Factors associated with the efficacy of smoking cessation treatments and predictors of smoking abstinence in EAGLES

Shared and unique characteristics of metabolic syndrome in psychotic disorders: a review

Introduction

People with psychosis spectrum disorders (PSD) face an elevated risk of metabolic syndrome (MetS), which may reduce their life expectancy by nearly 20%. Pinpointing the shared and specific characteristics and clinical implications of MetS in PSD is crucial for designing interventions to reduce this risk, but an up-to-date review on MetS across the psychosis spectrum is lacking.

Methods

This narrative review fills this gap by examining the clinical literature on characteristics and implications of MetS in both distinct PSD and transdiagnostically, i.e., across traditional categorical diagnoses, with a focus on psychiatric and cardio-metabolic management.

Results

We discuss common and specific characteristics of MetS in PSD, as well as factors contributing to MetS development in PSD patients, including unhealthy lifestyle factors, genetic predisposition, pro-inflammatory state, drugs consumption, antipsychotic medication, and psychotic symptoms. We highlight the importance of early identification and management of cardio-metabolic risk in PSD patients, as well as the existing gaps in the literature, for instance in the screening for MetS in younger PSD patients. We compare hypotheses-generating clinical associations and characteristics of MetS in different PSD, concluding by reviewing the existing recommendations and challenges in screening, monitoring, and managing MetS in PSD.

Conclusion

Early identification and management of MetS are crucial to mitigate the long-term cardio-metabolic toll in PSD patients. Interventions should focus on healthy lifestyle and appropriate pharmacological and behavioral interventions. Further translational and clinical research is needed to develop targeted interventions and personalized treatment approaches for this vulnerable population, aiming at improving physical health and overall well-being.

Current Pharmacotherapies for Smoking Cessation and Promising Emerging Drugs

OBJECTIVE

Pharmacotherapy is commonly used during quit attempts and has shown an increase in the likelihood of achieving abstinence. However, with established pharmacotherapies, abstinence rates following a quit attempt remain low, and relapse is common. This review aims to investigate the efficacy and harm profiles of current and emerging pharmacotherapies.

METHODS

Literature review of current and emerging pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation and tobacco use disorder.

RESULTS

Emerging pharmacotherapies include new formulations of existing therapies, drug repurposing and some new treatments. New treatments are welcome and may incorporate different mechanisms of action or different safety and tolerability profiles compared to existing treatments. However, emerging pharmacotherapies have yet to demonstrate greater efficacy compared to existing treatments. The emergence of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) or 'vaping' is a feature of the current debate around tobacco use disorder. ENDS appear to facilitate switching but not quitting and are controversial as a harm minimisation strategy.

LIMITATIONS

Studies included a broad range of therapies and trial designs that should be compared with their differences taken into consideration.

CONCLUSION

Strategies to successfully quit smoking vary between individuals and may extend beyond pharmacotherapy and involve complex psychosocial factors and pathways.

Association of racial discrimination in health care settings and use of electronic cigarettes to quit smoking among Black adults

INTRODUCTION

Black people are disproportionately burdened by tobacco-related diseases and are less successful at cigarette cessation with current treatments. We know little about the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation method compared to currently approved methods in Black adults who smoke. Many Black adults report experiencing racial discrimination in health care, but if discrimination is related to utilization of smoking cessation aids including e-cigarettes and success with smoking cessation in this population is unclear. Therefore, this exploratory study aimed to understand how negative experiences and racial discrimination in health care influence use of e-cigarettes for cigarette cessation and success with cigarette cessation among Black adults.

METHODS

The study interviewed 201 Black adults who used cigarettes and tried to quit in their lifetime from the Family and Community Health Study in 2016. The study asked if they had tried and successfully quit cigarettes with e-cigarettes vs. other methods (support groups, medications, nicotine replacement therapies, call-in help lines, cold turkey [quit on their own], counseling) and asked about their negative experiences and racial discrimination in health care. We performed separate logistic regressions that evaluated the association of negative experiences and racial discrimination in health care with 1) use of e-cigarettes for cigarette cessation vs. other quitting methods and 2) success with cigarette cessation using any method among Black adults while controlling for age, sex, socioeconomic status, health insurance status, and age of onset of cigarette use.

RESULTS

More reported negative experiences and racial discrimination in health care were associated with ever trying to quit with e-cigarettes compared to other methods (OR:1.75, 95 % CI [1.05-2.91]), but negative experiences and racial discrimination in health care were not associated with cigarette quitting success. Interestingly, trying e-cigarettes was associated with being less successful at quitting compared to using other methods to quit smoking (OR: 0.40, 95 % CI [0.20, 0.81]).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that educating health care professionals that anticipated discrimination in health care settings may be driving Black adults who smoke to engage in non-evidence-based smoking cessation practices, such as e-cigarettes instead of those that are evidence-based, and may be more effective in this population.

Sex effects in predictors of smoking abstinence and neuropsychiatric adverse events in the EAGLES trial

Significance There are sex effects in abstinence outcomes across all smoking cessation medications, but there is limited information regarding sex effects on cessation-related neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs) or interactions with psychiatric status.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of data from EAGLES of 8144 adults who smoke cigarettes randomized to varenicline, bupropion, nicotine patch or placebo. Design characteristics included region (within/outside US), psychiatric cohort (absent/present), and treatment. Baseline variables included demographics, smoking history, prior use of study treatments, lifetime suicide-related history, and prior psychiatric co-morbidities and medication use. Design characteristics were forced into logistic regressions models, and then interactions among sex, design elements, and baseline characteristics were evaluated for NPSAEs and 6-month cessation outcomes.

RESULTS

Findings demonstrated a significant interaction of sex and race (p < 0.02); Black women were more likely to report NPSAEs than Black men. For cessation outcomes, there were no significant interactions with psychiatric cohort and sex. Women vs men with higher baseline levels of smoking had lower odds of continuous abstinence. Women vs men who used varenicline previously had lower odds of continuous abstinence. For 6-month point prevalence, sex interacted with baseline cigarettes per day (p < 0.01) similar to the interaction for continuous abstinence. Sex interacted with medication (p < 0.03), such that women vs men had relatively greater success at achieving point prevalence abstinence on varenicline.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, results demonstrated important sex and racial differences in the incidence of NPSAEs, but psychiatric status did not interact with sex on cessation outcomes. Findings did support prior work demonstrating relative increased efficacy of varenicline for women.

Psychopharmacology of smoking cessation medications: focus on patients with mental health disorders

The adverse effects of smoking cessation in individuals with mental health disorders have been a point of concern, and progress in the development of treatment has been slow. The primary first-line treatments for smoking cessation are Nicotine Replacement Therapy, Bupropion, Varenicline, and behavioural support. Nortriptyline and Clonidine are second-line treatments used when the first-line treatments are not effective or are contraindicated. Smoking cessation medications have been shown to be effective in reducing nicotine cravings and withdrawal symptoms and promoting smoking cessation among patients living with mental disorders. However, these medications may have implications for patients' mental health and need to be monitored closely. The efficacy and side effects of these medications may vary depending on the patient's psychiatric condition, medication regimen, substance use, or medical comorbidities. The purpose of this review is to synthesise the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, therapeutic effects, adverse effects, and pharmacological interactions of first- and second-line smoking cessation drugs, with an emphasis on patients suffering from mental illnesses. Careful consideration of the risks and benefits of using smoking cessation medications is necessary, and treatment plans must be tailored to individual patients' needs. Monitoring symptoms and medication regimens is essential to ensure optimal treatment outcomes.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

Background

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. 

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e‐cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow‐up period of six months from baseline.

Data collection and analysis

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow‐up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel‐Haenszel fixed‐effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs).

Main results

We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk.

We found moderate‐certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I2 = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low‐certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I2 = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate‐certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I2 = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I2 = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low‐certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm.

Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline found no clear evidence of difference in quit rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.26; I2 = 65%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I2 = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low‐certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I2 = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I2 = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low‐certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I2 = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual‐form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low‐certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit.

Authors' conclusions

Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual‐form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be no difference or a benefit from either medication for quitting smoking.

Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard‐dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e‐cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Can medications like varenicline and cytisine (nicotine receptor partial agonists) help people to stop smoking and do they cause unwanted effects?

Key messages

· Varenicline can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. Evidence shows it works better than bupropion and using only one type of nicotine replacement therapy (e.g. only patches). Quit rates might be similar to using more than one type of nicotine replacement therapy at the same time (e.g. patches and gum together).

· Cytisine can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. It may work as well as varenicline, but future evidence may show that while it helps, it is not quite as helpful as varenicline.

· Future studies should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other stop‐smoking medications, and should also  investigate giving cytisine or varenicline at different doses and for different lengths of time.

What are 'nicotine receptor partial agonists'?

Smoking tobacco is extremely bad for people’s health. For people who smoke, quitting is the best thing they can do to improve their health. Many people find it difficult to quit smoking. Nicotine receptor partial agonists (NRPAs) are a type of medication used to help people to stop smoking. They help to reduce the withdrawal symptoms people experience when they stop smoking, like cravings and unpleasant mood changes. They also reduce the pleasure people usually experience when they smoke. The most widely‐available treatment in this drug type is varenicline. Cytisine is another, similar medication. They may cause unwanted effects such as feeling sick (nausea) and other stomach problems, difficulties sleeping, abnormal dreams, and headache. They may also lead to potentially serious unwanted effects, such as suicidal thoughts, heart problems and raised blood pressure.

What did we want to find out?

We wanted to find out if using NRPAs can help people to quit smoking, and if they cause unwanted effects. We wanted to know:

· how many people stopped smoking for at least 6 months; and

· how many people had unwanted effects.

