Recycling with nicotine patches in smoking cessation

What to do after smoking relapse? A sequential multiple assignment randomized trial of chronic care smoking treatments

AIM

To compare effects of three post-relapse interventions on smoking abstinence.

DESIGN

Sequential three-phase multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART).

SETTING

Eighteen Wisconsin, USA, primary care clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1154 primary care patients (53.6% women, 81.2% White) interested in quitting smoking enrolled from 2015 to 2019; 582 relapsed and were randomized to relapse recovery treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

In phase 1, patients received cessation counseling and 8 weeks nicotine patch. Those who relapsed and agreed were randomized to a phase 2 relapse recovery group: (1) reduction counseling + nicotine mini-lozenges + encouragement to quit starting 1 month post-randomization (preparation); (2) repeated encouragement to quit starting immediately post-randomization (recycling); or (3) advice to call the tobacco quitline (control). The first two groups could opt into phase 3 new quit treatment [8 weeks nicotine patch + mini-lozenges plus randomization to two treatment factors (skill training and supportive counseling) in a 2 × 2 design]. Phase 2 and 3 interventions lasted ≤ 15 months.

MEASUREMENTS

The study was powered to compare each active phase 2 treatment with the control on the primary outcome: biochemically confirmed 7-day point-prevalence abstinence 14 months post initiating phase 2 relapse recovery treatment. Exploratory analyses tested for phase 3 counseling factor effects.

FINDINGS

Neither skill training nor supportive counseling (each on versus off) increased 14-month abstinence rates; skills on versus off 9.3% (14/151) versus 5.2% (8/153), P = 0.19; support on versus off 6.6% (10/152) versus 7.9% (12/152), P = 0.73. Phase 2 preparation did not produce higher 14-month abstinence rates than quitline referral; 3.6% (8/220) versus 2.1% [3/145; risk difference = 1.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.8-5.0%, odds ratio (OR) = 1.8, 95% CI = 0.5-6.9]. Recycling, however, produced higher abstinence rates than quitline referral; 6.9% (15/217) versus 2.1% (three of 145; risk difference, 4.8%, 95% CI = 0.7-8.9%, OR = 3.5, 95% CI = 1.0-12.4). Recycling produced greater entry into new quit treatment than preparation: 83.4% (181/217) versus 55.9% (123/220), P < 0.0001.

CONCLUSIONS

Among people interested in quitting smoking, immediate encouragement post-relapse to enter a new round of smoking cessation treatment ('recycling') produced higher probability of abstinence than tobacco quitline referral. Recycling produced higher rates of cessation treatment re-engagement than did preparation/cutting down using more intensive counseling and pharmacotherapy.

Clinical Practice Guideline of Spanish Society of Pneumology and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR) on Pharmacological Treatment of Tobacco Dependence 2023

INTRODUCTION

There are multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments against nicotine dependence. However, there are few guidelines to answer frequent questions asked by a clinician treating a smoker. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to facilitate the treatment of tobacco addiction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

12 PICO questions are formulated from a GLOBAL PICO question: "Efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatment of tobacco dependence". A systematic review was carried out to answer each of the questions and recommendations were made. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system was used to grade the certainty of the estimated effects and the strength of the recommendations.

RESULTS

Varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion and cytisine are more effective than placebo. Varenicline and combined nicotine therapy are superior to the other therapies. In smokers with high dependence, a combination of drugs is recommended, being more effective those associations containing varenicline. Other optimization strategies with lower efficacy consist of increasing the doses, the duration, or retreat with varenicline. In specific populations varenicline or NRT is recommended. In hospitalized, the treatment of choice is NRT. In pregnancy it is indicated to prioritize behavioral treatment. The financing of smoking cessation treatments increases the number of smokers who quit smoking. There is no scientific evidence of the efficacy of pharmacological treatment of smoking cessation in adolescents.

CONCLUSIONS

The answers to the 12 questions allow us to extract recommendations and algorithms for the pharmacological treatment of tobacco dependence.

Single-Dose and Multiple-Dose Pharmacokinetics of Nicotine 6 mg Gum

Introduction

Under-dosing is a recognized problem with current nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Therefore, a new 6mg nicotine gum has been developed. To compare the nicotine uptake from the 6mg gum versus currently available NRT products, two pharmacokinetic studies were performed.

Methods

In one randomized crossover study, 44 healthy adult smokers received single doses of 6, 4, and 2mg nicotine gum, and 4mg nicotine lozenge on separate occasions. In a separate randomized crossover multiple-dose study over 11 hours, 50 healthy adult smokers received one 6mg gum every hour and 90 minutes, respectively, one 4mg gum every hour, and one 4mg lozenge every hour. In both studies, blood samples were collected over 12 hours to determine single-dose and multiple-dose pharmacokinetic variables.

