Impact of early nausea on varenicline adherence and smoking cessation

Genetic Prediction of Smoking Cessation Medication Side Effects: A Genome-Wide Investigation of Abnormal Dreams on Varenicline

Varenicline, the most efficacious smoking cessation monotherapy, produces abnormal dreams. Although genetic contributions to varenicline-associated nausea and cessation have been identified, the role of genetics in abnormal dreams is unknown. We conducted a genomewide association study (GWAS) of abnormal dreams in 188 European ancestry smokers treated with varenicline (NCT01314001). Additive genetic models examined the likelihood of experiencing abnormal dreams 2 weeks following varenicline initiation. For the top locus, we tested for selectivity to varenicline, effects on cessation, replication, and generalizability to African ancestry (AA) individuals. The top GWAS variant associated with abnormal dreams was rs901886, mapping to intron 2 of ICAM5 on chromosome 19. The prevalence of abnormal dreams in those with rs901886 CC, CT, and TT genotypes was 15%, 36%, and 62%, respectively (odds ratio = 2.94 for T vs. C, 95% confidence interval = 1.92-4.55, P = 2.03e-7; T allele frequency = 52%). This rs901886 association was selective to varenicline (P values > 0.05 on nicotine patch and placebo). There were also positive associations for rs901886 T (vs. C allele, P = 0.03) and for abnormal dreams (P = 0.06) with varenicline-aided cessation. Neither rs901886 (P = 0.40) nor abnormal dreams (P = 0.24) were associated with adherence. A similar direction of effect of rs901886 on abnormal dreams was observed in a second varenicline trial (NCT01836276). In AA individuals (n = 137), rs901886 was not associated with abnormal dreams (P = 0.41), but there was an association for a variant located ~ 74.4 kb 5' of ICAM5 (P = 2.56e-3). Variation in ICAM5 may influence abnormal dreams and cessation on varenicline. These findings provide additional support for genetically optimized smoking cessation approaches.

Identifying determinants of varenicline adherence using the Theoretical Domains framework: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Adhering to varenicline has been shown to significantly improve the chances of successfully quitting smoking, with studies indicating a twofold increase in 6-month quit rates. However, despite its potential benefits, many individuals struggle with maintaining good adherence to varenicline; thus there is a need to develop scalable strategies to help people adhere. As a first step to inform the development of an intervention to improve adherence to varenicline, we conducted a rapid literature review to identify: 1) modifiable barriers and facilitators to varenicline adherence, and 2) behaviour change techniques associated with increased adherence to varenicline.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published between 2006 and 2022. Search terms included "varenicline," "smoking cessation," and "adherence," and their respective subject headings and synonyms. We screened and included studies reporting modifiable determinants of adherence to varenicline and then assessed quality, extracted modifiable determinants and mapped them to the Theoretical Domains Framework version 2 and the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy version 1.

RESULTS

A total of 1,221 titles were identified through the database searches; 61 met the eligibility criteria. Most of the studies were randomized controlled trials and predominantly focused on barriers to varenicline. Only nine studies explicitly mentioned behaviour change techniques used to help varenicline adherence. Eight domains were identified as barriers to varenicline adherence (behavioural regulation, memory, goals, intentions, beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences, optimism/pessimism, and environmental context) and five as facilitators (knowledge, behavioural regulation, beliefs about capabilities, social influences, and environmental context).

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies barriers and facilitators that should be addressed when developing a complex adherence intervention tailored to patients' needs based on modifiable determinants of medication adherence, some of which are under- used by existing adherence interventions. The findings from this review will inform the design of a theory-based healthbot planned to improve varenicline adherence in people undergoing smoking cessation treatment.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This study was registered with PROSPERO (# CRD42022321838).