What did we do?

We searched for studies that investigated NRPAs used to help people quit smoking. People in the studies had to be chosen at random to receive an NRPA, or another NRPA, placebo (medication like the NRPA but with no active ingredients) or no treatment. They had to be adult tobacco smokers who wanted to stop smoking.

What did we find?

We found 75 studies that compared NRPAs with:

· placebo or no medicine;

· nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches or gum;

· bupropion (another medicine to help people stop smoking);

· another NRPA;

· e‐cigarettes.

The USA hosted the most studies (28 studies). Other studies took place in a range of countries across the world, some in several countries.

Main results

People are more likely to stop smoking for at least six months using varenicline than using placebo (41 studies, 17,395 people), bupropion (9 studies, 7560 people), or just one type of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches alone (11 studies, 7572 people). They may be just as likely to quit as people using two or more kinds of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches and gum together (5 studies, 2344 people).

Cytisine probably helps more people to stop smoking than placebo (4 studies, 4623 people) and may be just as effective as varenicline (2 studies, 2131 people).

For every 100 people using varenicline to stop smoking, 21 to 25 might successfully stop, compared with only 18 of 100 people using bupropion, 18 of 100 people using a single form of nicotine‐replacement therapy, and 20 of 100 using two or more kinds of nicotine‐replacement therapy. For every 100 people using cytisine to stop smoking, 18 to 23 might successfully stop.

The most common unwanted effect of varenicline is nausea, but this is mostly at mild or moderate levels and usually clears over time. People taking varenicline likely have an increased chance of a more serious unwanted effect that could result in going to hospital, however these are still rare (2.7% to 4% of people on varenicline, compared with 2.7% of people without) and may include many that are unrelated to varenicline. People taking cytisine may also have a slightly increased chance of serious unwanted effects compared with people not taking it, but this may be less likely compared with varenicline.

What are the limitations of the evidence?

The evidence for some of our results is very reliable. We’re very confident that varenicline helps people to quit smoking better than many alternatives. We’re less sure of some other results because fewer or smaller studies provided evidence.

Several results suggest one treatment is better or less harmful than another, but the opposite could still be true.

How up to date is the evidence?

The evidence is up to date to 29 April 2022.

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.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e-cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from baseline.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk. We found moderate-certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I² = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low-certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I² = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I² = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I² = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low-certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I² = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low-certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm. Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline showed that more people in the varenicline arm quit smoking (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I² = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I² = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I² = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I² = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I² = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual-form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low-certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I² not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I² not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual-form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be a benefit from varenicline for quitting smoking, however further evidence could strengthen this finding or demonstrate a benefit from cytisine. Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard-dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Trying is believing: A pilot study of in-vivo nicotine replacement therapy sampling in disadvantaged Black adults who smoke cigarettes

INTRODUCTION

While nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is a frontline tobacco treatment that doubles smoking quit rates, only about 18% of Black adults who smoke cigarettes report lifetime use of NRT. A promising approach for increasing NRT use is in-session (in-vivo) NRT sampling within cessation interventions. The present pilot study examined the effectiveness of an in-vivo NRT sampling intervention within a single-session, culturally-targeted motivational intervention trial in Black adults who smoke cigarettes.

METHODS

Non-treatment-seeking disadvantaged Black adults (N = 60) were offered the choice to sample nicotine lozenge, patch, or both in-session with the counselor present. Regardless of their choice, they were offered a one-week starter kit of both products. Data were analyzed at baseline and 1-month follow-up. Primary outcomes were 1) differences in motivation to quit smoking among NRT samplers versus non-samplers, 2) in-vivo NRT sampling preferences, and 3) in-vivo sampling's association with NRT use and improved smoking outcomes at follow up.

RESULTS

Almost all participants accepted a take-home NRT starter kit, and approximately half of those offered in-vivo sampling agreed to sample. Participants preferred sampling lozenges in session (75.8% lozenge only vs. 12.1% nicotine patch only or 12.1% both; p < .001). Motivation to quit smoking was not related to likelihood of in-vivo NRT sampling (p > .05). At 1-month follow-up, in-vivo samplers were more likely to use NRT (94% vs. 35%, respectively; p < .001) and report a quit attempt (81.8% vs. 53.9%, p < .05) compared to non-samplers.

CONCLUSION

In-vivo NRT sampling is a promising strategy to improve NRT uptake among Black adults who smoke cigarettes, regardless of motivation to quit smoking.

The effects of reduced nicotine content cigarettes on biomarkers of nicotine and toxicant exposure, smoking behavior and psychiatric symptoms in smokers with mood or anxiety disorders: A double-blind randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the government of New Zealand have proposed a reduction of the nicotine content in cigarettes to very low levels. This study examined the potential effects of this regulation in smokers with affective disorders.

METHODS

In a randomized controlled parallel group trial conducted at two sites in the USA (Penn State University, Hershey, PA and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA) 188 adult smokers with a current (n = 118) or lifetime (n = 70) anxiety or unipolar mood disorder, not planning to quit in the next 6 months, were randomly assigned (1:1) to smoke either Usual Nicotine Content (UNC) (11.6 mg nicotine/cigarette) research cigarettes, or Reduced Nicotine Content (RNC) research cigarettes where the nicotine content per cigarette was progressively reduced to 0.2 mg in five steps over 18 weeks. Participants were then offered the choice to either receive assistance to quit smoking, receive free research cigarettes, or resume using their own cigarette brand during a 12-week follow-up period. Main outcomes were biomarkers of nicotine and toxicant exposure, smoking behavior and dependence and severity of psychiatric symptoms. The pre-registered primary outcome was plasma cotinine.

RESULTS

A total of 143 (76.1%) randomized participants completed the randomized phase of the trial, 69 (73.4%) in the RNC group and 74 (78.8%) in the UNC group. After switching to the lowest nicotine content cigarettes, compared to smokers in the UNC group, at the last randomized visit the RNC group had significantly lower plasma cotinine (metabolite of nicotine): difference between groups, -175.7, 95% CI [-218.3, -133.1] ng/ml. Urine NNAL (metabolite of NNK, a lung carcinogen), exhaled carbon-monoxide, cigarette consumption, and cigarette dependence were also significantly lower in the RNC group than the UNC group. No between-group differences were found on a range of other biomarkers (e.g. 8-isoprostanes) or health indicators (e.g. blood pressure), or on 5 different psychiatric questionnaires, including the Kessler K6 measure of psychological distress. At the end of the subsequent 12-week treatment choice phase, those randomized to the RNC group were more likely to have quit smoking, based on initial intent-to-treat sample, n = 188 (18.1% RNC v 4.3% UNC, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Reducing nicotine content in cigarettes to very low levels reduces some toxicant exposures and cigarette addiction and increases smoking cessation in smokers with mood and/or anxiety disorders, without worsening mental health.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

TRN: NCT01928758, registered August 21, 2013.

"It's a decision I have to make": Patient perspectives on smoking and cessation after lung cancer screening decisions

Few studies exist showing that involvement in lung cancer screening (LCS) leads to a change in rates of cigarette smoking. We investigated LCS longitudinally to determine whether teachable moments for smoking cessation occur downstream from the initial provider-patient LCS shared decision-making discussion and self-reported effects on smoking behaviors. We performed up to two successive semi-structured interviews to assess the experiences of 39 individuals who formerly or currently smoked cigarettes who underwent LCS decision-making discussions performed during routine care from three established US medical center LCS programs.

The majority of those who remembered hearing about the importance of smoking cessation after LCS-related encounters did not report communication about smoking influencing their motivation to quit or abstain from smoking, including patients who were found to have pulmonary nodules. Patients experienced little distress related to LCS discussions. Patients reported that there were other, more significant, reasons for quitting or abstinence. They recommended clinicians continue to ask about smoking at every clinical encounter, provide information comparing the benefits of LCS with those of quitting smoking, and have clinicians help them identify triggers or other motivators for improving smoking behaviors. Our findings suggest that there may be other teachable moment opportunities outside of LCS processes that could be utilized to motivate smoking reduction or cessation, or LCS processes could be improved to integrate cessation resources.

Factors associated with long-term smoking relapse in those who succeeded in smoking cessation using regional smoking cessation programs

It is known that approximately 10% of successful quitters relapse annually. This study aimed to investigate the factors related to long-term smoking relapse in individuals who succeeded in maintaining smoking cessation for 6 months after attending a regional smoking cessation program. This study enrolled 943 individuals registered for the regional smoking cessation program at the Busan Smoking Cessation Center in 2018-2019 who maintained smoking cessation for 6 months. A survey was conducted using a smartphone link or through phone calls, and the data for 305 participants who finally completed the survey were analyzed. The questionnaire addressed individual, inter-individual, organizational, and community-level factors related to smoking relapse. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the factors associated with smoking relapse by period. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used for the factors associated with smoking relapse for the entire period. The smoking relapse rate at the time of the survey was 25.4%. In the analysis of smoking relapse by period, relapse was associated with the belief that smoking relieves stress, the number of single-person households, and poor subjective health status. In the analysis of smoking relapse during the entire period, we observed a significant association with the belief that smoking relieves stress (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.52-4.61), single-person households (HR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.16-3.26), and high levels of emotional stress (HR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.04-2.85). Long-term follow-up is necessary to prevent smoking relapse in single-person households, individuals who believe that smoking relieves stress, and those experiencing high levels of subjective emotional stress. Interventional therapies for stress relief and awareness improvement in smokers need to be developed.

