A randomized trial of bupropion and/or nicotine gum as maintenance treatment for preventing smoking relapse

Varenicline Combined With Oral Nicotine Replacement Therapy and Smartphone-Based Medication Reminders for Smoking Cessation: Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Varenicline and oral nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) have each been shown to increase the likelihood of smoking cessation, but their combination has not been studied. In addition, smoking cessation medication adherence is often poor, thus, challenging the ability to evaluate medication efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the effects of combined varenicline and oral NRT and smartphone medication reminders on pharmacotherapy adherence and smoking abstinence among adults enrolled in smoking cessation treatment.

METHODS

A 2×2 factorial design was used. Participants (N=34) were randomized to (1) varenicline + oral NRT (VAR+NRT) or varenicline alone (VAR) and (2) smartphone medication reminder messages (REM) or no reminder messages (NREM) over 13 weeks. Participants assigned to VAR+REM received varenicline reminder prompts, and those assigned to VAR+NRT+REM also received reminders to use oral NRT. The other 2 groups (VAR+NREM and VAR+NRT+NREM) did not receive medication reminders. Participants were not blinded to intervention groups. All participants received tobacco cessation counseling. Smartphone assessments of smoking as well as varenicline and NRT use (if applicable) were prompted daily through the first 12 weeks after a scheduled quit date. Descriptive statistics were generated to characterize the relations between medication and reminder group assignments with daily smoking, daily varenicline adherence, and daily quantity of oral NRT used. Participants completed follow-up assessments for 26 weeks after the quit date.

RESULTS

Participants were predominantly White (71%), and half were female (50%). On average, participants were 54.2 (SD 9.4) years of age, they smoked an average of 19.0 (SD 9.0) cigarettes per day and had smoked for 34.6 (SD 12.7) years. Descriptively, participants assigned to VAR+NRT reported more days of smoking abstinence compared to VAR (29.3 vs 26.3 days). Participants assigned to REM reported more days of smoking abstinence than those assigned to NREM (40.5 vs 21.8 days). Participants assigned to REM were adherent to varenicline on more days compared to those assigned to NREM (58.6 vs 40.5 days), and participants assigned to VAR were adherent to varenicline on more days than those assigned to VAR + NRT (50.7 vs 43.3 days). In the subsample of participants assigned to VAR+NRT, participants assigned to REM reported more days where ≥5 pieces of NRT were used than NREM (14.0 vs 7.4 days). Average overall medication adherence (assessed via the Medication Adherence Questionnaire) showed the same pattern as the daily smartphone-based adherence assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary findings indicated that smoking cessation interventions may benefit from incorporating medication reminders and combining varenicline with oral NRT, though combining medications may be associated with poorer adherence. Further study is warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03722966; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03722966.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Study title: A systematic review of RCTs to examine the risk of adverse cardiovascular events with nicotine use

Associations between cigarette smoking and increased risk of cardiovascular disease are well established. However, it is unclear whether the association is mediated by exposure to nicotine and/or to other constituents in cigarette smoke. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs) was to identify any potential associations between exposure to nicotine and the risk of clinically diagnosed adverse cardiovascular events in adult current users and nonusers of tobacco products. Among 1,996 results, 42 studies, comparing nicotine and non-nicotine groups, were included and were both qualitatively and quantitatively synthesized across the outcomes of arrhythmia, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death. The majority of studies evaluating nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death reported no events that occurred in either the nicotine or non-nicotine control groups. Among the studies that reported events, rates of adverse events were similarly low between both groups. Consistent with findings from previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, pooled data showed that rates for arrhythmia, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death were not significantly different between nicotine and non-nicotine groups. The overall quality of the body of evidence for each of the four outcomes of interest was graded as "moderate," limited only by the imprecision of results. The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that, with moderate certainty, there are no significant associations between the use of nicotine and the risk of clinically diagnosed adverse cardiovascular events-specifically, arrhythmia, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

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

PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTIONS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

DATA SOURCES

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

REVIEW METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

FUTURE WORK

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

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

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

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Most people who stop smoking gain weight. This can discourage some people from making a quit attempt and risks offsetting some, but not all, of the health advantages of quitting. Interventions to prevent weight gain could improve health outcomes, but there is a concern that they may undermine quitting.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effects of: (1) interventions targeting post-cessation weight gain on weight change and smoking cessation (referred to as 'Part 1') and (2) interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that plausibly affect post-cessation weight gain (referred to as 'Part 2').

SEARCH METHODS

Part 1 - We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; latest search 16 October 2020. Part 2 - We searched included studies in the following 'parent' Cochrane reviews: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, e-cigarettes, and exercise interventions for smoking cessation published in Issue 10, 2020 of the Cochrane Library. We updated register searches for the review of nicotine receptor partial agonists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Part 1 - trials of interventions that targeted post-cessation weight gain and had measured weight at any follow-up point or smoking cessation, or both, six or more months after quit day. Part 2 - trials included in the selected parent Cochrane reviews reporting weight change at any time point.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. Change in weight was expressed as difference in weight change from baseline to follow-up between trial arms and was reported only in people abstinent from smoking. Abstinence from smoking was expressed as a risk ratio (RR). Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the inverse variance method for weight, and Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking.