AI Conversational Agent to Improve Varenicline Adherence: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

Varenicline is a pharmacological intervention for tobacco dependence that is safe and effective in facilitating smoking cessation. Enhanced adherence to varenicline augments the probability of prolonged smoking abstinence. However, research has shown that one-third of people who use varenicline are nonadherent by the second week. There is evidence showing that behavioral support helps with medication adherence. We have designed an artificial intelligence (AI) conversational agent or health bot, called "ChatV," based on evidence of what works as well as what varenicline is, that can provide these supports. ChatV is an evidence-based, patient- and health care provider-informed health bot to improve adherence to varenicline. ChatV has been programmed to provide medication reminders, answer questions about varenicline and smoking cessation, and track medication intake and the number of cigarettes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to explore the feasibility of the ChatV health bot, to examine if it is used as intended, and to determine the appropriateness of proceeding with a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

We will conduct a mixed methods feasibility study where we will pilot-test ChatV with 40 participants. Participants will be provided with a standard 12-week varenicline regimen and access to ChatV. Passive data collection will include adoption measures (how often participants use the chatbot, what features they used, when did they use it, etc). In addition, participants will complete questionnaires (at 1, 4, 8, and 12 weeks) assessing self-reported smoking status and varenicline adherence, as well as questions regarding the acceptability, appropriateness, and usability of the chatbot, and participate in an interview assessing acceptability, appropriateness, fidelity, and adoption. We will use "stop, amend, and go" progression criteria for pilot studies to decide if a randomized controlled trial is a reasonable next step and what modifications are required. A health equity lens will be adopted during participant recruitment and data analysis to understand and address the differences in uptake and use of this digital health solution among diverse sociodemographic groups. The taxonomy of implementation outcomes will be used to assess feasibility, that is, acceptability, appropriateness, fidelity, adoption, and usability. In addition, medication adherence and smoking cessation will be measured to assess the preliminary treatment effect. Interview data will be analyzed using the framework analysis method.

RESULTS

Participant enrollment for the study will begin in January 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

By using predetermined progression criteria, the results of this preliminary study will inform the determination of whether to advance toward a larger randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of the health bot. Additionally, this study will explore the acceptability, appropriateness, fidelity, adoption, and usability of the health bot. These insights will be instrumental in refining the intervention and the health bot.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05997901; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05997901.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/53556.

Efficacy of insula deep repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with varenicline for smoking cessation: A randomized, double-blind, sham controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Current smoking cessation treatments are limited in terms of efficacy, particularly with regards to long term abstinence. There is a large amount of evidence implicating the insula in nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy of bilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) directed to the insular cortex with the H11 coil, relative to sham stimulation, on smoking abstinence and smoking outcomes in smokers who are receiving standard varenicline treatment.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, sham controlled trial recruited 42 participants who were randomized to receive either active (n = 24) or sham (n = 18) high frequency rTMS directed to the insula (4 weeks), while receiving varenicline treatment (12 weeks). The primary outcome was 7-day point prevalence abstinence at the end of 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Smokers in the active group had significantly higher abstinence rates than those in the sham group (82.4% vs. 30.7%, p = 0.013) at the end of treatment (Week 12). Secondary outcome measures of abstinence rate at the end of rTMS treatment (Week 4), abstinence rate at 6 months, and smoking outcomes (e.g., craving, withdrawal) showed no significant differences between groups. No differences were found in adverse events reported between the groups.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence of the potential benefit of having a combined treatment for smoking cessation using insula rTMS with the H11 coil and varenicline. Maintenance rTMS sessions and continuation of varenicline for those in abstinence may induce longer-term effects and should be considered in future studies.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for smoking cessation: Next steps for translation and implementation into clinical practice

Tobacco smoking is a significant determinant of preventable morbidity and mortality worldwide. It is now possible to modulate the activity of the neurocircuitry associated with nicotine dependence using repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS), a non-invasive neurostimulation approach, which has recently demonstrated efficacy in clinical trials and received regulatory approval in the US and Canada. However there remains a paucity of replication studies and real-world patient effectiveness data as access to this intervention is extremely limited. There are a number of unique challenges related to the delivery of rTMS that need to be addressed prior to widespread adoption and implementation of this treatment modality for smoking cessation. In this paper, we review the accessibility, scientific, technological, economical, and social challenges that remain before this treatment can be translated into clinical practice. By addressing these remaining barriers and scientific challenges with rTMS for smoking cessation and delineating implementation strategies, we can greatly reduce the burden of tobacco-related disease worldwide.

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.

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.