The effect of area-level disadvantage and race on smoking abstinence in a clinical trial

Reasons for Black-White disparities in smoking abstinence are not well understood. This study examined area-level socioeconomic disadvantage as a contributor to lower quit rates for Blacks who smoke among 223 Black and 221 White low-income individuals who smoke enrolled in a smoking cessation trial. Outcome was cotinine-verified abstinence at week 26. Census tract-level disadvantage was measured using 5-year estimates linked to participants' home address and included percentage of: female headed households; public assistance; unemployed; < 100% of the federal poverty level; and whether there was > 25% having less than a high school education. A neighborhood disadvantage index score (DIS) was calculated as the sum of z scores for each variable. Black participants lived in more disadvantaged areas than White participants [DIS mean (SD): 3.2 (4.3), -1.0 (3.2), p < .001]. Similar rates of abstinence were observed at the same level of disadvantage [DIS ≥ 50th percentile (less disadvantage): 21.9% Blacks, 26.2% Whites, p = .50; DIS < 50th percentile (more disadvantage): 10.7% Blacks, 15.8% Whites, p = .31]. Only DIS but neither race nor the interaction was retained in the final model predicting abstinence; each unit increase in DIS was associated with 9% reduced odds of abstinence, OR: 0.91, 95% CI [0.87,0.96]. Findings point to the importance of examining factors associated with race that contribute to health inequities and underscore the need to consider how consequences of systemic racism, such as neighborhood context and other consequences not captured by the DIS, can constrain or facilitate smoking cessation when developing interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Medication-assisted quit rates in participants with smoking-related diseases in EAGLES: Post hoc analyses of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Greater understanding is required of how smokers with smoking-related diseases respond to smoking cessation medications. This post hoc analysis of EAGLES data compared continuous abstinence rates (CARs) in smokers with/without smoking-related diseases and assessed participant demographic and baseline characteristics that may serve as predictors of continuous abstinence (CA).

METHODS

EAGLES was a 24-week (12-week treatment, 12-week follow-up), double-blind, active- (nicotine replacement therapy; patch) and placebo-controlled study in motivated-to-quit smokers with/without psychiatric disorders. This analysis assessed CARs at weeks 9-12 (CAR9-12) and 9-24 (CAR9-24) in participants with smoking-related diseases [asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, and/or cardiovascular disease (n=1372)] versus controls without these comorbidities (n=6039). Participants received varenicline 1 mg twice daily, bupropion 150 mg twice daily, nicotine patches 21 mg/day with taper, or placebo for 12 weeks. Stepwise logistic modeling was also performed to analyze odds ratio (OR) for predictors of CA at weeks 9-12 (CA9-12) and 9-24 (CA9-24).

RESULTS

Smokers with smoking-related diseases were older, had a longer smoking history, more quit attempts, and were more likely to have a psychiatric disorder and reside in the US versus smokers without comorbidities. Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence scores and treatment adherence were comparable between cohorts. Smokers with smoking-related diseases had lower CARs versus controls (CAR9-12: 20.8% vs 24.0%; CAR9-24: 13.0% vs 16.9%). Use of smoking cessation medication was the strongest predictor of CA after control for demographics, smoking characteristics, and psychiatric disorder. By treatment, OR and CI were: varenicline CA9-12 (OR=3.82; 95% CI: 3.21-4.54) and CA9-24 (OR=2.92; 95% CI: 2.40-3.54); bupropion CA9-12 (OR=2.17; 95% CI: 1.81-2.60) and CA9-24 (OR=1.99; 95% CI: 1.63-2.44); nicotine patches CA9-12 (OR=2.23; 95% CI: 1.87-2.67) and CA9-24 (OR=1.86; 95% CI: 1.52-2.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Smokers with smoking-related diseases had lower quit rates than controls. Of the active treatments compared, varenicline was most effective in smokers with asthma, COPD, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01456936 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01456936).

Differential trajectories of tobacco smoking in people at ultra-high risk for psychosis: Associations with clinical outcomes

OBJECTIVE

People at ultra-high risk (UHR) for psychosis have a high prevalence of tobacco smoking, and rates are even higher among the subgroup that later develop a psychotic disorder. However, the longitudinal relationship between the course of tobacco smoking and clinical outcomes in UHR subjects is unknown.

METHODS

We investigated associations between tobacco smoking and clinical outcomes in a prospective study of UHR individuals (n = 324). Latent class mixed model analyses were used to identify trajectories of smoking severity. Mixed effects models were applied to investigate associations between smoking trajectory class and the course of attenuated psychotic symptoms (APS) and affective symptoms, as assessed using the CAARMS.

RESULTS

We identified four different classes of smoking trajectory: (i) Persistently High (n = 110), (ii) Decreasing (n = 29), (iii) Persistently Low (n = 165) and (iv) Increasing (n = 20). At two-year follow-up, there had been a greater increase in APS in the Persistently High class than for both the Persistently Low (ES = 9.77, SE = 4.87, p = 0.046) and Decreasing (ES = 18.18, SE = 7.61, p = 0.018) classes. There were no differences between smoking classes in the incidence of psychosis. There was a greater reduction in the severity of emotional disturbance and general symptoms in the Decreasing class than in the High (ES = -10.40, SE = 3.41, p = 0.003; ES = -22.36, SE = 10.07, p = 0.027), Increasing (ES = -11.35, SE = 4.55, p = 0.014; ES = -25.58, SE = 13.17, p = 0.050) and Low (ES = -11.38, SE = 3.29, p = 0.001; ES = -27.55, SE = 9.78, p = 0.005) classes, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggests that in UHR subjects persistent tobacco smoking is associated with an unfavorable course of psychotic symptoms, whereas decrease in the number of cigarettes smoked is associated with improvement in affective symptoms. Future research into smoking cessation interventions in the early stages of psychoses is required to shine light on the potential of modifying smoking behavior and its relation to clinical outcomes.

The effect of varenicline on smoking and drinking outcomes among Black and White adults with alcohol use disorder and co-occurring cigarette smoking: A secondary analysis of two clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Varenicline is an FDA-approved medication for smoking cessation and has demonstrated promise in reducing alcohol use. This study sought to compare the efficacy of varenicline in reducing smoking and drinking among Black and White people seeking alcohol treatment.

METHODS

Linear mixed modeling was conducted using data from two multi-site placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials examining the effects of varenicline for treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD; O'Malley et al., 2018; Litten et al., 2013) among Black and White adults with AUD and co-occurring cigarette smoking. The primary analyses were conducted in a sample of 117 adults (O'Malley trial: 29.1% female, 55.2% Black), and replicated in an independent sample of 73 adults (Litten trial: 23.3% female, 45.2% Black).

RESULTS

Black participants smoked fewer cigarettes per day compared to White participants (O'Malley trial: F_1,116 = 8.95, p = .003; Litten trial: F_1,68.9 = 4.74p = .03). Linear mixed models revealed a marginal effect of varenicline on reducing cigarettes smoked per day regardless of race in the O'Malley trial (F_1,109 = 3.34, p = .07), which was replicated in the Litten trial (F_1,67.1 = 20.77p < .0001). Participants reduced the number of drinks consumed regardless of treatment condition or race in both trials (O'Malley trial: F_1,98 = 131.69, p < .0001; Litten trial:F_1,69 = 60.36, p < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our adjusted model findings suggest varenicline reduced smoking among Black and White people with AUD and co-occurring cigarette smoking. However, these findings should be replicated in a larger sample.

Effectiveness of an interactive web-based health program for adults: a study protocol for three concurrent controlled-randomized trials (EVA-TK-Coach)

BACKGROUND

A healthy lifestyle can help prevent diseases that impair quality of life and lead to premature death. The Techniker health insurance fund offers a comprehensive online health program to support users in achieving their health goals of Increasing Fitness, Losing and Maintaining Weight, or Smoking Cessation.

METHODS

The aim of this study is to test the long-term effectiveness of the web-based TK-HealthCoach with regard to the primary outcomes of increased physical activity, sustainable weight reduction, and smoking abstinence. We are conducting three interconnected, randomized controlled trials (RCT), one for each health goal, within which participants are allocated to an intervention group (interactive online health program) or a control group (non-interactive online health program). The effects of the intervention groups compared to the control groups will be analyzed by multi-level models for change. Participants' data are captured via online questionnaires before the program starts (baseline t0), again when it ends (t1), and later at two follow-up surveys (t2 and t3); the latter 12 months after t1. We are documenting socio-demographic, health-related, and psychological variables as well as usage behavior data of the programs. According to our sample size calculation, we have to enroll 1114 participants in each Losing and Maintaining Weight and Increasing Fitness RCT and 339 participants in the Smoking Cessation RCT. Additionally, 15-20 participants in the interactive smoking-cessation program will be invited to qualitative telephone interviews with the aim to obtain detailed information concerning utilization, compliance, and satisfaction. The online RCTs' inclusion criteria are: adults of each gender regardless of whether they are insured with Techniker health insurance fund. Persons with impairments or pre-existing conditions require a medical assessment as to whether the program is suitable for them. Specific exclusion criteria apply to each program/RCT.

DISCUSSION

We assume that study participants will improve their health behavior by using the offered online health programs and that each health goal's intervention group will reveal advantages regarding the outcome variables compared to the control groups. Study enrollment started on January 1, 2020.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register, Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111-1245-0273 . Registered on 11 December 2019.

A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial of Remote Varenicline Sampling to Promote Treatment Engagement and Smoking Cessation

INTRODUCTION

Medication sampling is a clinically useful tool to engage smokers in the quitting process. Whether varenicline is suitable for sampling purposes is unclear. The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility, uptake, and preliminary outcomes of varenicline sampling.

METHODS

Smokers (N = 99), both motivated to quit and not, were recruited and randomized to varenicline sampling versus not, with 12 week follow-up. The intervention consisted of mailing one-time samples of varenicline (lasting 2-4 wks), with minimally suggestive guidance on use.