MAIN RESULTS

Part 1: We include 37 completed studies; 21 are new to this update. We judged five studies to be at low risk of bias, 17 to be at unclear risk and the remainder at high risk.  An intermittent very low calorie diet (VLCD) comprising full meal replacement provided free of charge and accompanied by intensive dietitian support significantly reduced weight gain at end of treatment compared with education on how to avoid weight gain (mean difference (MD) -3.70 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.82 to -2.58; 1 study, 121 participants), but there was no evidence of benefit at 12 months (MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI -3.49 to 0.89; 1 study, 62 participants). The VLCD increased the chances of abstinence at 12 months (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73; 1 study, 287 participants). However, a second study  found that no-one completed the VLCD intervention or achieved abstinence. Interventions aimed at increasing acceptance of weight gain reported mixed effects at end of treatment, 6 months and 12 months with confidence intervals including both increases and decreases in weight gain compared with no advice or health education. Due to high heterogeneity, we did not combine the data. These interventions increased quit rates at 6 months (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.96; 4 studies, 619 participants; I² = 21%), but there was no evidence at 12 months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.06; 2 studies, 496 participants; I² = 26%). Some pharmacological interventions tested for limiting post-cessation weight gain (PCWG) reduced weight gain at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine, phenylpropanolamine, naltrexone). The effects of ephedrine and caffeine combined, lorcaserin, and chromium were too imprecise to give useful estimates of treatment effects. There was very low-certainty evidence that personalized weight management support reduced weight gain at end of treatment (MD -1.11 kg, 95% CI -1.93 to -0.29; 3 studies, 121 participants; I² = 0%), but no evidence in the longer-term 12 months (MD -0.44 kg, 95% CI -2.34 to 1.46; 4 studies, 530 participants; I² = 41%). There was low to very low-certainty evidence that detailed weight management education without personalized assessment, planning and feedback did not reduce weight gain and may have reduced smoking cessation rates (12 months: MD -0.21 kg, 95% CI -2.28 to 1.86; 2 studies, 61 participants; I² = 0%; RR for smoking cessation 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90; 2 studies, 522 participants; I² = 0%). Part 2: We include 83 completed studies, 27 of which are new to this update. There was low certainty that exercise interventions led to minimal or no weight reduction compared with standard care at end of treatment (MD -0.25 kg, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.29; 4 studies, 404 participants; I² = 0%). However, weight was reduced at 12 months (MD -2.07 kg, 95% CI -3.78 to -0.36; 3 studies, 182 participants; I² = 0%). Both bupropion and fluoxetine limited weight gain at end of treatment (bupropion MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.67; 10 studies, 1098 participants; I² = 3%); (fluoxetine MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.53; 2 studies, 144 participants; I² = 38%; low- and very low-certainty evidence, respectively). There was no evidence of benefit at 12 months for bupropion, but estimates were imprecise (bupropion MD -0.26 kg, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.78; 7 studies, 471 participants; I² = 0%). No studies of fluoxetine provided data at 12 months. There was moderate-certainty that NRT reduced weight at end of treatment (MD -0.52 kg, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.05; 21 studies, 2784 participants; I² = 81%) and moderate-certainty that the effect may be similar at 12 months (MD -0.37 kg, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.11; 17 studies, 1463 participants; I² = 0%), although the estimates are too imprecise to assess long-term benefit. There was mixed evidence of the effect of varenicline on weight, with high-certainty evidence that weight change was very modestly lower at the end of treatment (MD -0.23 kg, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.06; 14 studies, 2566 participants; I² = 32%); a low-certainty estimate gave an imprecise estimate of higher weight at 12 months (MD 1.05 kg, 95% CI -0.58 to 2.69; 3 studies, 237 participants; I² = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is no intervention for which there is moderate certainty of a clinically useful effect on long-term weight gain. There is also no moderate- or high-certainty evidence that interventions designed to limit weight gain reduce the chances of people achieving abstinence from smoking.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A number of treatments can help smokers make a successful quit attempt, but many initially successful quitters relapse over time. Several interventions have been proposed to help prevent relapse.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether specific interventions for relapse prevention reduce the proportion of recent quitters who return to smoking.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in May 2019 for studies mentioning relapse prevention or maintenance in their title, abstracts, or keywords.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of relapse prevention interventions with a minimum follow-up of six months. We included smokers who quit on their own, were undergoing enforced abstinence, or were participating in treatment programmes. We included studies that compared relapse prevention interventions with a no intervention control, or that compared a cessation programme with additional relapse prevention components with a cessation programme alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 81 studies (69,094 participants), five of which are new to this update. We judged 22 studies to be at high risk of bias, 53 to be at unclear risk of bias, and six studies to be at low risk of bias. Fifty studies included abstainers, and 30 studies helped people to quit and then tested treatments to prevent relapse. Twenty-eight studies focused on special populations who were abstinent because of pregnancy (19 studies), hospital admission (six studies), or military service (three studies). Most studies used behavioural interventions that tried to teach people skills to cope with the urge to smoke, or followed up with additional support. Some studies tested extended pharmacotherapy. We focused on results from those studies that randomised abstainers, as these are the best test of relapse prevention interventions. Of the 12 analyses we conducted in abstainers, three pharmacotherapy analyses showed benefits of the intervention: extended varenicline in assisted abstainers (2 studies, n = 1297, risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.41, I² = 82%; moderate-certainty evidence), rimonabant in assisted abstainers (1 study, RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.55), and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in unaided abstainers (2 studies, n = 2261, RR 1.24, 95% Cl 1.04 to 1.47, I² = 56%). The remainder of analyses of pharmacotherapies in abstainers had wide confidence intervals consistent with both no effect and a statistically significant effect in favour of the intervention. These included NRT in hospital inpatients (2 studies, n = 1078, RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.60, I² = 0%), NRT in assisted abstainers (2 studies, n = 553, RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.40, I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence), extended bupropion in assisted abstainers (6 studies, n = 1697, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.35, I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence), and bupropion plus NRT (2 studies, n = 243, RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.87, I² = 66%; low-certainty evidence). Analyses of behavioural interventions in abstainers did not detect an effect. These included studies in abstinent pregnant and postpartum women at the end of pregnancy (8 studies, n = 1523, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11, I² = 0%) and at postpartum follow-up (15 studies, n = 4606, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09, I² = 3%), studies in hospital inpatients (5 studies, n = 1385, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.47, I² = 58%), and studies in assisted abstainers (11 studies, n = 5523, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.11, I² = 52%; moderate-certainty evidence) and unaided abstainers (5 studies, n = 3561, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16, I² = 1%) from the general population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural interventions that teach people to recognise situations that are high risk for relapse along with strategies to cope with them provided no worthwhile benefit in preventing relapse in assisted abstainers, although unexplained statistical heterogeneity means we are only moderately certain of this. In people who have successfully quit smoking using pharmacotherapy, there were mixed results regarding extending pharmacotherapy for longer than is standard. Extended treatment with varenicline helped to prevent relapse; evidence for the effect estimate was of moderate certainty, limited by unexplained statistical heterogeneity. Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, did not detect a benefit from extended treatment with bupropion, though confidence intervals mean we could not rule out a clinically important benefit at this stage. Low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, did not show a benefit of extended treatment with nicotine replacement therapy in preventing relapse in assisted abstainers. More research is needed in this area, especially as the evidence for extended nicotine replacement therapy in unassisted abstainers did suggest a benefit.

Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A number of treatments can help smokers make a successful quit attempt, but many initially successful quitters relapse over time. Several interventions have been proposed to help prevent relapse.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether specific interventions for relapse prevention reduce the proportion of recent quitters who return to smoking.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP in February 2018 for studies mentioning relapse prevention or maintenance in their title, abstracts, or keywords.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of relapse prevention interventions with a minimum follow-up of six months. We included smokers who quit on their own, were undergoing enforced abstinence, or were participating in treatment programmes. We included studies that compared relapse prevention interventions with a no intervention control, or that compared a cessation programme with additional relapse prevention components with a cessation programme alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 77 studies (67,285 participants), 15 of which are new to this update. We judged 21 studies to be at high risk of bias, 51 to be at unclear risk of bias, and five studies to be at low risk of bias. Forty-eight studies included abstainers, and 29 studies helped people to quit and then tested treatments to prevent relapse. Twenty-six studies focused on special populations who were abstinent because of pregnancy (18 studies), hospital admission (five studies), or military service (three studies). Most studies used behavioural interventions that tried to teach people skills to cope with the urge to smoke, or followed up with additional support. Some studies tested extended pharmacotherapy.We focused on results from those studies that randomised abstainers, as these are the best test of relapse prevention interventions. Of the 12 analyses we conducted in abstainers, three pharmacotherapy analyses showed benefits of the intervention: extended varenicline in assisted abstainers (2 studies, n = 1297, risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.41, I² = 82%; moderate certainty evidence), rimonabant in assisted abstainers (1 study, RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.55), and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in unaided abstainers (2 studies, n = 2261, RR 1.24, 95% Cl 1.04 to 1.47, I² = 56%). The remainder of analyses of pharmacotherapies in abstainers had wide confidence intervals consistent with both no effect and a statistically significant effect in favour of the intervention. These included NRT in hospital inpatients (2 studies, n = 1078, RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.60, I² = 0%), NRT in assisted abstainers (2 studies, n = 553, RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.40, I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), extended bupropion in assisted abstainers (6 studies, n = 1697, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.35, I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence), and bupropion plus NRT (2 studies, n = 243, RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.87, I² = 66%; low certainty evidence). Analyses of behavioural interventions in abstainers did not detect an effect. These included studies in abstinent pregnant and postpartum women at end of pregnancy (8 studies, n = 1523, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11, I² = 0%) and at postpartum follow-up (15 studies, n = 4606, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09, I² = 3%), studies in hospital inpatients (4 studies, n = 1300, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.11, I² = 0%), and studies in assisted abstainers (10 studies, n = 5408, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.13, I² = 56%; moderate certainty evidence) and unaided abstainers (5 studies, n = 3561, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16, I² = 1%) from the general population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural interventions that teach people to recognise situations that are high risk for relapse along with strategies to cope with them provided no worthwhile benefit in preventing relapse in assisted abstainers, although unexplained statistical heterogeneity means we are only moderately certain of this. In people who have successfully quit smoking using pharmacotherapy, there were mixed results regarding extending pharmacotherapy for longer than is standard. Extended treatment with varenicline helped to prevent relapse; evidence for the effect estimate was of moderate certainty, limited by unexplained statistical heterogeneity. Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, did not detect a benefit from extended treatment with bupropion, though confidence intervals mean we could not rule out a clinically important benefit at this stage. Low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, did not show a benefit of extended treatment with nicotine replacement therapy in preventing relapse in assisted abstainers. More research is needed in this area, especially as the evidence for extended nicotine replacement therapy in unassisted abstainers did suggest a benefit.

Applying the ‘Cognitive Bias Modification’ concept to smoking cessation – A Systematic Review

Abstract. Background: In recent years, new neurocognitive explanatory approaches such as dual-process theories offer significant progress in understanding long-term relapse in substance use disorders. Based on such explanatory concepts stemming from basic research, novel methods of intervention have been deduced which focus on directly changing cognitive biases. The efficacy of these Cognitive Bias Modification (CBM) concepts has been evaluated in a growing number of studies in the context of different substance use and addictive disorders. By now, there are also first findings for using CBM in the context of smoking. Objectives: To evaluate the empirical evidence, whether CBM qualifies i) for reducing attentional or approach bias towards smoking-related cues, ii) for effectively reducing the high relapse rates in smoking cessation, iii) for the reduction of smoking behaviour and iv) craving. Methods: The systematic evidence search has been carried out in clinical databases (Cochrane Library, PsycArticles, PSYNDEX, PsycINFO, Medline) as well as via manual reverse search. Finally, 12 studies have been identified which met the inclusion criteria (RCT, CBM interventions for smokers; outcomes: change in attentional or approach bias, craving, number of cigarettes smoked, abstinence). Results: Despite the heterogeneity of the studies in terms of sample selection, realisation of interventions and methodological aspects, the findings collectively indicate that different forms and ‘dosages’ of CBM interventions can influence attentional or approach bias in smokers. Also, positive effects on craving and motivation to quit could be detected. Effects on smoking behaviour are inconsistent and often statistically non-significant. First online applications showed encouraging results. Discussion: The results concerning the efficacy of CBM in smoking cessation are still rudimentary and inconsistent. However, a large portion of the studies was not conducted under naturalistic conditions, but rather in laboratories with non-treatment seekers or participants partially motivated to quit. Despite these limitations, the findings can be evaluated as encouraging. The results suggest that CBM will be implemented in routine care as an adjunct intervention within a behavioural therapy-oriented cessation programme. However, specific studies which assess the efficacy of CBM as a component for relapse prevention in smoking cessation intervention in routine care are still lacking.

Maintenance of smoking cessation in the postpartum period: which interventions work best in the long-term?