Results

In the single-dose study, the amount of nicotine released from the 2, 4, and 6mg gums (1.44, 3.36, and 4.94mg) as well as the resulting maximum concentration and area under the curve (5.9, 10.1, and 13.8ng/mL, and 17.1, 30.7, 46.2ng/mL × h, respectively) increased with dose. The maximum concentration and area under the curve of the 6mg gum were 44% and 30% greater, respectively, than those for 4mg lozenge. Upon hourly administration, the steady-state average plasma nicotine concentration with 6mg gum (37.4ng/mL) was significantly higher than those for 4mg lozenge (28.3ng/mL) and 4mg gum (27.1ng/mL).

Conclusions

Nicotine delivery via the 6mg gum results in higher plasma nicotine concentrations after a single dose and at steady state than with currently available oral NRT.

Implications

Under-dosing is a recognized problem with current NRT. Therefore, a new 6mg nicotine gum has been developed. Our studies show that upon single-dose and multiple-dose administration, the 6mg gum releases and delivers more nicotine to the systemic circulation than 2mg gum, 4mg gum, and 4mg lozenge. Thus, each 6mg nicotine gum provides a higher degree of nicotine substitution and/or lasts for a longer period of time than currently available nicotine gums and lozenges.

Effectiveness of Switching Smoking-Cessation Medications Following Relapse

INTRODUCTION

Nicotine dependence is a chronic disorder often characterized by multiple failed quit attempts (QAs). Yet, little is known about the sequence of methods used across multiple QAs or how this may impact future ability to abstain from smoking. This prospective cohort study examines the effectiveness of switching smoking-cessation medications (SCMs) across multiple QAs.

METHODS

Adult smokers (aged ≥18 years) participating in International Tobacco Control surveys in the United Kingdom, U.S., Canada, and Australia (N=795) who: (1) completed two consecutive surveys between 2006 and 2011; (2) initiated a QA at least 1 month before each survey; and (3) provided data for the primary predictor (SCM use during most recent QA), outcome (1-month point prevalence abstinence), and relevant covariates. Analyses were conducted in 2016.

RESULTS

Five SCM user classifications were identified: (1) non-users (43.5%); (2) early users (SCM used for initial, but not subsequent QA; 11.4%); (3) later users (SCM used for subsequent, but not initial QA; 18.4%); (4) repeaters (same SCM used for both QAs; 10.7%); and (5) switchers (different SCM used for each QA; 14.2%). Abstinence rates were lower for non-users (15.9%, OR=0.48, p=0.002), early users (16.6%, OR=0.27, p=0.03), and repeaters (12.4%, OR=0.36, p=0.004) relative to switchers (28.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest smokers will be more successful if they use a SCM in QAs and vary the SCM they use across time. That smokers can increase their odds of quitting by switching SCMs is an important message that could be communicated to smokers.

Retreatment with varenicline for smoking cessation in smokers who have previously taken varenicline: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

The efficacy and safety of retreatment with varenicline in smokers attempting to quit were evaluated in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial (Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Participants were generally healthy adult smokers (≥10 cigarettes/day) with ≥1 prior quit attempt (≥2 weeks) using varenicline and no quit attempts in ≤3 months; they were randomly assigned (1:1) to 12 weeks' varenicline (n = 251) or placebo (n = 247) treatment, with individual counseling, plus 40 weeks' nontreatment follow-up. The primary efficacy end point was the carbon monoxide–confirmed (≤10 ppm) continuous abstinence rate for weeks 9–12, which was 45.0% (varenicline; n = 249) vs. 11.8% (placebo; n = 245; odds ratio: 7.08; 95% confidence interval: 4.34, 11.55; P < 0.0001). Common varenicline group adverse events were nausea, abnormal dreams, and headache, with no reported suicidal behavior. Varenicline is efficacious and well tolerated in smokers who have previously taken it. Abstinence rates are comparable with rates reported for varenicline-naive smokers.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Interventions to address chronic disease and HIV: strategies to promote smoking cessation among HIV-infected individuals

Tobacco use, especially cigarette smoking, is higher than average in persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). The Public Health Service Clinical Practice Guideline for Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence states that, during every medical encounter, all smokers should be offered smoking cessation counseling, along with approved medications. The Guideline also recognizes PLWHA as a priority population, given the scarcity of research on effective cessation treatments in this group. The scant evidence suggests that conventional treatments, though worthwhile, are not as successful as might be hoped for. The reasons for this are not entirely clear, but may have to do with the complex array of medical and psychosocial factors that complicate their lives. Clinicians should consider re-treatment strategies for those patients who encounter difficulty when quitting smoking with conventional approaches, switching or augmenting treatments as needed to minimize adverse experiences, and to maximize tolerability, adherence, and cessation outcomes.