RESULTS

Uptake of varenicline was strong, at 2 weeks (54% any use, 66% daily use) and 4 weeks (38%, 46%), with 58% of medication users seeking additional medication. Most users followed conventional titration patterns, self-titrating from 0.5 mg to 2 mg. Relative to control, varenicline sampling increased motivation (p = 0.006) and confidence to quit (p = 0.02), and decreased cigarette smoking (p = 0.02). Smokers receiving varenicline samples were significantly more likely to achieve 50% reduction in cigarettes per day (CPD), both immediately following the sampling exercise (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 4.12; 95% CI: 1.39 to 12.17) and at final follow-up (AOR = 4.50; 95% CI: 1.56 to 13.01). Though cessation outcomes were not statistically significant, there was a 1.5 to 3-fold increase in quit attempts and abstinence from varenicline sampling throughout follow-up. These outcomes were comparable among smokers motivated to quit and not.

CONCLUSIONS

Unguided, user-driven sampling of varenicline sampling is a concrete behavioral exercise that is feasible to do and seems to suggest clinical utility. Sampling is a pragmatic clinical approach to engage more smokers in quitting.

IMPLICATIONS

Use of evidence-based pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation is low. Medication sampling is a pragmatic behavioral exercise that allows smokers to experience the benefits of using them, while promoting positive downstream effects towards quitting. While previous studies have shown that nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) sampling is viable and effective, whether this extends to varenicline is unclear. Results from this trial demonstrate that varenicline sampling is feasible, safe, and suggestive of clinically important steps toward quitting, deserving of a larger trial.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT #03742154.

A Multicenter, Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Phase 2b Trial of Cytisinicline in Adult Smokers (The ORCA-1 Trial)

Introduction

Cytisinicline (known as cytisine), a nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist, is a smoking cessation aid currently marketed in Central and Eastern Europe using a 1.5-mg/tablet 25-day downward titration schedule. No prior studies have evaluated other doses or administration schedules. This study evaluated the effects of a higher dosage and simplified dosing schedule on drug efficacy and tolerability.

Methods

ORCA-1 was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial that provided cytisinicline or placebo tablets plus behavioral support for 25 days. Adult smokers (>10 cigarettes daily) committed to quitting smoking were randomized to compare 2 cytisinicline doses (1.5 mg and 3 mg) versus placebo, and 2 administration schedules [downward titration versus 3 times daily (TID)]. Primary outcome was a reduction in expected cigarettes smoked at end of treatment; secondary outcomes were biochemically confirmed 7-day abstinence at Week 4 and continuous abstinence from Weeks 5 to 8.

Results

Among 254 participants, those in cytisinicline arms (regardless of dose or schedule) had greater reductions in cigarettes smoked versus placebo, with differences observed in 3 cytisinicline arms statistically significant versus placebo. All cytisinicline arms had statistically significantly higher abstinence rates at Week 4 versus placebo. Both cytisinicline arms using TID schedules had statistically significantly higher continuous abstinence rates from Weeks 5 to 8 compared with placebo. Participants in the cytisinicline 3-mg TID arm had the highest abstinence rate. There were no safety concerns with either 1.5-mg or 3-mg cytisinicline.

Conclusion

Based on simpler dose scheduling, excellent tolerability, and best-continued abstinence rate, cytisinicline 3-mg TID was selected for future Phase 3 studies.

Implications

Although the 1.5-mg 25-day titration schedule has been marketed in Central and Eastern Europe for decades, this study explored using a higher dosage and a simplified dosing schedule for impact on cytisinicline efficacy and tolerability. Based on these results, a Phase 3 program was initiated using cytisinicline 3-mg tablets on a TID schedule for potential market approval in the United States.

Psychiatric Comorbidity and Multimorbidity in the EAGLES Trial: Descriptive Correlates and Associations With Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events, Treatment Adherence, and Smoking Cessation

INTRODUCTION

Psychiatric and substance use disorders represent barriers to smoking cessation. We sought to identify correlates of psychiatric comorbidity (CM; 2 diagnoses) and multimorbidity (MM; 3+ diagnoses) among smokers attempting to quit and to evaluate whether these conditions predicted neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs), treatment adherence, or cessation efficacy (CE).

AIMS AND METHODS

Data were collected from November 2011 to January 2015 across sixteen countries and reflect the psychiatric cohort of the EAGLES trial. Participants were randomly assigned to receive varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy, or placebo for 12 weeks and were followed for an additional 12 weeks posttreatment. NPSAE outcomes reflected 16 moderate-to-severe neuropsychiatric symptom categories, and CE outcomes included continuous abstinence at weeks 9-12 and 9-24.

RESULTS

Of the 4103 participants included, 36.2% were diagnosed with multiple psychiatric conditions (20.9% CM, 15.3% MM). Psychiatric CM and MM were associated with several baseline factors, including male gender, nonwhite race or ethnicity, more previous quit attempts, and more severe mental health symptoms. The incidence of moderate-to-severe NPSAEs was significantly higher (p < .01) in participants with MM (11.9%) than those with CM (5.1%) or primary diagnosis only (4.6%). There were no significant (ps > .05) main effects or interactions with treatment condition for diagnostic grouping on treatment adherence or CE outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

While having multiple psychiatric diagnoses increased risk of developing moderate-to-severe NPSAEs during a quit attempt, neither CM nor MM were associated with treatment adherence or odds of quitting. These findings reassure providers to advise smokers with multiple stable psychiatric conditions to consider using Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medications when trying to quit.

IMPLICATIONS

Psychiatric MM may be associated with development of NPSAEs when smokers make a medication-assisted quit attempt, but it does not appear to be differentially associated with medication compliance or efficacy. Prescribing healthcare professionals are encouraged to not only promote use of FDA-approved pharmacotherapies by smokers with complex psychiatric presentations, but also to closely monitor such smokers for neuropsychiatric side effects that may be related to their mental health conditions.

NCT #

NCT01456936.

Characteristics and Predictors of Abstinence Among Smokers of a Smoking Cessation Clinic in Hunan China

Background: More than 300 million smokers make China the largest cigarette consumer globally, which is a huge economic burden. Smoking cessation (SC) clinics can offer counseling and follow-up services. The operational experience of SC clinics in China needs to be summarized and improved based on research evidence.

Purpose: The objectives of this study were to describe quit rates among attendees of SC clinics in Hunan and assess predictors of successful SC.

Methods: The participants in this study were smokers who visited the SC clinic of Hunan Cancer Hospital from February 1, 2015 to September 30, 2018. Individuals who received individual counseling and assessment from the SC clinic staff and were willing to quit smoking were eligible for inclusion. Those with critical illness or cancer were excluded. Application of smoking cessation clinic registration form (unified by Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention) was used to assess participants at the consultation. Follow-ups and counseling were performed over telephone at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after the initial cessation consultation or in times of need. Successful SC was checked for at 3 months after the start of SC.

Results: A total of 328 smokers (mean age 45.67 ± 12.38 years) had participated. The abstinence rate at 3 months was 28.4%. Binary regression analysis revealed significant independent predictors to be the total numbers of SC follow up sessions, previous SC attempts, and participants' decision on when to quit smoking (The relative to quit immediately group, quit within 30 days, quit after 30 days, and undecided quit were less likely to succeed in quitting. while quit within seven days had no statistical significance.

Conclusion: SC clinics can achieve a desirably high quit rate. Participant's previous attempts at quitting, three or more follow-ups, and the decision to quit immediately or within seven days were factors helpful in predicting the success of SC.

Assessment of Racial Differences in Pharmacotherapy Efficacy for Smoking Cessation: Secondary Analysis of the EAGLES Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Understanding Black vs White differences in pharmacotherapy efficacy and the underlying reasons is critically important to reducing tobacco-related health disparities.

OBJECTIVE

To compare pharmacotherapy efficacy and examine variables to explain Black vs White differences in smoking abstinence.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This study is a secondary analysis of the Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study (EAGLES) double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial, which took place at clinical trial centers, academic centers, and outpatient clinics in 29 states in the US. US Black and White smokers who smoked 10 or more cigarettes per day with and without psychiatric comorbidity were enrolled between November 2011 and January 2015. Data analysis was performed from July 2019 to January 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized (1:1:1:1) in a double-blind, triple-dummy, placebo- and active-controlled (nicotine patch) trial of varenicline and bupropion for 12 weeks with follow-up through week 24.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Biochemically verified continuous cigarette abstinence rate (CAR) from weeks 9 to 24. Baseline, postbaseline treatment, and safety characteristics were examined as variables to explain race differences in abstinence.

RESULTS

Of the 1065 Black smokers enrolled, 255 were randomized to receive varenicline, 259 received bupropion, 286 received nicotine replacement therapy (NRT [ie, nicotine patch]), and 265 received placebo. Among the 3044 White smokers enrolled, 778 were randomized to receive varenicline, 769 received bupropion, 738 received NRT, and 759 received placebo. Participants were predominantly female (614 Black [57.7%] and 1786 White [58.7%] women) and heavy smokers (mean [SD] cigarettes per day, 18.2 [7.9] for Black and 20.0 [7.5] for White smokers), with a mean (SD) age of 47.2 (11.2) years for Black and 46.5 (12.7) years for White participants. Treatment and race were associated with CAR for weeks 9 to 24. The CAR was 4.9% lower for Black vs White participants (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.41-0.69; P < .001); differences were found across all treatments. Pooling psychiatric and nonpsychiatric cohorts, varenicline (OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.90-3.63; P < .001), bupropion (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.25-2.46; P = .001), and NRT (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.07-2.16; P = .02) had greater efficacy than placebo for White participants. Only varenicline (OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.26-5.48; P = .01) had greater efficacy than placebo for Black participants. Baseline, postbaseline, and safety characteristics differed by race, but these variables did not eliminate the association of race with CAR. Black participants had 49% reduced odds of CAR for weeks 9 to 24 compared with White participants in the adjusted model (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39-0.66; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Black and White smokers achieved the highest rate of abstinence while taking varenicline, suggesting that it is the best first-line therapy for these groups. However, Black smokers were less responsive to all therapies, including placebo. Understanding variables (eg, socioeconomic or biological) beyond those may lead to improved treatment outcomes for Black smokers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01456936.

