence base regarding the psychotherapeutic and pharmacological treatment options as well as recommendations and further information about indications and treatment implementation are presented. By following these guidelines for treatment of heavy smokers who are willing to quit combined with individual and group therapies on the basis of behavioral treatment strategies and pharmacological support, long-term success rates of almost 30% can be achieved.

How can we Improve on Modeling Nicotine Addiction to Develop Better Smoking Cessation Treatments?

Clinically effective smoking cessation treatments are few in number, mainly varenicline, bupropion, and nicotine replacement therapy being prescribed by health organizations. Of the many compounds tested for smoking cessation, a good proportion fail in human trials despite positive findings in rodents. This chapter aims to cover the uses and some pit falls of current methodologies employed to discover clinical treatments in the laboratory. Complicating factors include the complex nature of genetics in tobacco smoking and the comorbidity associated with other psychiatric disorders, which has not been addressed fully in the rodent laboratory. This chapter reviews the evidence from intravenous nicotine self-administration studies and proposes modifications on how we can improve the validity of the animal models by incorporating clinically relevant factors considered to be critical in tobacco smoking. For example, choice procedures that incorporate alternative reinforcers, use of reinstatement models, and second-order schedules of reinforcement are proposed to have better scientific validity that may lead to better clinical outcomes. Furthermore, improved experimental methods will also improve our chances of discovering effective treatments that ultimately may mitigate the effects of tobacco smoking with regard to health worldwide.

Zonisamide Reduces Withdrawal Symptoms But Does Not Enhance Varenicline-Induced Smoking Cessation

INTRODUCTION

Varenicline (Chantix) is a first-line treatment for smoking cessation but does not produce cessation in many individuals. It may be possible to improve abstinence by co-administering varenicline with other medications. Zonisamide (Zonegran) has a similar pharmacologic profile to topiramate, which has been shown to reduce smoking, but is better tolerated. This study evaluated whether combined zonisamide and varenicline reduced tobacco withdrawal and increased abstinence among smokers trying to quit, relative to varenicline and placebo.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot trial of zonisamide + varenicline versus placebo + varenicline for smoking cessation. Smokers received brief counseling and study medications, and completed weekly assessments for 10 consecutive weeks. The primary outcome was continuous abstinence rates (biochemically verified) during the final 4 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Results are presented as intent-to-treat and completer analyses. Seventy-four individuals were enrolled; 45 completed the study. Overall, 14.9% (intent-to-treat) and 25.0% (completer) of participants maintained sustained abstinence during the final 4 weeks of treatment. There were no differences between groups for biochemically-verified smoking, but zonisamide + varenicline reduced self-reported smoking, nicotine withdrawal, and craving compared to placebo + varenicline.

CONCLUSIONS

Zonisamide decreased nicotine withdrawal and craving, though not of sufficient magnitude to modify smoking behavior. The sample size was small and low rates of abstinence across groups suggest the study population was difficult to treat. Additional evaluation of zonisamide or other medications that increase GABA or decrease glutamate in larger or more diverse populations may yield positive clinical benefit for nicotine/tobacco cessation.

IMPLICATIONS

This study provides support for layering novel medications with varenicline for smoking cessation, for investigating medications that target the GABA and glutamate system, and for assessing the contribution that reductions in nicotine withdrawal have on ultimate cessation outcomes.

Health-care interventions to promote and assist tobacco cessation: a review of efficacy, effectiveness and affordability for use in national guideline development

AIMS

This paper provides a concise review of the efficacy, effectiveness and affordability of health-care interventions to promote and assist tobacco cessation, in order to inform national guideline development and assist countries in planning their provision of tobacco cessation support.

METHODS

Cochrane reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of major health-care tobacco cessation interventions were used to derive efficacy estimates in terms of percentage-point increases relative to comparison conditions in 6-12-month continuous abstinence rates. This was combined with analysis and evidence from 'real world' studies to form a judgement on the probable effectiveness of each intervention in different settings. The affordability of each intervention was assessed for exemplar countries in each World Bank income category (low, lower middle, upper middle, high). Based on World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, an intervention was judged as affordable for a given income category if the estimated extra cost of saving a life-year was less than or equal to the per-capita gross domestic product for that category of country.

RESULTS

Brief advice from a health-care worker given opportunistically to smokers attending health-care services can promote smoking cessation, and is affordable for countries in all World Bank income categories (i.e. globally). Proactive telephone support, automated text messaging programmes and printed self-help materials can assist smokers wanting help with a quit attempt and are affordable globally. Multi-session, face-to-face behavioural support can increase quit success for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco and is affordable in middle- and high-income countries. Nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, nortriptyline, varenicline and cytisine can all aid quitting smoking when given with at least some behavioural support; of these, cytisine and nortriptyline are affordable globally.