Smoking during pregnancy has been linked to a variety of adverse outcomes for both maternal and child health. Decades of studies have sought to increase cessation antepartum and reduce relapse postpartum. A number of effective interventions exist to significantly reduce smoking rates during pregnancy; however, less is known about how to prevent relapse in the postpartum period. This review investigates interventions to prevent relapse in the long-term postpartum period. We focus specifically on nonspontaneous quitters (individuals who quit smoking as a result of an external intervention) to reveal differences in long-term response to interventions for this population compared to spontaneous quitters. A systematic literature search yielded 32 relevant studies of pharmacological, behavioral, and incentives-based interventions. Results were compiled, analyzed, and compared in order to evaluate success factors in maintaining cessation postpartum. Though intervention groups showed consistently higher quit rates during pregnancy than control groups, none of the intervention types were effective at preventing relapse in the longer-term postpartum period. One study maintained significantly higher abstinence in the longer-term period postpartum using a mix of behavioral and incentives strategies. Additional research in this area is needed to identify optimal intervention strategies to reduce long-term postpartum relapse, particularly for nonspontaneous quitters.

Clinical strategies to enhance the efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation: a review of the literature

A number of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies have led to increases in quitting and thus to significant benefits to public health. Among existing medications, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) has been available the longest, has the largest literature base in support, and is the only option for over-the-counter access. While the short-term efficacy of NRT is well documented in clinical trials, long-term abstinence rates associated with using NRT are modest, as most smokers will relapse. This literature review examines emerging clinical strategies to improve NRT efficacy. After an initial overview of NRT and its FDA-approved indications for use, we review randomized trials in which clinical delivery of NRT was manipulated and tested, in an attempt to enhance efficacy, through (1) duration of use (pre-quit and extended use), (2) amount of use (high-dose and combination NRT), (3) tailoring to specific smoker groups (genotype and phenotype), or (4) use of NRT for novel purposes (relapse prevention, temporary abstinence, cessation induction). Outcomes vary within and across topic area, and we highlight areas that offer stronger promise. Combination NRT likely represents the most promising strategy moving forward; other clinical strategies offer conflicting evidence but deserve further testing (pre-quit NRT or tailored treatment) or offer potential utility but are in need of further, direct tests. Some areas, though based on a limited set of studies, do not offer great promise (high-dose and extended treatment NRT). We conclude with a brief discussion of emergent NRT products (e.g., oral nicotine spray, among others), which may ultimately offer greater efficacy than current formulations. In order to further lower the prevalence of smoking, novel strategies designed to optimize NRT efficacy are needed.

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.

Cardiovascular events associated with smoking cessation pharmacotherapies: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Stopping smoking is associated with many important improvements in health and quality of life. The use of cessation medications is recommended to increase the likelihood of quitting. However, there is historical and renewed concern that smoking cessation therapies may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease events associated within the quitting period. We aimed to examine whether the 3 licensed smoking cessation therapies-nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, and varenicline-were associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease events using a network meta-analysis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched 10 electronic databases, were in communication with authors of published randomized, clinical trials (RCTs), and accessed internal US Food and Drug Administration reports. We included any RCT of the 3 treatments that reported cardiovascular disease outcomes. Among 63 eligible RCTs involving 21 nicotine replacement therapy RCTs, 28 bupropion RCTs, and 18 varenicline RCTs, we found no increase in the risk of all cardiovascular disease events with bupropion (relative risk [RR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-1.73) or varenicline (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.79-2.23). There was an elevated risk associated with nicotine replacement therapy that was driven predominantly by less serious events (RR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.39-3.82). When we examined major adverse cardiovascular events, we found a protective effect with bupropion (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.21-0.85) and no clear evidence of harm with varenicline (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.66-2.66) or nicotine replacement therapy (RR, 1.95; 95% CI, 0.26-4.30).

CONCLUSION

Smoking cessation therapies do not appear to raise the risk of serious cardiovascular disease events.

Predisposing, enabling and reinforcing factors associated with smoking relapse among hospital workers

OBJECTIVES

A better identification of the determinants of smoking relapse among hospital workers would be helpful in development of more effective interventions to decrease the frequency of relapses in this group. The aim of this study was to determine the predisposing enabling, and reinforcing factors associated with smoking relapse among workers at a university hospital.

METHODS

This was a case-control study based on a self-administered and structured questionnaire. Cases were all those workers who had relapsed after at least 6 months without smoking, and controls were ex-smokers without relapse for more than 6 months. We obtained the following information: sociodemographic and tobacco consumption characteristics and a list of predisposing, enabling and reinforcing factors.

RESULTS

There were 342 respondents: 114 cases and 228 controls. The variables significantly and independently associated with increased risk of relapse were smoking is my vice (OR=4.02), I'll be able to quit smoking whenever I want (OR=3.43), I have no intention to quit forever (OR=6.02), celebrations (OR=3.93) and weight gain (OR=10.61), while variables associated with lower risk were age (OR=0.88), health-care worker (OR=0.13), years of abstinence (OR=0.91), smoking is a useless habit (OR=0.19) and illness related to tobacco (OR=0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Health programs against smoking in the hospital setting should include measures aimed at preventing relapse through behavioral support therapies and dietary control with particular attention to changes in factors related to lifestyle and false beliefs (predisposing factors).

Treating nicotine dependence by targeting attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with OROS methylphenidate: the role of baseline ADHD severity and treatment response

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with osmotic-release oral system (OROS) methylphenidate promotes abstinence from smoking among smokers with ADHD who have greater severity of ADHD symptoms at baseline or greater improvement in ADHD during treatment.

METHOD

This is a secondary analysis of data from a randomized, double-blind, 11-week trial conducted between December 2005 and January 2008 at 6 clinical sites; the original trial was sponsored by the National Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network. Adult cigarette smokers (aged 18-55 years) who met DSM-IV criteria for ADHD were randomly assigned to OROS methylphenidate (72 mg/d) (n = 127) or matching placebo (n = 128). All participants received nicotine patches (21 mg/d) and weekly individual smoking cessation counseling. Logistic regression was used to model prolonged abstinence from smoking (ascertained by self-report and breath carbon monoxide testing) as a function of treatment, baseline ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS) score, change in ADHD-RS score during treatment, and their interactions.