The Use of Biomarkers to Guide Precision Treatment for Tobacco Use

This review summarizes the evidence to date on the development of biomarkers for personalizing the pharmacological treatment of combustible tobacco use. First, the latest evidence on FDA-approved medications is considered, demonstrating that, while these medications offer real benefits, they do not contribute to smoking cessation in approximately two-thirds of cases. Second, the case for using biomarkers to guide tobacco treatment is made based on the potential to increase medication effectiveness and uptake and reduce side effects. Next, the FDA framework of biomarker development is presented along with the state of science on biomarkers for tobacco treatment, including a review of the nicotine metabolite ratio, electroencephalographic event-related potentials, and other biomarkers utilized for risk feedback. We conclude with a discussion of the challenges and opportunities for the translation of biomarkers to guide tobacco treatment and propose priorities for future research.

Cocreation of a conversational agent to help patients adhere to their varenicline treatment: A study protocol

Objective

Varenicline is the most efficacious approved smoking cessation medication, making it one of the most cost-effective clinical interventions for reducing tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. Adhering to varenicline is strongly associated with smoking cessation. Healthbots have the potential to help people adhere to their medications by scaling up evidence-based behavioral interventions. In this protocol, we outline how we will follow the UK's Medical Research Council's guidance to codesign a theory-informed, evidence-based, and patient-centered healthbot to help people adhere to varenicline.

Methods

The study will utilize the Discover, Design and Build, and Test framework and will include three phases: (a) a rapid review and interviews with 20 patients and 20 healthcare providers to understand barriers and facilitators to varenicline adherence (Discover phase); (b) Wizard of Oz test to design the healthbot and get a sense of the questions that chatbot has to be able to answer (Design phase); and (c) building, training, and beta-testing the healthbot (Building and Testing phases) where the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability framework will be used to develop the healthbot using the simplest sensible solution, and 20 participants will beta test the healthbot. We will use the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) model of behavior change and its associated framework, the Theoretical Domains Framework, to organize the findings.

Conclusions

The present approach will enable us to systematically identify the most appropriate features for the healthbot based on a well-established behavioral theory, the latest scientific evidence, and end users' and healthcare providers' knowledge.

Stability of Varenicline Concentration in Saliva Over 21 Days at Three Storage Temperatures

INTRODUCTION

Varenicline is the most efficacious drug for smoking cessation; saliva varenicline concentrations can be useful for the evaluation of adherence in smoking cessation trials. Saliva is a useful noninvasive matrix for mail-in specimen collection, if stable. We investigated the stability of varenicline in saliva at different storage temperatures simulating the time it takes to mail in a sample.

METHODS

We evaluated the concentrations of varenicline, nicotine, cotinine, 3'-hydroxycotinine, and 3'-hydroxycotinine/cotinine (3HC/COT) ratio in quality control saliva samples (and after repeated freezing and thawing), and in smokers' saliva samples, stored for up to 21 days at room temperature (~25°C), 4°C, and -80°C.

RESULTS

In saliva quality control samples, concentrations of varenicline, nicotine, cotinine, 3'-hydroxycotinine, and 3HC/COT remained unchanged and showed little within-sample variation (CV ≤ 5.5%) for up to 21 days at the three storage temperatures; they were also not altered after three thaw-freeze cycles. In smokers' saliva, a significant main effect of storage duration, but not temperature, was observed for varenicline, cotinine, and 3'-hydroxycotinine, but not for nicotine or the 3HC/COT ratio. However, these changes were within analytical (i.e., equipment) variation resulting in little within-sample variation (CV ≤ 5.8%) for all analytes in smokers' saliva.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline, the other analytes, and the 3HC/COT ratio remained stable in saliva during storage for 21 days at all temperatures tested and after repeated freezing and thawing with only minor changes in concentration over time. These findings support the potential use of mail-in approach for saliva samples in varenicline smoking cessation clinical trials.

IMPLICATIONS

Assessing saliva varenicline concentrations can be useful for the evaluation of adherence in smoking cessation trials. Saliva is a noninvasive matrix suitable for mail-in specimen collection. This is the first investigation of stability of varenicline in saliva. Varenicline, nicotine, cotinine, 3'-hydroxycotinine, and 3HC/COT were stable in saliva for up to 21 days at room temperature (~25°C), 4°C, and -80°C, supporting the use of a mail-in approach for saliva specimen in smoking cessation trials.