CONCLUSIONS

Brief advice from a health-care worker, telephone helplines, automated text messaging, printed self-help materials, cytisine and nortriptyline are globally affordable health-care interventions to promote and assist smoking cessation. Evidence on smokeless tobacco cessation suggests that face-to-face behavioural support and varenicline can promote cessation.

Update on medicines for smoking cessation

Persistent cigarette smokers usually have a nicotine addiction. This addiction has a chronic relapsing and sometimes remitting course and may persist lifelong. Remission can be facilitated by the use of medication as part of a comprehensive management strategy tailored to the individual patient. Nicotine replacement therapy is a first-line drug treatment. It is available in many formulations. Varenicline is also a first-line drug treatment. It should be started before the patient stops smoking. Bupropion is a second-line therapy. It may be associated with an increased risk of seizures and drug interactions. While there is some evidence that electronic cigarettes might facilitate smoking cessation, quit rates are not yet comparable with those of the drugs approved on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Translational Research on Nicotine Dependence

Nicotine dependence is a chronic, relapsing disorder with complex biological mechanisms underlying the motivational basis for this behavior. Although more than 70 % of current smokers express a desire to quit, most relapse within one year, underscoring the need for novel treatments. A key focus of translational research models addressing nicotine dependence has been on cross-validation of human and animal models in order to improve the predictive value of medication screening paradigms. In this chapter, we review several lines of research highlighting the utility of cross-validation models in elucidating the biological underpinnings of nicotine reward and reinforcement, identifying factors which may influence individual response to treatment, and facilitating rapid translation of findings to practice.

Pharmacological Options for Smoking Cessation in Heavy-Drinking Smokers

There is a high prevalence of comorbid tobacco use and alcohol use disorder (AUD), affecting more than 6 million people in the US. Globally, tobacco and alcohol use rank fourth and fifth, respectively, for disability-adjusted life-years lost. Levels of alcohol use are higher in smokers than nonsmokers, and the prevalence of smoking is higher in heavy drinkers compared with nondrinkers. This relationship is driven by many different factors, including genetics, neurobiological mechanisms, conditioning processes, and psychosocial influences. Although this unique population tends to experience more negative health consequences, more severe AUD, and poorer response to treatment than those with either AUD or tobacco use disorder alone, there are currently no available treatment protocols tailored to this comorbid condition. In this review, we provide a comprehensive review of ongoing clinical research into smoking cessation options for heavy-drinking smokers (HDS) through an evaluation of the effect of promising novel pharmacotherapies as well as combination therapies, including varenicline, naltrexone, the combination of varenicline and naltrexone, and the combination of naltrexone and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). These treatments are considered in light of the standard of care for smoking cessation, and seek to improve upon the available guidelines for this sizeable subgroup of smokers, namely those smokers who drink heavily.

Involvement of neuronal β2 subunit-containing nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in nicotine reward and withdrawal: implications for pharmacotherapies

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Tobacco smoking remains a major health problem. Nicotine binds to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs), which can cause addiction and withdrawal symptoms upon cessation of nicotine administration. Pharmacotherapies for nicotine addiction target brain alterations that underlie withdrawal symptoms. This review will delineate the involvement of the β2 subunit of neuronal nAChRs in nicotine reward and in generating withdrawal symptoms to better understand the efficacy of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies.

COMMENT

Chronic nicotine desensitizes and upregulates β2 subunit-containing nAChRs, and the prolonged upregulation of receptors may underlie symptoms of withdrawal. Experimental research has demonstrated that the β2 subunit of neuronal nAChRs is necessary for generating nicotine reward and withdrawal symptoms.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Smoking cessation pharmacotherapies act on β2 subunit-containing nAChRs to reduce nicotine reward and withdrawal symptom severity.

The Saudi Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of COPD

The Saudi Thoracic Society (STS) launched the Saudi Initiative for Chronic Airway Diseases (SICAD) to develop a guideline for the diagnosis and management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This guideline is primarily aimed for internists and general practitioners. Though there is scanty epidemiological data related to COPD, the SICAD panel believes that COPD prevalence is increasing in Saudi Arabia due to increasing prevalence of tobacco smoking among men and women. To overcome the issue of underutilization of spirometry for diagnosing COPD, handheld spirometry is recommended to screen individuals at risk for COPD. A unique feature about this guideline is the simplified practical approach to classify COPD into three classes based on the symptoms as per COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and the risk of exacerbations and hospitalization. Those patients with low risk of exacerbation (<2 in the past year) can be classified as either Class I when they have less symptoms (CAT < 10) or Class II when they have more symptoms (CAT ≥ 10). High-risk COPD patients, as manifested with ≥2 exacerbation or hospitalization in the past year irrespective of the baseline symptoms, are classified as Class III. Class I and II patients require bronchodilators for symptom relief, while Class III patients are recommended to use medications that reduce the risks of exacerbations. The guideline recommends screening for co-morbidities and suggests a comprehensive management approach including pulmonary rehabilitation for those with a CAT score ≥10. The article also discusses the diagnosis and management of acute exacerbations in COPD.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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