Efficacy and Safety of Pharmacotherapeutic Smoking Cessation Aids in Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders: Subgroup Analysis of EAGLES

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of varenicline, bupropion, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) among smokers with schizophrenia spectrum disorders in post hoc analyses of Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study data.

METHODS

Smokers with schizophrenia spectrum disorder (N=390) and without a psychiatric illness (control group, N=4,028) were randomly assigned to receive varenicline, bupropion, NRT patch, or placebo for 12 weeks. Outcomes included abstinence rates during treatment and follow-up, number needed to treat (NNT) for abstinence, incidence of neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs), and temporal relationship between NPSAEs and abstinence status.

RESULTS

Smokers with schizophrenia smoked more and had greater dependence and fewer prior trials of cessation pharmacotherapy at baseline. At each time point, smokers with schizophrenia assigned to varenicline had significantly greater odds of abstinence compared with their matched placebo group, with NNT comparable to the control group. Bupropion and NRT increased odds of abstinence; confidence intervals (CIs) included 1 for some comparisons, and NNT for smokers with schizophrenia was greater than for the control group. No treatment was associated with significantly more NPSAEs, compared with placebo, in either cohort. The estimated NPSAE rate was 5% (95% CI=3.0-7.7) for smokers with schizophrenia and 1% (95% CI=0.6-2.1) for the control group. Over one-third of NPSAEs occurred during partial or full abstinence, suggesting a multifactorial nature.

CONCLUSIONS

For smokers with schizophrenia, varenicline led to significantly higher abstinence rates, and NNT was comparable to the control group. A significant proportion of NPSAEs occurred during early abstinence. No treatment significantly increased NPSAE prevalence.

A qualitative study of the views about smoking, licensed cessation aids and e-cigarettes in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders

Smoking prevalence remains high among people with a mental health condition compared to those without. Understanding people's motivation to quit and their views of smoking cessation support may help to develop future interventions. We conducted a qualitative study to explore the perceptions of 30 people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders who were current smokers, about smoking traditional cigarettes, the appeal of licensed medicines and e-cigarettes for smoking cessation or smoking reduction. The experiences of participants who were motivated to quit were compared with those who were not motivated to quit. Findings suggest traditional cigarettes were pleasurable and licensed cessation aids and e-cigarettes unappealing to participants who were unmotivated to quit. Whereas nicotine replacement products and e-cigarettes may be an appealing smoking cessation or reduction strategy for those motivated to quit. There is a need to find ways of making traditional cigarettes less appealing and alternative less harmful nicotine products (licensed and unlicensed) more appealing and accessible to this group of high risk smokers.

Which Method of Assessing Depression and Anxiety Best Predicts Smoking Cessation: Screening Instruments or Self-Reported Conditions?

INTRODUCTION

Affective disorders and symptoms (ADS) are predictive of lower odds of quitting smoking. However, it is unknown which approach to assessing ADS best predicts cessation. This study compared a battery of ADS screening instruments with a single, self-report question on predicting cessation. Among those who self-reported ADS, we also examined if an additional question regarding whether participants believed the condition(s) might interfere with their ability to quit added predictive utility to the single-item question.

METHODS

Participants (N = 2637) enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of web-based smoking treatments completed a battery of five ADS screening instruments and answered a single-item question about having ADS. Those with a positive self-report on the single-item question were also asked about their interference beliefs. The primary outcome was complete-case, self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence at 12 months.

RESULTS

Both assessment approaches significantly predicted cessation. Screening positive for ≥ one ADS in the battery was associated with 23% lower odds of quitting than not screening positive for any (p = .023); those with a positive self-report on the single-item had 39% lower odds of quitting than self-reporting no mental health conditions (p < .001). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values for the two assessment approaches were similar (p = .136). Adding the interference belief question to the single-item assessment significantly increased the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value (p = .042).

CONCLUSIONS

The single-item question assessing ADS had as much predictive validity, and possibly more, than the battery of screening instruments for identifying participants at risk for failing to quit smoking. Adding a question about interference beliefs significantly increased the predictive utility of the single-item question.

IMPLICATIONS

This is the first study to demonstrate that a single-item question assessing ADS has at least as much predictive validity, and possibly more, than a battery of validated screening instruments for identifying smokers at highest risk for cessation failure. This study also demonstrates adding a question about interference beliefs significantly adds to the predictive utility of a single, self-report question about mental health conditions. Findings from this study can be used to inform decisions regarding how to assess ADS in the context of tobacco treatment settings.

Genetic Variant in CHRNA5 and Response to Varenicline and Combination Nicotine Replacement in a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

It is unclear if genetic variants affect smoking cessation treatment response. This study tested whether variants in the cholinergic receptor nicotinic alpha 5 subunit (CHRNA5) predict response to smoking cessation medication by directly comparing the two most effective smoking cessation pharmacotherapies. In this genotype-stratified randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (May 2015-August 2019 in St Louis, Missouri), smokers were randomized by genotype in blocks of six (1:1:1 ratio) to three conditions: 12 weeks of placebo (n = 273), combination nicotine patch and lozenge (combination nicotine replacement therapy, cNRT, n = 275), or varenicline (n = 274). All participants received counseling and were followed for 12 months. The primary end point was biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence at the end of treatment (EOT, week 12). Trial registration and eligibility criteria are on clinicaltrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/) (NCT02351167). We conducted the genetic analyses separately for 516 European ancestry (EA) smokers and 306 non-EA smokers (including 270 African American smokers). In African American smokers, there was a genotype-by-treatment interaction for EOT abstinence (χ²  = 10.7, degrees of freedom = 2. P = 0.0049): specifically, cNRT was more effective in smokers with rs16969968 GG genotype than was placebo, while varenicline was more effective in smokers of GA/AA genotypes. In EA ancestry smokers, there was no significant genotype-by-treatment interaction. In the whole sample, although both were effective at EOT, only varenicline, and not cNRT, was significantly effective relative to placebo at 6-month follow-up. Importantly, this study suggests that genetic information can further enhance smoking cessation treatment effectiveness.

Symptoms of depression and active smoking among survivors of stroke and myocardial infarction: An NHANES analysis

Historic concerns about the cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric side effects of smoking-cessation pharmacotherapy have in part limited their use. We sought to evaluate whether depressive symptoms are associated with active smoking among survivors of stroke and myocardial infarction (MI). To do this, we performed a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2005-2016). We included participants ≥20 years old with prior stroke or MI and any history of smoking. Symptoms of depression, at survey participation, were ascertained using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Active smoking was defined using self-report and, secondarily, with cotinine measures. We used logistic regression to evaluate the association between depression and active smoking after adjusting for demographics, smoking-related medical conditions, and health-related behaviors. We found that, among stroke and MI survivors with any history of smoking, 37.9% (95% CI, 34.5-41.3%) reported active smoking and 43.8% (95% CI, 40.3-47.3%) had biochemical evidence of smoking. Rates of active smoking were similar for stroke and MI survivors. Twenty-one percent screened positive for depression. In adjusted models, depression was associated with active smoking in the combined group of stroke and MI survivors (odds ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.24-4.20) and in stroke survivors (odds ratio, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.20-7.38). Tests of heterogeneity by event type did not reveal an interaction. Findings were similar when using cotinine measures. We conclude that symptoms of depression were associated with active smoking among stroke and MI survivors. Stroke and MI survivors with symptoms of depression may require targeted smoking-cessation interventions.

Factors That Explain Differences in Abstinence Between Black and White Smokers: A Prospective Intervention Study

BACKGROUND

Black-white differences in smoking abstinence are not well understood. This trial sought to confirm previously reported differences in quitting between blacks and whites and to identify factors underlying this difference.

METHODS

During enrollment, 224 black and 225 white low-income smokers were stratified on race and within race on age and sex to ensure balance on these factors known to impact abstinence. The intervention included varenicline for 12 weeks and six guideline-based smoking cessation counseling sessions. The primary endpoint was cotinine-verified 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at week 26. A priori socioeconomic, smoking, treatment process (eg, treatment utilization, side effects, withdrawal relief), psychosocial, and biological factors were assessed to investigate race differences in abstinence. Unadjusted odds ratios (OR) were used to compare abstinence between blacks and whites. Adjusted odds ratios from logistic regression models were used to examine predictors of abstinence. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Blacks were less likely to achieve abstinence at week 26 (14.3% vs 24.4%, OR = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.32 to 0.83, P = .007). Utilizing best subsets logistic regression, five factors associated with race jointly predicted abstinence: home ownership (yes/no, OR = 3.03, 95% CI = 1.72 to 5.35, P < .001), study visits completed (range = 0-6, OR = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.88 to 4.20, P < .001), income (household member/$1000, OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.06, P = .02), plasma cotinine (per 1 ng/mL, OR = 0.997, 95% CI = 0.994 to 0.999, P = .002), and neighborhood problems (range = 10-30, OR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.81 to 0.96, P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

The race difference in abstinence was fully explained by lack of home ownership, lower income, greater neighborhood problems, higher baseline cotinine, and higher visit completion, which were disproportionately represented among blacks. Findings illuminate factors that make it harder for blacks in the United States to quit smoking relative to whites and provide important areas for future studies to reduce tobacco-related health disparities.