Reaching out, inviting back: using Interactive voice response (IVR) technology to recycle relapsed smokers back to Quitline treatment--a randomized controlled trial

Background

Tobacco dependence is a chronic, relapsing condition that typically requires multiple quit attempts and extended treatment. When offered the opportunity, relapsed smokers are interested in recycling back into treatment for a new, assisted quit attempt. This manuscript presents the results of a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of interactive voice response (IVR) in recycling low income smokers who had previously used quitline (QL) support back to QL support for a new quit attempt.

Methods

A sample of 2985 previous QL callers were randomized to either receive IVR screening for current smoking (control group) or IVR screening plus an IVR intervention. The IVR intervention consists of automated questions to identify and address barriers to re-cycling in QL support, followed by an offer to be transferred to the QL and reinitiate treatment. Re-enrollment in QL services for both groups was documented.

Results

The IVR system successfully reached 715 (23.9%) former QL participants. Of those, 27% (194/715) reported to the IVR system that they had quit smoking and were therefore excluded from the study and analysis. The trial’s final sample was composed of 521 current smokers. The re-enrollment rate was 3.3% for the control group and 28.2% for the intervention group (p < .001). Logistic regression results indicated an 11.2 times higher odds for re-enrollment of the intervention group than the control group (p < .001). Results did not vary by gender, race, ethnicity, or level of education, however recycled smokers were older (Mean =45.2; SD = 11.7) than smokers who declined a new treatment cycle (Mean = 41.8; SD = 13.2); (p = 0.013). The main barriers reported for not engaging in a new treatment cycle were low self-efficacy and lack of interest in quitting. After delivering IVR messages targeting these reported barriers, 32% of the smokers reporting low self-efficacy and 4.8% of those reporting lack of interest in quitting re-engaged in a new QL treatment cycle.

Conclusion

Proactive IVR outreach is a promising tool to engage low income, relapsed smokers back into a new cycle of treatment. Integration of IVR intervention for recycling smokers with previous QL treatment has the potential to decrease tobacco-related disparities.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01260597

Chronic disease management for tobacco dependence: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Tobacco dependence disorder is a chronic relapsing condition, yet treatment is delivered in discrete episodes of care that yield disappointing long-term quit rates.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial from June 1, 2004, through May 31, 2009, to compare telephone-based chronic disease management (1 year; longitudinal care [LC]) with evidence-based treatment (8 weeks; usual care [UC]) for tobacco dependence. A total of 443 smokers each received 5 telephone counseling calls and nicotine replacement therapy by mail for 4 weeks. They were then randomized to UC (2 additional calls) or LC (continued counseling and nicotine replacement therapy for an additional 48 weeks). Longitudinal care targeted repeat quit attempts and interim smoking reduction for relapsers. The primary outcome was 6 months of prolonged abstinence measured at 18 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

At 18 months, 30.2% of LC participants reported 6 months of abstinence from smoking, compared with 23.5% in UC (unadjusted, P = .13). Multivariate analysis showed that LC (adjusted odds ratio, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.08-2.80), quit attempts in past year (1.75; 1.06-2.89), baseline cigarettes per day (0.95; 0.92-0.99), and smoking in the 14- to 21-day interval post-quit (0.23; 0.14-0.38) predicted prolonged abstinence at 18 months. The LC participants who did not quit reduced smoking more than UC participants (significant only at 12 months). The LC participants received more counseling calls than UC participants (mean, 16.5 vs 5.8 calls; P < .001), longer total duration of counseling (283 vs 117 minutes; P < .001), and more nicotine replacement therapy (4.7 vs 2.4 boxes of patches; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

A chronic disease management approach increases both short- and long-term abstinence from smoking.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00309296.

Predictors of early versus late smoking abstinence within a 24-month disease management program

INTRODUCTION

Standard smoking cessation treatment studies have been limited to 6- to 12-month follow-up, and examination of predictors of abstinence has been restricted to this timeframe. The KanQuit study enrolled 750 rural smokers across all stages of readiness to stop smoking and provided pharmacotherapy management and/or disease management, including motivational interviewing (MI) counseling every 6 months over 2 years. This paper examines differences in predictors of abstinence following initial (6-month) and extended (24-month) intervention.

METHODS

Baseline variables were analyzed as potential predictors of self-reported smoking abstinence at Month 6 and at Month 24. Chi-square tests, 2-sample t tests, and multiple logistic regression analyses were used to identify predictors of abstinence among 592 participants who completed assessment at baseline and Months 6 and 24.

RESULTS

Controlling for treatment group, the final regression models showed that male gender and lower baseline cigarettes per day predicted abstinence at both 6 and 24 months. While remaining significant, the relative advantage of being male decreased over time. Global motivation to stop smoking, controlled motivation, and self-efficacy predicted abstinence at 6 months but did not predict abstinence at Month 24. In contrast, stage of change was strongly predictive of 24-month smoking status.

CONCLUSIONS

While the importance of some predictors of successful smoking cessation appeared to diminish over time, initial lack of interest in cessation and number of cigarettes per day strongly predicted continued smoking following a 2-year program.