Cytisine versus varenicline for smoking cessation in New Zealand indigenous Māori: a randomized controlled trial

AIM

To determine whether cytisine was at least as effective as varenicline in supporting smoking abstinence for ≥ 6 months in New Zealand indigenous Māori or whānau (extended-family) of Māori, given the high smoking prevalence in this population.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, open-label, randomized, community-based non-inferiority trial.

SETTING

Bay of Plenty, Tokoroa and Lakes District Health Board regions of New Zealand.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult daily smokers who identified as Māori or whānau of Māori, were motivated to quit in the next 2 weeks, were aged ≥ 18 years and were eligible for subsidized varenicline. Recruitment used multi-media advertising.

INTERVENTIONS

A total of 679 people were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to receive a prescription for 12 weeks of cytisine or varenicline, plus low-intensity cessation behavioural support from the prescribing doctor and community stop-smoking services or a research assistant. Day 5 of treatment was the designated quit date.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was carbon monoxide-verified continuous abstinence at 6 months, analysed as intention-to-treat (with multiple imputation for missing data). Secondary outcomes measured at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months post-quit date included: self-reported continuous abstinence, 7-day point prevalence abstinence, cigarettes per day, time to (re)lapse, adverse events, treatment adherence/compliance and acceptability, nicotine withdrawal/urge to smoke and health-care utilization/health-related quality of life.

FINDINGS

Verified continuous abstinence rates at 6 months post-quit date were 12.1% (41 of 337) for cytisine versus 7.9% (27 of 342) for varenicline [risk difference 4.29%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.22 to 8.79; relative risk 1.55; 95% CI = 0.97-2.46]. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the findings were robust. Self-reported adverse events over 6 months occurred significantly more frequently in the varenicline group (cytisine: 313 events in 111 participants; varenicline: 509 events in 138 participants, incidence rate ratio 0.56, 95% CI = 0.49-0.65, P < 0.001) compared with the cytisine group. Common adverse events were headache, nausea and difficulty sleeping.

CONCLUSION

A randomized controlled trial found that cytisine was at least as effective as varenicline at supporting smoking abstinence in New Zealand indigenous Māori or whānau (extended-family) of Māori, with significantly fewer adverse events.

A Genome-Wide Association Study of Nausea Incidence in Varenicline-Treated Cigarette Smokers

INTRODUCTION

Varenicline is the most efficacious smoking cessation treatment; however, long-term cessation rates tend to be <25%. Nausea, the most common side effect of varenicline, observed in ~28% of individuals treated, peaks early following treatment initiation and reduces cessation success. Genetic variation influences treatment response, however genetic contributors to individual differences in side effects are less understood.

METHODS

We conducted a genome-wide association study of nausea incidence at 1 week following the initiation of varenicline treatment (corresponding to the target quit date) in 189 cigarette smokers of European ancestry (NCT01314001). Additive genetic models examining the likelihood of experiencing any versus no nausea controlled for population substructure, age, and sex. Variants with minor allele frequencies (MAF)≥10% were considered.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven (30.2%) out of 189 participants reported nausea. The top variant associated with nausea was rs1568209 (odds ratio [OR] = 2.61 for A vs. G allele; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.65,4.15; p = 2.1e-7; MAF = 48.7%), mapping to the SLCO3A1 drug transporter gene on chromosome 15. In the same trial, rs1568209 was not associated with nausea in either the nicotine patch (p = .56; n = 181) or placebo (p = .59; n = 174) arms. In varenicline-treated smokers, the incidence of nausea was higher in females (44.6%; n = 74) versus males (20.9%; n = 115) (p = .001), however there was no evidence of a difference in the influence of rs1568209 on nausea between the sexes (p for sex*genotype interaction = .36). Future studies in larger samples are required to test the robustness of this finding.

CONCLUSIONS

Variation in SLCO3A1 may influence the risk for developing nausea in varenicline-treated smokers, which may alter adherence and cessation.

IMPLICATIONS

Varenicline-associated nausea reduces adherence and limits cessation success. Previous candidate gene association studies showed genetic factors influence nausea on varenicline. This pilot genome-wide investigation of nausea, the most common side effect associated with varenicline treatment and an important cause of treatment discontinuation, suggests the potential involvement of common variation in the SLCO3A1 drug transporter gene.

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.