Varenicline: mode of action, efficacy, safety and accumulated experience salient for clinical populations

Objective: Varenicline, a selective partial agonist of the α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, is a smoking cessation pharmacotherapy that more than doubles the chance of quitting smoking at 6 months compared with placebo. This article reviews salient knowledge of the discovery, pharmacological characteristics, and the efficacy and safety of varenicline in general and in specific populations of smokers and provides recommendations to support use in clinical practice.Methods: Literature searches for varenicline were conducted using PubMed, with date limitations of 2000-2018 inclusive, using search terms covering the discovery, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety in different populations of smokers, alternative quit approaches and combination therapy. Selection of safety and efficacy data was limited to clinical trials, meta-analyses and observational studies.Results: Standard administration of varenicline is efficacious in helping smokers to quit, including smokers with cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Furthermore, varenicline efficacy may be improved with pre-loading, a gradual quitting approach for smokers unwilling or unable to quit abruptly, and extended treatment in smokers who have recently quit to help maintain abstinence. Initial concerns regarding the association of varenicline with increased risk of neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular adverse events have been disproven after extensive clinical evaluations, and the benefit-risk profile of varenicline is considered favorable.Conclusions: Varenicline is efficacious and safe for all adult smokers with a range of clinical characteristics. Evidence suggests that approaches offering greater flexibility in timing and duration of treatment may further extend treatment efficacy and clinical reach.

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.

Tobacco Use and Subsequent Cessation Among Hospitalized Patients in Mumbai, India: A Longitudinal Study

INTRODUCTION

Hospitalization is an important setting to address tobacco use. Little is known about post-discharge cessation and treatment use in low- and middle-income countries. Our objective was to assess tobacco use after hospital discharge among patients in Mumbai, India.

METHODS

Longitudinal observational study of inpatients (≥15 years) admitted at one hospital from November 2015 to October 2016. Patients reporting current tobacco use were surveyed by telephone after discharge.

RESULTS

Of 2894 inpatients approached, 2776 participated and 15.7% (N = 437) reported current tobacco use, including 5.3% (N = 147) smokers, 9.1% (N = 252) smokeless tobacco (SLT) users, and 1.4% (N = 38) dual users. Excluding dual users, SLT users, compared to smokers, were less likely to report a plan to quit after discharge (42.6% vs. 54.2%, p = .04), a past-year quit attempt (38.1% vs. 52.7%, p = .004), to agree that tobacco has harmed them (57.9% vs. 70.3%, p = .02) or caused their hospitalization (43.4% vs. 61.4%, p < .001). After discharge, 77.6% of smokers and 78.6% of SLT users reported trying to quit (p = .81). Six-month continuous abstinence after discharge was reported by 27.2% of smokers and 24.6% of SLT users (p = .56). Nearly all relapses to tobacco use after discharge occurred within 30 days and did not differ by tobacco type (log-rank p = .08). Use of evidence-based cessation treatment was reported by 6.5% (N = 26).

CONCLUSIONS

Three-quarters of tobacco users in a Mumbai hospital attempted to quit after discharge. One-quarter reported continuous tobacco abstinence for 6 months despite little use of cessation treatment. Increasing post-discharge cessation support could further increase cessation rates and improve patient outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS

No prior study has measured the patterns of tobacco use and cessation among hospitalized tobacco users in India. Three-quarters of tobacco users admitted to a hospital in Mumbai attempted to quit after discharge, and one-quarter remained tobacco-free for 6 months, indicating that hospitalization may be an opportune time to offer a cessation intervention. Although smokers and SLT users differed in socioeconomic status, perceived risks and interest in quitting, they did not differ in their ability to stay abstinent after hospital discharge.

Psychiatric comorbidities in a comparative effectiveness smoking cessation trial: Relations with cessation success, treatment response, and relapse risk factors

BACKGROUND

Comorbid psychiatric diagnoses have been shown to predict cessation failure. The relative impact of various diagnoses on cessation and other cessation processes is rarely studied, particularly among a general population. The impact of psychiatric history among primary care patients seeking cessation services on nicotine dependence, cessation outcomes, treatment effects and adherence, and withdrawal symptoms was examined.

METHODS

Secondary data analysis of a multi-site comparative effectiveness smoking cessation trial was conducted. Adult smokers (n  = 1051; 52.5 % Female, 68.1 % white) completed a structured clinical interview at baseline to assess psychiatric diagnostic history (past-year and lifetime). Nicotine dependence was assessed via self-report measures at baseline. Point-prevalence abstinence was assessed at 8 weeks and 6 months post-quit. Withdrawal symptoms were assessed for one week pre- and post-quit using ecological momentary assessment. Treatment adherence was self-reported at 1, 4, 8, and 12 weeks post-quit.

RESULTS

Past-year substance use disorder, lifetime mood disorder, and > one lifetime diagnosis, were related to lower rates of short-term, but not long-term, cessation. Lifetime psychiatric diagnosis was related to elevated nicotine dependence, particularly to secondary dependence motives associated with instrumental tobacco use. History of psychiatric diagnosis was associated with increased withdrawal-related craving. There was little evidence that psychiatric diagnostic status moderated the effects of the tested pharmacotherapies on long-term abstinence.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychiatric diagnoses affect risk factors that exert their effects early in the post-quit process and highlight the potential utility of examining transdiagnostic risk factors to better understand the relations between psychiatric vulnerabilities and the smoking cessation process.

Race moderates the effects of Motivational Interviewing on smoking cessation induction

OBJECTIVE

Health disparities necessitate exploration of how race moderates response to smoking cessation treatment. Data from a randomized clinical trial of Motivational Interviewing (MI) for smoking cessation induction were used to explore differential treatment response between African American (AA) vs Non-Black (NB) smokers.

METHODS

Adult tobacco smokers (138 AA vs 66 NB) with low desire to quit were randomly assigned to four sessions of MI or health education (HE). Outcomes (e.g., quit attempts) were assessed 3- and 6-months.

RESULTS

There was evidence of a Race by Treatment interaction such that MI was less effective than HE in AA smokers. Mean Cohen's d for the interaction effect was -0.32 (95% CI [-0.44, -0.20]). However, the race interaction could be accounted for by controlling for baseline relationship status and communication preference (wants directive approach).

CONCLUSIONS

MI may be less effective for smoking cessation induction in AA vs NB smokers when compared to another active and more directive therapy. The differential response between races may be explained by psychosocial variables.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

MI may not be an ideal choice for all African American smokers. Patients' relationship status and preference for a directive counseling approach might explain disparities in response to MI treatment.

Factors associated with abstinence after a recent smoking cessation attempt across 28 European Union member states

INTRODUCTION

There is a lack of information regarding factors associated with successful smoking cessation on a population and European Union (EU)-wide level. Our study seeks to explore individual and country-level factors associated with abstinence after a recent smoking cessation attempt across the EU.

METHODS

We obtained data from the March 2017 Special Eurobarometer 87.1 (n=27901). Regression analysis was performed on a subset of 1472 individuals who made quit attempts in the past 12 months. Sociodemographic, policy and country-level factors were assessed using logistic regression among smokers and ex-smokers who attempted to quit approximately 12 months before the survey date. We defined and examined the Cessation Ratio (ratio of number of recent quitters to those who did not succeed) across 28 EU Member States.

RESULTS

In all, 14.9% (n=1018) of current smokers and 8.80% (n=454) of ex-smokers attempted to quit in approximately the last 12 months (n=1472). Cessation Ratios ranged from 0.182 (95% CI: 0.045–0.319) in Estonia to 1.060 (95% CI: 0.262–1.860) in Sweden. There is a quadratic, U-shaped relationship between odds of quitting and smoking prevalence. The lowest odds of cessation were observed at a prevalence of 26.3%, with higher odds of cessation observed above and below this point. Respondents who reported financial difficulties were less likely to quit (AOR=0.66; 95% CI: 0.52–0.83). There was no association of likelihood of success with other sociodemographic factors or the Tobacco Control Scale treatment score.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight a need for exploring reasons behind the variation in likelihood of abstinence following a recent quit attempt, in order to design policies targeted at population groups or countries that need greater support.

Identifying sequential episodes of pharmacotherapy as a method for assessing treatment failure in comparative effectiveness research

PURPOSE

To describe and implement a novel method of measuring comparative effectiveness using sequential episodes of pharmacotherapy as a proxy for treatment failure.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using linked deidentified data from the British Columbia Ministry of Health during a government-sponsored smoking cessation reimbursement program.Three study cohorts were created based on first use of varenicline, bupropion, or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), for adults aged 18 or older, in the period September 30th, 2011 to March 31st, 2013. The study cohorts were analyzed for sequential episodes of pharmacotherapy, defined as re-initiating a smoking cessation pharmacotherapy after an initial episode of treatment and washout period. The statistical analysis used propensity score adjusted log-binomial regression models with one-year and two-year fixed follow-up after a 12-week washout period. A sensitivity analysis excluded the washout period. A secondary analysis investigated predictors of receiving a sequential episode of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy RESULTS: 116,442 participants of the B.C. Smoking Cessation Program were analyzed. Compared to NRT, varenicline users were 13% less likely, and bupropion users were 18% less likely, to re-start smoking cessation therapy within 1-year after an initial course of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Sequential episodes of pharmacotherapy identified treatment failures to smoking cessation therapy. Based on sequential episodes of pharmacotherapy during a drug benefit policy of smoking cessation medications, varenicline and bupropion were more effective aids to smoking cessation than NRT. The method was also used to identify patient characteristics associated with treatment effectiveness.