A clinical practice guideline for treating tobacco use and dependence: 2008 update. A U.S. Public Health Service report

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the U.S. Public Health Service guideline Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update, which provides recommendations for clinical interventions and system changes to promote the treatment of tobacco dependence.

PARTICIPANTS

An independent panel of 24 scientists and clinicians selected by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality on behalf of the U.S. Public Health Service. A consortium of eight governmental and nonprofit organizations sponsored the update.

EVIDENCE

Approximately 8700 English-language, peer-reviewed articles and abstracts, published between 1975 and 2007, were reviewed for data that addressed assessment and treatment of tobacco dependence. This literature served as the basis for more than 35 meta-analyses.

CONSENSUS PROCESS

Two panel meetings and numerous conference calls and staff meetings were held to evaluate meta-analyses and relevant literature, to synthesize the results, and to develop recommendations. The updated guideline was then externally reviewed by more than 90 experts, made available for public comment, and revised.

CONCLUSIONS

This evidence-based, updated guideline provides specific recommendations regarding brief and intensive tobacco-cessation interventions as well as system-level changes designed to promote the assessment and treatment of tobacco use. Brief clinical approaches for patients willing and unwilling to quit are described.

Telephone-based tobacco-cessation treatment: re-enrollment among diverse groups

BACKGROUND

Telephone quitlines are utilized by diverse individuals and represent an effective tobacco-cessation modality. Quitlines allow tobacco users to seek support for multiple quit attempts. Little is known about how frequently tobacco users take advantage of this opportunity. No studies have been conducted to determine how communication strategies affect quitline re-enrollments. This study aimed to determine the rates of quitline re-enrollment and to compare the responses of people of varying racial/ethnic identities to invitations utilizing different communication strategies.

DESIGN

Four-cell RCT.

SETTING/ PARTICIPANTS

Random sample of 2400 tobacco users who enrolled into services during 2006, with oversampling of ethnic populations.

INTERVENTION

Between November 2006 and January 2007, participants received either no invitation to re-enroll or were invited to re-enroll into services via a letter, a letter with ethnic-specific content, or a letter and a telephone call.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Re-enrollment into quitline services.

RESULTS

Analysis of the 252 days prior to the intervention resulted in a spontaneous re-enrollment rate of 0.54% per 30 days. Recruitment using mailers did not significantly change this rate; the addition of telephone calls increased re-enrollment to 6.93% per 30 days. No significant differences were found among the subpopulations studied. Invalid addresses (16%); invalid telephone numbers (29.1%); and the inability to reach subjects after five call attempts (37.9%) were barriers to recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

For those who have previously called quitlines for help, proactive re-enrollment can be one way to initiate a new quit attempt after relapse. This study has shown that it is feasible to re-enroll former quitline participants, making the test of effectiveness the next logical step.

Tobacco addiction

Tobacco use is associated with 5 million deaths per year worldwide and is regarded as one of the leading causes of premature death. Comprehensive programmes for tobacco control can substantially reduce the frequency of tobacco use. An important component of a comprehensive programme is the provision of treatment for tobacco addiction. Treatment involves targeting several aspects of addiction including the underlying neurobiology and behavioural processes. Furthermore, building an infrastructure in health systems that encourages and helps with cessation, as well as expansion of the accessibility of treatments, is necessary. Although pharmacological and behavioural treatments are effective in improving cessation success, the rate of relapse to smoking remains high, emphasising the strong addictive nature of nicotine. The future of treatment resides in improvement in patient matching to treatment, combination or novel drugs, and viewing nicotine addiction as a chronic disorder that might need long-term treatment.

Cue-induced reinstatement of nicotine-seeking behavior in rats: effect of bupropion, persistence over repeated tests, and its dependence on training dose

RATIONALE

The motivational effects of nicotine-associated cues have been demonstrated in animal studies. However, it is unknown whether the effectiveness of nicotine cues in reinstating nicotine-seeking varies with the extent of prior nicotine self-administration. In addition, the issue of whether bupropion (an FDA-approved smoking cessation medication) interferes with the conditioned incentive of nicotine cues remains to be addressed.

OBJECTIVE

This study determined the relationship of cue-reinstated nicotine-seeking and the levels of prior self-administration and examined the effect of bupropion on cue-induced reinstatement of nicotine-seeking in comparison with that on self-administration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Male Sprague-Dawley rats were trained in daily 1-h sessions to intravenously self-administer nicotine at different doses (0, 0.015, 0.03, 0.06 mg/kg/infusion) and to associate an auditory/visual cue with each nicotine delivery. After extinction, three reinstatement tests at 15 day intervals were conducted with re-presentation of the cue without nicotine delivery. In separate groups of rats trained with 0.03 mg/kg/infusion nicotine, bupropion (0, 10, 20, 40 mg/kg) was intraperitoneally administered to different groups before the reinstatement and in a within-subject design before the self-administration tests.