RESULTS

Treatment interacted with both ADHD-RS score at baseline (P = .01) and change in ADHD-RS score during treatment (P = .008). Among patients with higher ADHD-RS scores (> 36) at baseline and the most improvement in ADHD during treatment (ADHD-RS change score ≥ 24), 70.0% of those who took OROS methylphenidate achieved abstinence from smoking compared to 36.8% of those who took placebo (P = .02). In contrast, among patients with the lowest ADHD-RS baseline scores (≤ 30), 30.3% of those who took OROS methylphenidate achieved abstinence from smoking compared to 60.7% of those who took placebo (P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

OROS methylphenidate, in combination with nicotine patch, may be an effective treatment for nicotine dependence among smokers with more severe ADHD and more robust response of ADHD symptoms to medication. OROS methylphenidate may be counterproductive among smokers with lower severity of ADHD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00253747.

Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A number of treatments can help smokers make a successful quit attempt, but many initially successful quitters relapse over time. Several interventions have been proposed to help prevent relapse.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether specific interventions for relapse prevention reduce the proportion of recent quitters who return to smoking.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register in May 2013 for studies mentioning relapse prevention or maintenance in title, abstracts or keywords.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of relapse prevention interventions with a minimum follow-up of six months. We included smokers who quit on their own, were undergoing enforced abstinence, or were participating in treatment programmes. We included trials that compared relapse prevention interventions with a no intervention control, or that compared a cessation programme with additional relapse prevention components with a cessation programme alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were screened and data extracted by one review author, and checked by a second. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or by referral to a third review author.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-three studies met inclusion criteria but were heterogeneous in terms of populations and interventions. We considered 41 studies that randomly assigned abstainers separately from studies that randomly assigned participants before their quit date.Upon looking at studies of behavioural interventions that randomly assigned abstainers, we detected no benefit of brief and 'skills-based' relapse prevention methods for women who had quit smoking because of pregnancy, or for smokers undergoing a period of enforced abstinence during hospitalisation or military training. We also failed to detect significant effects of behavioural interventions in trials in unselected groups of smokers who had quit on their own or through a formal programme. Amongst trials randomly assigning smokers before their quit date and evaluating the effects of additional relapse prevention components, we found no evidence of benefit of behavioural interventions or combined behavioural and pharmacotherapeutic interventions in any subgroup. Overall, providing training in skills thought to be needed for relapse avoidance did not reduce relapse, but most studies did not use experimental designs best suited to the task and had limited power to detect expected small differences between interventions. For pharmacological interventions, extended treatment with varenicline significantly reduced relapse in one trial (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.36). Pooling of six studies of extended treatment with bupropion failed to detect a significant effect (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.35). Two small trials of oral nicotine replacement treatment (NRT) failed to detect an effect, but treatment compliance was low, and in two other trials of oral NRT in which short-term abstainers were randomly assigned, a significant effect of intervention was noted.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At the moment, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of any specific behavioural intervention to help smokers who have successfully quit for a short time to avoid relapse. The verdict is strongest for interventions focused on identifying and resolving tempting situations, as most studies were concerned with these. Little research is available regarding other behavioural approaches.Extended treatment with varenicline may prevent relapse. Extended treatment with bupropion is unlikely to have a clinically important effect. Studies of extended treatment with nicotine replacement are needed.

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.

Does combination pharmacological intervention for smoking cessation prevent post-cessation weight gain? A systemic review

BACKGROUND

Most smokers who quit smoking gain weight. There are some interventions designed to limit weight gain following smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review to evaluate if combination pharmacological therapy interventions for smoking cessation are effective in reducing post-cessation weight gain.

METHODS

The following databases were researched: Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and EMBASE. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria were specified a priori before conducting abstract and full text screening. Included studies were required to: (1) report data on combination pharmacotherapy including at least one FDA-approved smoking cessation medication; (2) report outcome measure of weight change from baseline to the end of follow up; (3) incorporate a minimum of 2-week follow-up; (4) recruit adult smokers. Studies were excluded if they had (1) behavioral interventions; (2) sample size of <30; (3) switching medications; or (4) they were not written in English. Abstracts and the full texts were reviewed independently by two investigators. Inclusion of studies was decided by a third independent investigator in case of disagreement between the two primary investigators.

RESULTS

Out of 1873 studies identified, 1083 studies were included for abstract screening. Finally, 12 studies met the eligibility criteria after full text screening of 242 studies. Seven studies showed that participants in the combined therapy group had less post-cessation weight gain than those in the group of individual drugs or placebo. Four studies did not report differential weight gain measures by treatment groups. Only one study showed that post-treatment weight gain in the combined therapy group was more than the monotherapy group, although the result was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Seven out of twelve studies indicated that combination smoking cessation medications had less post-cessation weight gain than monotherapy or placebo in short term. Long term weight gain was not well documented by most of the studies and future research is warranted.

Bupropion for smoking cessation in African American light smokers: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Previous research demonstrated the efficacy of sustained release bupropion (bupropion SR) for smoking cessation in whites as well as moderate to heavy (≥10 cigarettes per day [CPD]) African American smokers. We evaluated whether bupropion SR was effective for smoking cessation among African American light smokers (≤10 CPD).

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial was conducted from December 27, 2007, to May 13, 2010. All participants were African American light smokers (≤10 CPD), aged 18 years or older. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 300 mg bupropion SR (150 mg once daily for 3 days and then 150 mg twice daily) (n = 270 participants) or placebo (n = 270 participants) for 7 weeks, and up to six sessions of health education counseling. Serum cotinine was measured at baseline (week 0). The primary outcome was salivary cotinine-verified 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at week 26; a cut point of 15 ng/mL differentiated smokers from nonsmokers. Salivary cotinine-verified smoking abstinence at end of medication treatment at week 7 was also examined. Odds ratios (OR) for smoking abstinence and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using logistic regression models. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Participants at baseline visit (week 0) smoked an average of 8.0 CPD and had a mean serum cotinine level of 275.8 ng/mL (SD = 155.8 ng/mL); most used menthol cigarettes (83.7%) and smoked within 30 minutes of waking (72.2%). After imputing those lost to follow-up as smokers, no statistically significant difference in long-term smoking abstinence rates at week 26 was observed between bupropion SR and placebo groups (13.3% vs 10.0%, OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 0.82 to 2.35, P = .23). Cotinine-verified smoking abstinence rate at end of medication week 7 was higher in the bupropion SR vs placebo group (23.7% vs 9.6%, OR = 2.92, 95% CI = 1.78 to 4.77, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Bupropion SR was effective in promoting smoking cessation during the medication phase of treatment but showed no effect on long-term smoking cessation among African American light smokers. More research is needed to identify strategies for sustaining abstinence among African American light smokers.