Effectiveness of an offer of the Smoke Free smartphone application for smoking cessation: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Smartphone applications (apps) hold promise for delivering tobacco smoking cessation support to large numbers of people at low unit cost. Smoke Free is an evidence-informed, widely used app that is highly rated by users. This study aims to assess its effectiveness compared with no support.

DESIGN

Two-arm individually randomized controlled effectiveness trial.

SETTING

Online trial with no restrictions on location.

PARTICIPANTS

English-speaking smokers aged ≥ 18 years willing to make a quit attempt within 4 weeks from initial contact (n = 4990).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome measure is self-reported 26-week continuous smoking abstinence. Secondary outcome measures include quit attempts in the first 4 weeks post-randomization, 12-week continuous smoking abstinence and 26-week continuous smoking abstinence among those who made a quit attempt.

COMMENTS

If it is effective, the Smoke Free smartphone app is an affordable and widely implementable intervention to help smokers to quit.

Darker skin color is associated with a lower likelihood of smoking cessation among males but not females

Darker skin color is associated with discrimination and unfair treatment and may contribute to persisting health disparities. This study examined whether darker skin color was associated with smoking cessation and whether this association was moderated by sex and race. This study also explored whether biological and psychosocial factors, including nicotine and cotinine concentrations, discrimination, distrust, and neuroticism, mediated this association. The data for this study came from a prospective smoking cessation intervention that included 224 Black and 225 White adults from Kansas City, Missouri. Skin color was assessed using a DermaSpectrometer to measure melanin contained within the skin. Point prevalence smoking abstinence was biochemically-verified and assessed at weeks 4 and 26. Hierarchical logistic regression analyses were conducted to evaluate hypothesized relations between skin color and smoking cessation. Interactions between race and sex with skin color were also evaluated. While skin color was not associated with smoking cessation in the overall sample or among Blacks only, results indicated that sex moderated the effect of skin color on smoking cessation after adjusting for race and other covariates. Among males, darker skin color was associated with lower odds of achieving smoking abstinence at weeks 4 (OR = 0.60 [95% CI = 0.36, 0.99]) and 26 (OR = 0.52 [95% CI = 0.29, 0.91]). Skin color did not predict smoking cessation among females. Skin color was positively correlated with discrimination (r = 0.15, p = 0.02), cynicism/distrust (r = 0.14, p = 0.03) and neuroticism (r = 0.24, p < 0.01) among males only. However, these factors did not mediate the association between skin color and smoking cessation. Skin color may contribute to cessation-related health disparities among Black males, but more research is needed to understand the psychosocial and biological mechanisms through which skin color influences tobacco cessation.

Predictors of long-term abstinence rate by income level in the Korean smoking cessation programme

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To assess whether predictors of success in stopping smoking vary as a function of income level in Korean smoking cessation services.

DESIGN

Prospective study of predictors of smoking cessation up to 6 months' follow up.

PARTICIPANTS

A sample of 954 people (mean age 49.13 ± 10.69 years; 863 [90.5%] men) enrolled in the Korean National Health Insurance Service smoking cessation programme in 2015.

MEASURES

The outcome measure was self-reported continuous abstinence up to 6-month follow up. Predictors were income and other sociodemographic variables as well as smoking-related variables measured at baseline.

RESULTS

The continuous 6-month abstinence rate was 30.5%. The adjusted odds of 6-month continuous abstinence were lower among low-income versus the middle- or high-income smokers (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.84), those with severe versus light/moderate cigarette dependence (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98), and use of bupropion versus varenicline (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.91). The association between cigarette dependence and outcome was only present among low-income smokers.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower income, higher cigarette dependence, and choice of bupropion versus varenicline are associated with lower chances of stopping smoking in Korean smoking cessation services, but the association with cigarette dependence is only found in low-income smokers.

Tobacco smoking and other substance use disorders associated with recurrent suicide attempts in bipolar disorder

BACKGROUND

Suicide attempts (SA) are more frequent in bipolar disorder (BD) than in most other mental disorders. Prevention strategies would benefit from identifying the risk factors of SA recurrence in BD. Substance use disorders (SUD) (including tobacco-related) are strongly associated with both BD and SA, however, their specific role for the recurrence of SA in BD remains inadequately investigated. Thus, we tested if tobacco smoking - with or without other SUDs - was independently associated with recurrent SA in BD.

METHODS

916 patients from France and Norway with ascertained diagnoses of BD and reliable data about SA and SUD were classified as having no, single, or recurrent (≥2) SA. Five SUD groups were built according to the presence/absence/combination of tobacco, alcohol (AUD) and cannabis use disorders. Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify the correlates of SA recurrence.

RESULTS

338 (37%) individuals reported at least one SA, half of whom (173, 51%) reported recurrence. SUD comorbidity was: tobacco smoking only, 397 (43%), tobacco smoking with at least another SUD, 179 (20%). Regression analysis showed that tobacco smoking, both alone and comorbid with AUD, depressive polarity of BD onset and female gender were independently associated with recurrent SA.

LIMITATIONS

Lack of data regarding the relative courses of SA and SUD and cross-national differences in main variables.

CONCLUSION

Tobacco smoking with- or without additional SUD can be important risk factors of SA recurrence in BD, which is likely to inform both research and prevention strategies.

Safety and efficacy of first-line smoking cessation pharmacotherapies in bipolar disorders: Subgroup analysis of a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

Post hoc analyses of EAGLES data to examine safety and efficacy of first-line smoking cessation pharmacotherapies in smokers with bipolar disorders (BD).

METHODS

Smokers with BD I/II (n = 285; 81.4% with BD I) and a comparison nonpsychiatric cohort (NPC; n = 2794) were randomly assigned to varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), or placebo for 12 weeks, plus weekly counseling. Primary outcomes were occurrence of moderate to severe neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs) and Weeks 9-12 biochemically-confirmed continuous abstinence (CA) rates.

RESULTS

For BD smokers, NPSAE risk differences versus placebo were: varenicline, 6.17 (95% CI: -7.84 to 20.18); bupropion, 4.09 (-8.82 to 16.99); NRT, -0.56 (-12.34 to 11.22). ORs for Weeks 9-12 CA, comparing active medication to placebo among BD smokers were: varenicline, 2.61 (0.68-9.95); bupropion, 1.29 (0.31-5.37), NRT, 0.71 (0.14-3.74). Pooling across treatments, NPSAE occurrence was higher (10.7% versus 2.3%; P < 0.001) and CA rates were lower (22.8% versus 13.3%; P = 0.008) in BD than NPC.

LIMITATIONS

Study not powered to detect differences in safety and efficacy in the BD subcohort; generalizability limited to stably treated BD without current substance use disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

Smokers with BD had higher risk of NPSAEs and were less likely to quit overall than NPC smokers. Among smokers with BD, NPSAE risk difference estimates for active treatments versus placebo ranged from 1% lower to 6% higher. Efficacy of varenicline in smokers with BD was similar to EAGLES main outcomes; bupropion and NRT effect sizes were descriptively lower. Varenicline may be a tolerable and effective cessation treatment for smokers with BD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (https://clinicaltrials.gov/): NCT01456936.

Moderators of real-world effectiveness of smoking cessation aids: a population study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Understanding whether and how far smokers' characteristics influence the effectiveness of treatment may be important for tailoring recommendations on cessation aids to those most likely to help the user achieve abstinence. This study aimed to estimate the effectiveness of commonly used smoking cessation aids and test whether their effectiveness differs according to cigarette addiction, socio-economic status, age or sex.

DESIGN

Correlational design using cross-sectional survey data collected monthly between 2006 and 2018.

SETTING

England.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 18 929 adults (aged ≥ 16 years, 52.0% female) who had smoked within the previous 12 months and had made at least one quit attempt during that period.

MEASUREMENTS

The outcome was self-reported abstinence from quit date to survey. Independent variables were self-reported use during the most recent quit attempt of: prescription nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), NRT over-the-counter, varenicline, bupropion, e-cigarettes, face-to-face behavioural support, telephone support, written self-help materials, websites and hypnotherapy. Moderators were cigarette addiction, social grade, age and sex.

FINDINGS

After adjustment for covariates and use of other cessation aids, users of e-cigarettes [odds ratio (OR) = 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.69-2.24] and varenicline (OR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.51-2.21) had significantly higher odds of reporting abstinence than those who did not report use of these cessation aids. Use of prescription NRT was associated with increased abstinence in older (≥ 45 years) (OR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.25-2.00) but not younger (< 45 years) smokers (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.85-1.42). Use of websites was associated with increased abstinence in smokers from lower (OR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.22-3.98) but not higher social grades (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.40-1.38). There was little evidence of benefits of using other cessation aids.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of e-cigarettes and varenicline are associated with higher abstinence rates following a quit attempt in England. Use of prescription of nicotine replacement therapy is also associated with higher abstinence rates, but only in older smokers, and use of websites only in smokers from lower socio-economic status.

Comparing Treatment Acceptability and 12-Month Cessation Rates in Response to Web-Based Smoking Interventions Among Smokers Who Do and Do Not Screen Positive for Affective Disorders: Secondary Analysis

BACKGROUND

Web-based cessation programs are now common for intervening with smokers. However, it remains unclear how acceptable or effective these interventions are among people with affective disorders and symptoms (ADS; eg, depression and anxiety). Research examining this is extremely limited, with mixed results on cessation rates. Additional large studies are needed to more fully understand whether Web-based interventions are similarly used and equally effective among people with and without affective disorder symptomology. If not, more targeted Web-based interventions may be required.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of the research was to compare Web-based treatment acceptability (defined by satisfaction and use) and 12-month cessation outcomes between smokers with and without ADS.