RESULTS

Cue-induced reinstatement of active lever responses was observed at all nicotine doses in the first reinstatement test, but at only the two highest doses during the second and third tests. The magnitude of reinstatement was positively correlated with level of prior responding for nicotine. Bupropion pretreatment decreased nicotine self-administration but enhanced cue-reinstated nicotine-seeking.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate the positive correlation of cue-reinstated nicotine-seeking with prior responding for nicotine self-administration and the persistence of the cue effect after taking higher doses of nicotine. The results of pharmacological tests suggest that although it is able to help achieve smoking cessation, bupropion may have little clinical benefit for the prevention of relapse associated with exposure to environmental smoking cues.

Randomized comparison of a nicotine inhaler and bupropion for smoking cessation and relapse prevention

OBJECTIVE

To compare the combination of a nicotine inhaler and bupropion to either treatment alone for initiating smoking abstinence and relapse prevention.

METHODS

Smokers were randomized to receive a nicotine inhaler, bupropion, or both for 3 months. At 3 months, smoking-abstinent study participants were randomized to their initial medications or placebo. Participants who were smoking at 3 months were randomized to an alternative treatment regimen or placebo. This study was conducted from July 2001 to January 2003.

RESULTS

A total of 1700 smokers were randomized to treatment (phase 1) for 3 months. Among the 941 study participants eligible for randomization to the phase 2 trial, 837 continued in the study. For the phase 2 trial, 405 smoking-abstinent participants were randomized to relapse prevention for 9 additional months, and 432 smokers were randomized to re-treatment for an additional 3 months. At the end of the initial 3 months of treatment (phase 1), 82 (14%) of 566, 145 (26%) of 567, and 194 (34%) of 567 study participants receiving a nicotine inhaler, bupropion, or both, respectively, were abstinent from smoking. Of the 405 smoking-abstinent participants at the end of 3 months, the bupropion group had more smokers than the placebo group (mean No. of smokers, 1.5 vs 1.1; P < .001), and the nicotine inhaler group had higher smoking abstinence rates at 12 months than the placebo group. Those receiving combination therapy had reduced rates of relapse to smoking for the first 3 months of relapse prevention, but this difference disappeared after the initial 3 months. Of the 432 study participants who were smoking at the end of 3 months and who received an alternative treatment regimen, the 223 smokers initially assigned to a nicotine inhaler were more likely to stop smoking at 6 months if they were re-treated with bupropion instead of placebo (8 [7%] of 111 vs 0 [0%] of 112; P = .003), and the 209 smokers initially treated with bupropion and re-treated with a nicotine inhaler did not have significantly higher smoking abstinence rates (6 [6%] of 104 vs 3 [3%] of 105; P = -.50).

CONCLUSION

Combined therapy with a nicotine inhaler and bupropion increased smoking abstinence rates. Continuation of the initial combination therapy does not appear to prevent relapse to smoking. Timing of re-treatment and alternative approaches to relapse prevention should be further examined.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

There are at least two theoretical reasons to believe antidepressants might help in smoking cessation. Nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms or precipitate a major depressive episode and antidepressants may relieve these. Nicotine may have antidepressant effects that maintain smoking, and antidepressants may substitute for this effect. Alternatively, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways underlying nicotine addiction, (e.g. blocking nicotine receptors) independent of their antidepressant effects.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the effect of antidepressant medications in aiding long-term smoking cessation. The medications include bupropion; doxepin; fluoxetine; imipramine; moclobemide; nortriptyline; paroxetine; sertraline, tryptophan and venlafaxine.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register which includes trials indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, SciSearch and PsycINFO, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in September 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the type of study population, the nature of the pharmacotherapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow up in patients smoking at baseline, expressed as an odds ratio (OR). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen new trials were identified since the last update in 2004 bringing the total number of included trials to 53. There were 40 trials of bupropion and eight trials of nortriptyline. When used as the sole pharmacotherapy, bupropion (31 trials, odds ratio [OR] 1.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.72 to 2.19) and nortriptyline (four trials, OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.61 to 3.41) both doubled the odds of cessation. There is insufficient evidence that adding bupropion or nortriptyline to nicotine replacement therapy provides an additional long-term benefit. Three trials of extended therapy with bupropion to prevent relapse after initial cessation did not find evidence of a significant long-term benefit. From the available data bupropion and nortriptyline appear to be equally effective and of similar efficacy to nicotine replacement therapy. Pooling three trials comparing bupropion to varenicline showed a lower odds of quitting with bupropion (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.78). There is a risk of about 1 in 1000 of seizures associated with bupropion use. Concerns that bupropion may increase suicide risk are currently unproven. Nortriptyline has the potential for serious side-effects, but none have been seen in the few small trials for smoking cessation. There were six trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; four of fluoxetine, one of sertraline and one of paroxetine. None of these detected significant long-term effects, and there was no evidence of a significant benefit when results were pooled. There was one trial of the monoamine oxidase inhibitor moclobemide, and one of the atypical antidepressant venlafaxine. Neither of these detected a significant long-term benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The antidepressants bupropion and nortriptyline aid long-term smoking cessation but selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (e.g. fluoxetine) do not. Evidence suggests that the mode of action of bupropion and nortriptyline is independent of their antidepressant effect and that they are of similar efficacy to nicotine replacement. Adverse events with both medications are rarely serious or lead to stopping medication.