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Most people who stop smoking gain weight. There are some interventions that have been designed to reduce weight gain when stopping smoking. Some smoking cessation interventions may also limit weight gain although their effect on weight has not been reviewed.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effect of: (1) Interventions targeting post-cessation weight gain on weight change and smoking cessation.(2) Interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that may also plausibly affect weight on post-cessation weight change.

SEARCH METHODS

Part 1 - We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register and CENTRAL in September 2011.Part 2 - In addition we searched the included studies in the following "parent" Cochrane reviews: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, cannabinoid type 1 receptor antagonists and exercise interventions for smoking cessation published in Issue 9, 2011 of the Cochrane Library.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Part 1 - We included trials of interventions that were targeted at post-cessation weight gain and had measured weight at any follow up point and/or smoking cessation six or more months after quit day.Part 2 - We included trials that had been included in the selected parent Cochrane reviews if they had reported weight gain at any time point.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on baseline characteristics of the study population, intervention, outcome and study quality. Change in weight was expressed as difference in weight change from baseline to follow up between trial arms and was reported in abstinent smokers only. Abstinence from smoking was expressed as a risk ratio (RR). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the inverse variance method for weight and Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Part 1: Some pharmacological interventions tested for limiting post cessation weight gain (PCWG) resulted in a significant reduction in WG at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine (Mean difference (MD) -2.50 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.98 to -2.02, 1 study), phenylpropanolamine (MD -0.50 kg, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.20, N=3), naltrexone (MD -0.78 kg, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.05, N=2). There was no evidence that treatment reduced weight at 6 or 12 months (m). No pharmacological intervention significantly affected smoking cessation rates.Weight management education only was associated with no reduction in PCWG at end of treatment (6 or 12m). However these interventions significantly reduced abstinence at 12m (Risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90, N=2). Personalised weight management support reduced PCWG at 12m (MD -2.58 kg, 95% CI -5.11 to -0.05, N=2) and was not associated with a significant reduction of abstinence at 12m (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.43, N=2). A very low calorie diet (VLCD) significantly reduced PCWG at end of treatment (MD -3.70 kg, 95% CI -4.82 to -2.58, N=1), but not significantly so at 12m (MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI -3.49 to 0.89, N=1). The VLCD increased chances of abstinence at 12m (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73, N=1). There was no evidence that cognitive behavioural therapy to allay concern about weight gain (CBT) reduced PCWG, but there was some evidence of increased PCWG at 6m (MD 0.74, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.24). It was associated with improved abstinence at 6m (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.13, N=2) but not at 12m (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.86, N=2). However, there was significant statistical heterogeneity.Part 2: We found no evidence that exercise interventions significantly reduced PCWG at end of treatment (MD -0.25 kg, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.29, N=4) however a significant reduction was found at 12m (MD -2.07 kg, 95% CI -3.78 to -0.36, N=3).Both bupropion and fluoxetine limited PCWG at the end of treatment (bupropion MD -1.12 kg, 95% CI -1.47 to -0.77, N=7) (fluoxetine MD -0.99 kg, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.61, N=2). There was no evidence that the effect persisted at 6m (bupropion MD -0.58 kg, 95% CI -2.16 to 1.00, N=4), (fluoxetine MD -0.01 kg, 95% CI -1.11 to 1.10, N=2) or 12m (bupropion MD -0.38 kg, 95% CI -2.00 to 1.24, N=4). There were no data on WG at 12m for fluoxetine.Overall, treatment with NRT attenuated PCWG at the end of treatment (MD -0.69 kg, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.51, N=19), with no strong evidence that the effect differed for the different forms of NRT. There was evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity caused by one study which reported a 4.3 kg reduction in PCWG due to NRT. With this study removed, the difference in weight change at end of treatment was -0.45 kg (95% CI -0.66 to -0.27, N=18). There was no evidence of an effect on PCWG at 12m (MD -0.42 kg, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.08, N=15).We found evidence that varenicline significantly reduced PCWG at end of treatment (MD -0.41 kg, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.19, N=11), but this effect was not maintained at 6 or 12m. Three studies compared the effect of bupropion to varenicline. Participants taking bupropion gained significantly less weight at the end of treatment (-0.51 kg (95% CI -0.93 to -0.09 kg), N=3). Direct comparison showed no significant difference in PCWG between varenicline and NRT.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although some pharmacotherapies tested to limit PCWG show evidence of short-term success, other problems with them and the lack of data on long-term efficacy limits their use. Weight management education only, is not effective and may reduce abstinence. Personalised weight management support may be effective and not reduce abstinence, but there are too few data to be sure. One study showed a VLCD increased abstinence but did not prevent WG in the longer term. CBT to accept WG did not limit PCWG and may not promote abstinence in the long term. Exercise interventions significantly reduced weight in the long term, but not the short term. More studies are needed to clarify whether this is an effect of treatment or a chance finding. Bupropion, fluoxetine, NRT and varenicline reduce PCWG while using the medication. Although this effect was not maintained one year after stopping smoking, the evidence is insufficient to exclude a modest long-term effect. The data are not sufficient to make strong clinical recommendations for effective programmes to prevent weight gain after cessation.