METHODS

Participants (N=2512) were adult smokers enrolled in a randomized, comparative effectiveness trial of two Web-based smoking interventions designed for the general population of smokers. At baseline, participants reported demographic and smoking characteristics and completed measures assessing ADS. Participants were then classified into subgroups based on their self-reported ADS-either into a no ADS group or into six nonmutually exclusive subgroups: depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), panic disorder (PD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), social anxiety disorder (SAD), and more than one ADS. Surveys at 12 months postrandomization included subjective ratings of treatment acceptability and self-reported smoking cessation. Treatment use (ie, number of log-ins and total duration of exposure) was assessed via automated records.

RESULTS

Relative to the no ADS group, all six ADS subgroups reported significantly greater satisfaction with their assigned Web treatment program, but they spent less time logged in than those with no ADS. For number of log-ins, a treatment arm by ADS group interaction was observed across all ADS subgroups except GAD, suggesting that relative to the no ADS group, they logged in less to one website but not the other. At the 12-month follow-up, abstinence rates in the no ADS group (153/520, 29.42%) were significantly higher than for participants who screened positive for depression (306/1267, 24.15%; P=.03), PTSD (294/1215, 24.19%; P=.03), PD (229/1003, 23.83%; P=.009), and two or more ADS (323/1332, 24.25%; P=.03). Post hoc analyses suggest the lower quit rates may be associated with differences in baseline nicotine dependence and levels of commitment to resist smoking in difficult situations. Website use did not explain the differential abstinence rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite reporting higher levels of treatment satisfaction, most smokers with ADS used their assigned intervention less often and had lower quit rates than smokers with no ADS at treatment onset. The results support the need for developing more targeted interventions for smokers with ADS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials.gov NCT01812278; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01812278 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/78L9cNdG4).

Smoking cessation in the context of recovery from drug and alcohol problems: Prevalence, predictors, and cohort effects in a national U.S. sample

BACKGROUND

Tobacco and alcohol and other drug (AOD) use remain prominent risk factors for morbidity, mortality, and health care utilization. Moreover, these often cluster together within persons, exponentiating health risks. Little is known regarding if and when people resolving AOD problems stop smoking, who stops, and whether recent general population trends toward smoking cessation are evident also among persons more recently entering recovery.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

National cross-sectional sample resolving AOD problems (final sample n = 2002).

ANALYSES

Weighted smoking/cessation prevalence; logistic regressions; Hazard-models estimated time to smoking cessation overall, and for different cohorts entering recovery during one of three decades: a) 2006-2015; b) 1996-2005; c) 1986-1995.

RESULTS

Approximately 30% of U.S. adults in AOD recovery with a smoking history stopped smoking before entering recovery, 7% quit smoking and AOD use concurrently, 26% stopped after entering recovery; 37% still smoked. Among those quitting after entering recovery, the prevalence of smoking cessation 5- and 10-years later was 27.2% and 55.1% respectively for the 2006-2015 cohort and 14.9% and 34.5% in the 1986-1995 cohort; time to smoking cessation also was 60% shorter (5yrs vs. 8yrs). Time to smoking cessation was associated with education and income, but not 12-step participation or AOD treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking rates among those in AOD recovery are more than double that of the general population but those entering recovery in recent years are stopping and stopping sooner. It is plausible that public health-oriented tobacco policy measures and easier access to smoking cessation aids may be contributing to this salutary trend.

How does reimbursement status affect smoking cessation interventions? A real-life experience from the Eastern Black Sea region of Turkey

INTRODUCTION

In the last decade, outpatient smoking cessation clinics (SCCs) in Turkey have been extended countrywide. Initially, only counseling was covered under health insurance. In 2011 and 2015, free varenicline and bupropion preparations were distributed to SCCs, periodically. In the current study we aimed to compare outcomes between the free and paid medication periods.

METHODS

Patients applied to the local SCC in a secondary health care unit between June 2014 and June 2017. They were evaluated for SC interventions and had phone visits after their third month; these records were included in the study. Patients were grouped and evaluated according to medication’s reimbursement status: free medication period (FP) and paid medication period (PMP).

RESULTS

In total, 733 patients applied to the SCC, 77.7% of them had applied during the FP. Analyses were made involving 417 patients who had records of third-month phone visit. Mean age of the patients was 44.0±13.7 years with the majority of patients (65%) being male. Sociodemographic characteristics of patients in both groups were not statistically different, while the percentage of patients with comorbid diseases was lower in the FP group (p<0.05). Treatment choices were different— the bupropion-prescribed group’s rate was similar in both periods (53.5% in PMP vs 52.0% in FP), however varenicline was mostly prescribed in the FP (35.8% vs 14.1%) while nicotine replacement therapy was mostly prescribed in the PMP (32.4% vs 12.1%) (p<0.05). Patients who used the advised treatment for at least 30 days (treatment adherent) and the rate of quitters at the third month were higher in FP (p<0.05) from univariate analysis, however these differences were not statistically significant when a multivariate analysis was performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that the free medication period increased the quit attempts but the increased in treatment adherence and quit success of the participating smokers was not obvious.

Factors associated with the efficacy of smoking cessation treatments and predictors of smoking abstinence in EAGLES

AIMS

To assess (1) how far the efficacies of front-line smoking cessation pharmacotherapies vary as a function of smoker characteristics and (2) associations between these characteristics and success of smoking cessation attempts.

DESIGN

Prospective correlational study in the context of a double-blind randomized trial. The outcome was regressed individually onto each covariate after adjusting for treatment, and then a forward stepwise model constructed. Treatment moderator effects of covariates were tested by treatment × covariate interactions.

SETTING

Health service facilities in multiple countries.

PARTICIPANTS

Data came from 8120 smokers willing to make a quit attempt, randomized to varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or placebo in Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study (EAGLES) between 30 November 2011 and 13 January 2015.

MEASUREMENTS

Smoker characteristics measured at baseline were country, psychiatric history, sex, age, body mass index (BMI), ethnic group, life-time suicidal ideation/behaviour, anxiety, depression, aggression, psychotropic medication, history of alcohol/substance use disorder, age of starting smoking, cigarette dependence [Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence (FTCD)] and prior use of study medicines. Outcome was biochemically confirmed continuous abstinence at weeks 9-24 from start of treatment.

FINDINGS

No statistically significant treatment × covariate interactions were found. Odds of success were associated independently positively with age [odds ratio (OR) = 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.00, 1.01], BMI (1.01; 95% CI = 1.00, 1.02) and age of starting smoking (1.03; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.04). Odds were associated independently negatively with US (versus non-US) study site (0.53; 95% CI = 0.46, 0.61), black (versus white) ethnic group (0.57; 95% CI = 0.45, 0.72), mood disorder (0.85; 95% CI = 0.73, 0.99), anxiety disorder (0.71; 95% CI = 0.55, 0.90) and psychotic disorder (0.73; 95% CI = 0.50, 1.07), taking psychotropic medication (0.81; 95% CI = 0.68, 0.95), FTCD (0.89; 95% CI = 0.87, 0.92) and previous use of NRT (0.78; 95% CI = 0.67, 0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

While a range of smoker characteristics-including psychiatric history, cigarette dependence and prior use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)-are associated with lower cessation rates, they do not substantially influence the efficacy of varenicline, bupropion or NRT.

Simultaneous vs. sequential treatment for smoking and weight management in tobacco quitlines: 6 and 12 month outcomes from a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation often results in weight gain which discourages many smokers from quitting and can increase health risks. Treatments to reduce cessation-related weight gain have been tested in highly controlled trials of in-person treatment, but have never been tested in a real-world setting, which has inhibited dissemination.

METHODS

The Best Quit Study (BQS) is a replication and "real world" translation using telephone delivery of a prior in-person efficacy trial.

DESIGN

randomized control trial in a quitline setting. Eligible smokers (n = 2540) were randomized to the standard 5-call quitline intervention or quitline plus simultaneous or sequential weight management. Regression analyses tested effectiveness of treatments on self-reported smoking abstinence and weight change at 6 and 12 months.

RESULTS

Study enrollees were from 10 commercial employer groups and three state quitlines. Participants were between ages 18-72, 65.8% female, 68.2% white; 23.0% Medicaid-insured, and 76.3% overweight/obese. The follow-up response rate was lower in the simultaneous group than the control group at 6 months (p = 0.01). While a completers analysis of 30-day point prevalence abstinence detected no differences among groups at 6 or 12 months, multiply imputed abstinence showed quit rate differences at 6 months for:simultaneous (40.3%) vs. sequential (48.3%), p = 0.034 and simultaneous vs. control (44.9%), p = 0.043. At 12 months, multiply imputed abstinence, was significantly lower for the simultaneous group (40.7%) vs. control (46.0%), p < 0.05 and vs. sequential (46.3%), p < 0.05. Weight gain at 6 and 12 months was minimal and not different among treatment groups. The sequential group completed fewer total calls (3.75) vs. control (4.16) and vs. simultaneous group (3.83), p = 0.01, and fewer weight calls (0.94) than simultaneous (2.33), p < 0.0001. The number of calls completed predicted 30-day abstinence, p < 0.001, but not weight outcomes.

DISCUSSION

This study offers a model for evaluating population-level public health interventions conducted in partnership with tobacco quitlines.

CONCLUSIONS

Simultaneous (vs. sequential) delivery of phone/web weight management with cessation treatment in the quitline setting may adversely affect quit rate. Neither a simultaneous nor sequential approach to addressing weight produced any benefit on suppressing weight gain. This study highlights the need and the challenges of testing intensive interventions in real-world settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01867983 . Registered: May 30, 2013.