Characteristics and smoking cessation outcomes of patients returning for repeat tobacco dependence treatment

Previous studies of tobacco dependence treatment have reported very low cessation rates among smokers who relapse and return to make a subsequent formal attempt to quit. This retrospective cohort study examined 1745 patients who attended a tobacco dependence clinic between 2001 and 2005, and the characteristics and outcomes of those who relapsed and returned for repeat treatment. Patients who returned for repeat treatment showed higher markers of nicotine dependence and were more likely to have a history of treatment for mental health problems than patients who attended the clinic for only one treatment episode. Among patients who relapsed and returned for repeat treatment, the 26-week abstinence rates were similar for each consecutive quit attempt (23%, 22% and 20%). Clinicians should encourage smokers who relapse after an initial treatment episode to return for treatment, and repeat treatment should focus on addressing high nicotine dependence and potentially co-occurring mental health problems in order to improve cessation outcomes.

Relapse to smoking

Relapse is by far the most likely outcome of any smoking cessation attempt, even those made with the benefit intensive psychosocial treatment and pharmacotherapy. The present article briefly reviews the epidemiology of smoking and self-quitting, the outcome data for major forms of behavioral and pharmacologic smoking cessation treatments, and what is known about the natural history of relapse and recovery among treated smokers. A recent trend in smoking relapse research has been to study the dynamics of key motivational processes, such as withdrawal symptoms, negative affect, and craving, in the laboratory and in smokers' natural environments. This literature is also briefly reviewed, with an emphasis on how such investigations may reveal the limitations of current cessation treatments. Finally, three significant research themes that are likely to be important in future relapse research are highlighted--the possible "hardening" of the smoking population, the potential for developmental research to deepen our understanding of smoking motivation, and the promise of molecular genetic studies for advancing treatment and our understanding of relapse.

Successful treatment with a nicotine lozenge of smokers with prior failure in pharmacological therapy

AIMS

To assess the influence of unsuccessful past quit attempts using pharmacological treatment on smoking cessation when using a new nicotine lozenge.

DESIGN

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Fifteen sites in the United Kingdom and the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1818 smokers seeking smoking cessation treatment; 1145 had had previous pharmacological treatment for smoking cessation.

INTERVENTION

Lozenge, 2 mg or 4 mg (or matched placebo); a higher dose was assigned to smokers who smoked their first cigarette of the day within 30 minutes, a sign of dependence. Smokers received minimal instruction and counseling.

MEASUREMENT

Outcome was 28-day, CO-verified continuous abstinence at 6 weeks. Past use of medications was ascertained by self-report.

FINDINGS

Lozenge was efficacious among smokers with prior pharmacotherapy as well as among those without such history. The effect of lozenge (versus placebo) was significantly greater among those with previous treatment experience, because previous treatment was associated with significantly poorer outcome on placebo, and active lozenge treatment corrected this imbalance. Lozenge efficacy was similar whether smokers had previously tried patch or acute forms of nicotine replacement therapy (gum, inhaler and spray), and also similar for past use of Zyban (bupriopion).

CONCLUSIONS

Smokers with a history of past failure of pharmacological treatment have lower success rates without pharmacological treatment, but equally good outcomes with active lozenge treatment. Smokers who previously tried pharmacological treatments but resumed smoking should be encouraged to try quitting again with the new nicotine lozenge.

Review of bupropion for smoking cessation

The advent of bupropion hydrochloride sustained release (Zyban) has heralded a major change in the options available for smoking cessation pharmacotherapy. Bupropion is a selective re-uptake inhibitor of dopamine and noradrenalin which prevents or reduces cravings and other features of nicotine withdrawal. Bupropion is a useful oral and non-nicotine form of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. For this review a total of 221 papers were reviewed plus poster presentations. This review examines in detail original clinical trials on efficacy, categorised according to whether they were acute treatment trials in healthy smokers; studies in specific populations such as people with depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or cardiovascular disease; or relapse prevention studies. Overall, these studies in varying populations comprising over four thousand subjects, showed bupropion consistently produces a positive effect on smoking cessation outcomes. The evidence highlights the major public health role that bupropion has in smoking cessation. The methodological issues of published clinical trials reporting one year outcomes were examined in detail including: completeness of follow-up; loss to follow-up; intention to treat analysis; blindness of assessment; and validation of smoking status. The review discusses contraindications, adverse effects, dose and overdose, addictive potential, and the role of bupropion in reducing cessation-related weight gain. Bupropion combined with or compared to other pharmacotherapies (nicotine patch; nortriptyline) is considered. Impressive evidence exists for the use of bupropion in smoking cessation among difficult patients who are hard-core smokers such as those with cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and depression. Bupropion reduces withdrawal symptoms as well as weight gain and is effective for smoking cessation for people with and without a history of depression or alcoholism. Serious side effects of bupropion use are rare. The major safety issue with bupropion is risk of seizures (estimated at approximately 0.1%) and it should not be prescribed to patients with a current seizure disorder or any history of seizures. In clinical trials of bupropion for smoking cessation no seizures were reported. Allergic reactions occur at a rate of approximately 3% and minor adverse effects are common including dry mouth and insomnia.