The multiphase optimization strategy for engineering effective tobacco use interventions

The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) is a new methodological approach for building, optimizing, and evaluating multicomponent interventions. Conceptually rooted in engineering, MOST emphasizes efficiency and careful management of resources to move intervention science forward steadily and incrementally. MOST can be used to guide the evaluation of research evidence, develop an optimal intervention (the best set of intervention components), and enhance the translation of research findings, particularly type II translation. This article uses an ongoing study to illustrate the application of MOST in the evaluation of diverse intervention components derived from the phase-based framework reviewed in the companion article by Baker et al. (Ann Behav Med, in press, 2011). The article also discusses considerations, challenges, and potential benefits associated with using MOST and similar principled approaches to improving intervention efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness. The applicability of this methodology may extend beyond smoking cessation to the development of behavioral interventions for other chronic health challenges.

New methods for tobacco dependence treatment research

INTRODUCTION

Despite advances in tobacco dependence treatment in the past two decades, progress has been inconsistent and slow. This paper reviews pervasive methodological issues that may contribute to the lack of timely progress in tobacco treatment science including the lack of a dynamic model or framework of the cessation process, inefficient study designs, and the use of distal outcome measures that poorly index treatment effects. The authors then present a phase-based cessation framework that partitions the cessation process into four discrete phases based on current theories of cessation and empirical data. These phases include: (1) Motivation, (2) Precessation, (3) Cessation, and (4) Maintenance.

DISCUSSION

Within this framework, it is possible to identify phase-specific challenges that a smoker would encounter while quitting smoking, intervention components that would address these phase-specific challenges, mechanisms via which such interventions would exert their effects, and optimal outcome measures linked to these phase-specific interventions. Investigation of phase-based interventions can be accelerated by using efficient study designs that would permit more timely development of an optimal smoking cessation treatment package.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of smoking relapse prevention interventions for abstinent smokers

AIMS

To carry out a systematic review of the effectiveness of relapse prevention interventions (RPIs) among abstinent smokers who had completed an initial course of treatment or who had abstained unassisted, pooling only outcome data from similar follow-up time points.

METHODS

We used the same search strategy as was used in Cochrane reviews of RPIs to identify randomized trials of behavioural and pharmacological studies of smoking RPIs published up to July 2008. Abstinence from smoking was defined as either continuous abstinence or point prevalence abstinence, measured at three follow-up time points: short term (1-3 months post randomization), medium term (6-9 months) and long term (12-18 months). Abstinence among pregnant/postpartum women was also measured at delivery or the last follow-up prior to delivery. Random effect meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies randomizing abstainers were included. Self-help materials appeared to be effective in preventing relapse at long-term follow up in initially unaided quitters (pooled OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.15 to 2.01, I2 = 0%, NNT = 11, 3 studies). Other behavioural interventions for relapse prevention appeared effective in the short term only. There were positive results for the use of pharmacotherapies for relapse prevention. Bupropion was effective at long-term follow-up (pooled OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.10 to 2.01; I2 = 0%; NNT = 11; 4 studies). Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) was effective at medium-term (pooled OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.16 to 2.11; I2 = 37%; NNT = 14; 4 trials) and long-term follow-ups (pooled OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.63; I2 = 0%; NNT = 20; 4 trials). Single trials of extended treatment of Varenicline and rimonabant were also found to be effective at short-term and medium-term follow-ups.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-help materials appear to prevent relapse in initially unaided quitters. Use of NRT, bupropion and varenicline appears to be effective in preventing relapse following an initial period of abstinence or an acute treatment episode. There is currently no good evidence that behavioural support prevents relapse after initial unaided abstinence or following an acute treatment period.

Adverse events associated with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for smoking cessation. A systematic review and meta-analysis of one hundred and twenty studies involving 177,390 individuals

Background

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is the most common form of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy and has proven efficacy for the treatment of tobacco dependence. Although expectations of mild adverse effects have been observed to be independent predictors of reduced motivation to use NRT, adverse effects associated with NRT have not been precisely quantified.

Objective

A systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of NRT versus inert controls and all observational studies to determine the magnitude of reported adverse effects with NRT.

Methods

Searches of 10 electronic databases from inception to November 2009 were conducted. Study selection and data extraction were carried out independently in duplicate. RCTs were pooled using a random effects method with Odds Ratio [OR] as the effect measure, while proportions were pooled from observational studies. A meta-regression analysis was applied to examine whether the nicotine patch is associated with different adverse effects from those common to orally administered NRT.

Results

Ninety-two RCTs involving 32,185 participants and 28 observational studies involving 145, 205 participants were identified. Pooled RCT evidence of varying NRT formulations found an increased risk of heart palpitations and chest pains (OR 2.06, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.51-2.82, P < 0.001); nausea and vomiting (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.37-2.04, P < 0.001); gastrointestinal complaints (OR 1.54, 95% CI, 1.25-1.89, P < 0.001); and insomnia (OR 1.42, 95% CI, 1.21-1.66, P < 0.001). Pooled evidence specific to the NRT patch found an increase in skin irritations (OR 2.80, 95% CO, 2.28-3.24, P < 0.001). Orally administered NRT was associated with mouth and throat soreness (OR 1.87, 95% CI, 1.36-2.57, P < 0.001); mouth ulcers (OR 1.49, 95% CI, 1.05-2.20, P < 0.001); hiccoughs (OR 7.68, 95% CI, 4.59-12.85, P < 0.001) and coughing (OR 2.89, 95% CI, 1.92-4.33, P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant increase in anxiety or depressive symptoms associated with NRT use. Non-comparative observational studies demonstrated the prevalence of these events in a broad population.

Conclusion

The use of NRT is associated with a variety of side effects. In addition to counseling and medical monitoring, clinicians should inform patients of potential side effects which are associated with the use of NRT for the treatment of tobacco dependence.

Early exposure to nicotine during critical periods of brain development: Mechanisms and consequences

Tobacco use during pregnancy continues to be a major problem with more than 16% of pregnant women in the United States continuing to smoke during pregnancy. Tobacco smoke is known to contain more than 4,000 different chemicals, and while many of these compounds have the potential to interfere with proper neurodevelopment, there is direct evidence that nicotine, the major psychoactive substance present in tobacco, acts as a neuroteratogen. Nicotine activates, and subsequently desensitizes, neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subtypes (AChRs), which are expressed in the developing central nervous system (CNS) prior to the in-growth of cholinergic neurons. Nicotinic AChRs are present by the first trimester of development in both humans and rodents, and activation of these receptors by acetylcholine is thought to play a critical role in CNS development. The purpose of the current review is to provide an overview of the role that nicotinic AChRs play in the developing CNS and to describe the effects of nicotine exposure during early development on neuronal cell biology, nicotinic AChR expression and neurotransmitter system (e.g., dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin) function. In particular, differences that occur as a result of the timing and duration of nicotine exposure will be discussed. Emphasis will be placed on preclinical studies examining particular periods of time which correspond to periods of prenatal development in humans (i.e., first, second and third trimesters). Finally, the effects of early nicotine exposure on neurobehavioral development as it pertains to specific disorders, i.e., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression and addiction, will be discussed.