Nicotine patch therapy based on smoking rate followed by bupropion for prevention of relapse to smoking

PURPOSE

To determine whether (1) tailored nicotine patch therapy that is based on smoking rate can be carried out in a multisite oncology investigative group practice setting, (2) long-term use of bupropion reduces the rate of relapse to smoking in smokers who stop smoking with nicotine patch therapy, and (3) bupropion can initiate smoking abstinence among smokers who have failed to stop smoking after nicotine patch therapy.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

Fourteen North Central Cancer Treatment Group sites recruited generally healthy adult smokers from the general population for nicotine patch therapy and based the patch dosage on smoking rates. At completion of nicotine patch therapy, nonsmoking participants were eligible to be assigned to bupropion or placebo for 6 months (for relapse prevention). and smoking participants were eligible to be assigned to bupropion or placebo for 8 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Of 578 subjects, 31% were abstinent from smoking at the end of nicotine patch therapy. Of those subjects not smoking at the end of nicotine patch therapy who entered the relapse prevention phase, 28% and 25% were not smoking at 6 months (the end of the medication phase) for bupropion and placebo, respectively (P =.73). For those still smoking at the end of nicotine patch therapy, 3.1% and 0.0% stopped smoking with bupropion or placebo, respectively (P =.12).

CONCLUSION

Tailored nicotine patch therapy for the general population of smokers can be provided in a multisite oncology investigative group setting. Bupropion did not reduce relapse to smoking in smokers who stopped smoking with nicotine patch therapy. Bupropion did not initiate abstinence among smokers who failed to stop smoking with nicotine patch therapy.

Smoking cessation for patients with cardiovascular disease: what is the best approach?

Tobacco use remains the major preventable cause of early mortality and morbidity in the US and is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Quitting smoking rapidly reduces the risk of cardiovascular events. In this review, we identify and discuss best approaches to assist smoking cessation among patients with CVD. Establishing office systems that reliably identify smokers to healthcare providers is an essential first step. Once the patient is identified as a smoker, providers should inquire about their willingness to quit and advise them to quit or provide motivation to get ready to make a quit attempt. Behavioral (counseling) and pharmacologic (nicotine replacement and non-nicotine medications) treatments double or triple long-term cessation rates and should be offered in combination to all patients with CVD who use tobacco. More intensive behavioral therapy is more effective and should be delivered when possible. The choice of pharmacotherapy will depend upon the clinical history of the patient and patient preference. Nicotine replacement and sustained release bupropion (bupropion SR) are first-line treatments for smoking cessation. Nicotine patches have been studied extensively in patients with stable CVD and have been shown to be safe. Bupropion SR has relatively few cardiovascular adverse effects and may be especially useful for patients with CVD; its safety is currently being studied. Special consideration is needed for hospitalized patients with acute coronary syndromes (e.g. myocardial infarction and unstable angina). The safety of pharmacotherapy in the acute setting is not yet established. Behavioral interventions, however, are very effective and should be delivered to all hospitalized smokers. Finally, it is important to create a clinical environment that is supportive of treating patients with tobacco dependence. Simple changes in office and hospital routines and procedures (routine screening to identify smokers, prompts to encourage intervention and links to more intensive tobacco dependence treatment programs) will substantially improve the identification, treatment, and outcomes of patients with CVD who use tobacco.

Clinical efficacy of bupropion in the management of smoking cessation

Nicotine addiction is a chronic relapsing condition that can be difficult to treat. Until recently, pharmacological options for the treatment of tobacco dependence were primarily limited to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Sustained-release bupropion (bupropion SR) is the first non-nicotine pharmacological treatment approved for smoking cessation. Bupropion SR is recommended for first-line pharmacotherapy alongside NRT in the updated US Clinical Practice Guidelines and the UK Health Education Authority Guidelines. The UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence recommends NRT and bupropion SR for smokers who have expressed a desire to quit smoking. This review presents evidence that bupropion SR is an effective first-line therapy for smoking cessation in a wide range of patient populations. It is associated with significantly higher smoking cessation rates compared with placebo in patients with or without a history of prior bupropion SR or NRT use, and its effect is independent of gender. Bupropion SR treatment is effective in the prevention of relapse to smoking in those patients who have successfully quit, and re-treatment is effective in smokers who recommence smoking after a previous course of bupropion SR. Bupropion SR treatment relieves the symptoms of craving and nicotine withdrawal, and attenuates the weight gain that often occurs after smoking cessation. Data collected from motivational support programmes and employer-based studies provide strong evidence of the effectiveness of bupropion SR as an aid to smoking cessation in 'real life' situations, and confirm the efficacy seen in clinical trials.

Residential (inpatient) treatment compared with outpatient treatment for nicotine dependence

OBJECTIVE

To compare smoking abstinence outcomes between smokers treated in a residential (inpatient) program and those treated in an outpatient program to determine if residential treatment was superior to outpatient treatment in smokers with moderate to severe nicotine dependence.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients treated in the residential nicotine dependence program at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., between May 1, 1992, and January 31, 1996, were selected for this study. Each patient in the residential treatment group (n=146) was matched to 2 patients who received an outpatient nicotine dependence consultation by a trained counselor (n=292). Each patient was matched on age, sex, year seen, number of cigarettes smoked per day, longest previous abstinence, education, and marital status. Abstinence at 6 and 12 months was determined by self-report. For the purposes of analysis, each patient with missing outcome data was considered to be smoking.

RESULTS

The 6-month abstinence rates for the residential group compared with the outpatient group were 45% and 26%, respectively (P<.001), and the 12-month abstinence rates were 45% and 23%, respectively (P<.001). After adjusting for matching variables that were not exactly matched (age, baseline number of cigarettes smoked per day, and longest previous abstinence) and the baseline variables, including education, age when started smoking, and degree of nicotine dependence, there was a significant effect of residential treatment on 6- and 12-month abstinence rates (P<.001). Odds ratio of 6-month abstinence in the residential group was 2.74 (95% confidence interval, 1.60-4.71; P<.001) and at 12 months was 3.03 (95% confidence interval, 1.74-5.27; P<.001).

CONCLUSION

Residential treatment for tobacco dependence is superior to outpatient treatment in some smokers who are moderately to severely nicotine dependent.

Treatment resistant smokers: a pilot study of nicotine nasal spray and inhaler

A growing proportion of smokers are those who have failed prior treatments for cessation. We tested the efficacy of nicotine nasal spray and nicotine inhaler in two uncontrolled, open-label studies of 19 and 20 smokers who had previously failed nicotine patch therapy. As in the three prior studies of treatment failures, 6 month abstinence rates were extremely low both with the nasal spray (0%) and the inhaler (5%). We discuss possible treatments for and methodological issues in researching treatment-resistant smokers.

Non-nicotine pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation

The selection of a non-nicotine treatment is based on the acceptability of various treatments with smokers, the ability to address the specific neurobiology of nicotine addiction, and the option to provide treatment for co-morbid conditions of nicotine-dependent patients. The search for effective treatments for nicotine dependence has generated a wide variety of non-nicotine approaches based on the neuropharmacologic and sensory basis for tobacco use. The only non-nicotine, FDA-approved medication is bupropion, an amino-ketone agent that is believed to work on the dopaminergic and noradrenergic neurotransmitters involved in perpetuating nicotine dependence. This article reviews other unapproved medications, mechanisms of action, and their effectiveness in clinical trials.

Double blind trial of repeated treatment with transdermal nicotine for relapsed smokers

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of a repeat course of treatment with transdermal nicotine for cessation of smoking in a brief intervention setting.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial with follow up for 26 weeks.

SUBJECTS

629 smokers who had unsuccessfully attempted to stop smoking by using active transdermal nicotine and brief behavioural counselling. Smokers were motivated to quit smoking for a second time and smoked > or = 15 cigarettes a day.

INTERVENTIONS

Twelve weeks' treatment with active transdermal nicotine patches or placebo and brief counselling at monthly visits.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Sustained smoking cessation for the 28 days before the visit at week 12 verified by expired carbon monoxide concentrations.

RESULTS

At 12 weeks 21/315 (6.7%) subjects allocated to active treatment had stopped smoking compared with 6/314 (1.9%) allocated to placebo (absolute difference 4.7%; 95% confidence interval 1.6% to 7.9%; P = 0.003). At 26 weeks the rates were 20/315 (6.4%) and 8/314 (2.6%) (3.8%; 0.6% to 7.0%; P = 0.021). Difficulty in sleeping was reported by 43/179 (24.0%) on active treatment and 19/143 (13.3%) on placebo (P = 0.015). Severe reactions at the site of application were rare (6/322; 1.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Repeated treatment with transdermal nicotine together with brief counselling can improve the low success rates of smoking cessation in recently relapsed, moderate to heavy smokers. Questions remain about whether more intensive interventions or higher doses of nicotine could be more effective. The likelihood of severe reactions at the site of application with repeated treatment is low.