Effectiveness of complex psycho-educational interventions for smoking relapse prevention: an exploratory meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Existing systematic reviews have concluded that psycho-educational interventions for smoking relapse prevention were ineffective. Our objective was to conduct an exploratory meta-analysis, guided by mechanisms of these complex interventions for preventing smoking relapse.

METHODS

Relevant trials were identified from a Cochrane review and by an updated search of MEDLINE and PsycINFO (up to August 2009). We examined theories or mechanisms underlying relapse prevention interventions, and process variables reported in trials. Odds ratios (ORs) for the rate of smoking abstinence at the longest follow-up were pooled in meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-nine trials were included, and interventions were at least partly based on the cognitive-behavioural approach to coping skills training in 41 trials. Only a few trials reported data on process variables. Coping skills training for smoking relapse prevention was effective for community quitters (OR 1.27, 95% CI: 1.08-1.49), and particularly for those who stopped smoking for at least 1 week at baseline (OR 1.52, 95% CI: 1.20-1.93). These findings were interpretable with mechanisms of coping skills training for relapse prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of post hoc subgroup analyses, coping skills training for smoking relapse prevention is effective for motivated community quitters. This finding has important public health implications and needs to be confirmed by further trials.

Nicotinic receptor-based therapeutics and candidates for smoking cessation

Tobacco dependence is the most preventable cause of death and is a chronic, relapsing disorder in which compulsive tobacco use persists despite known negative health consequences. All currently available cessation agents (nicotine, varenicline and bupropion) have limited efficacy and are associated with high relapse rates, revealing a need for more efficacious, alternative pharmacotherapies. The major alkaloid in tobacco, nicotine, activates nicotinic receptors (nAChRs) which increase brain extracellular dopamine producing nicotine reward leading to addiction. nAChRs are located primarily presynaptically and modulate synaptic activity by regulating neurotransmitter release. Subtype-selective nAChR antagonists that block reward-relevant mesocorticolimbic and nigrostriatal dopamine release induced by nicotine may offer advantages over current therapies. An innovative approach is to provide pharmacotherapies which are antagonists at nAChR subtypes mediating nicotine evoked dopamine release. In addition, providing multiple medications with a wider array of targets and mechanisms should provide more treatment options for individuals who are not responsive to the currently available pharmacotherapies. This review summarizes the currently available smoking cessation therapies and discusses emerging potential therapeutic approaches employing pharmacological agents which act as antagonists at nicotinic receptors.

A comparison of abstinence outcomes among gay/bisexual and heterosexual male smokers in an intensive, non-tailored smoking cessation study

INTRODUCTION

Smoking rates are higher among lesbian/gay/bisexual (LGB) than heterosexual (HT) individuals. However, there is scant information regarding smoking cessation treatments and outcomes in LGB populations. This study examined abstinence outcome in response to a high intensity smoking cessation program not specifically tailored to LGB smokers.

METHODS

A total of 54 gay/bisexual (GB) and 243 HT male smokers received 8-week open treatment with nicotine patch, bupropion, and counseling. Participants reported biologically verified abstinence at multiple time points during the study.

RESULTS

Demographic, smoking, and psychological characteristics at baseline were similar according to sexual orientation. During the first 2 weeks after quit day, abstinence rates were higher among GB smokers (Week 1: GB = 89%, HT = 82%; Week 2: GB = 77%, HT = 68%; ps < .05); abstinence rates converged subsequently, becoming nearly identical at the end of treatment (Week 8, GB = 59% vs. HT = 57%). In mixed effects longitudinal analysis of end-of-treatment outcome, sexual orientation (b = 1.40, SEM = 0.73, p = .056) and the Sexual Orientation x Time interaction (b = -0.146; SEM = 0.08, p = .058) approached statistical significance, reflecting the higher initial abstinence rates among GB smokers and the later convergence in abstinence rates by sexual orientation.

DISCUSSION

This first report comparing smoking cessation treatment response by sexual orientation found higher initial and similar end-of-treatment abstinence rates in GB and HT smokers. Further work is needed to determine whether these observations from GB smokers who displayed a willingness to attend a non-tailored program and broad similarity with their HT counterparts in many baseline characteristics will replicate in other groups of GB smokers.

Efficacy of pharmacotherapies for short-term smoking abstinance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation has important immediate health benefits. The comparative short-term effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions is not well known. We aimed to determine the relative effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion and varenicline at 4 weeks post-target quit date.

METHODS

We searched 10 electronic medical databases (inception to October 2008). We selected randomized clinical trials [RCTs] evaluating interventions for our primary outcome of abstinence from smoking at at-least 4 weeks post-target quit date, with biochemical confirmation. We conducted random-effects odds ratio (OR) meta-analysis and meta-regression. We compared treatment effects across interventions using head-to-head trials and calculated indirect comparisons.

RESULTS

We combined a total of 101 trials evaluating delivery of NRT versus inert controls at approximately 4 weeks post-target quit date (total n = 31,321). The pooled overall OR is OR 2.05 (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.89-2.23, P =< 0.0001). We pooled data from 31 bupropion trials contributing a total n of 11,118 participants and found a pooled OR of 2.25 (95% CI, 1.94-2.62, P =< 0.0001). We evaluated 9 varenicline trials compared to placebo. Our pooled estimate for cessation at 4 weeks post-target quit date found a pooled OR of 3.16 (95% CI, 2.55-3.91, P =< 0.0001). Two trials evaluated head to head comparisons of varenicline and bupropion and found a pooled estimate of OR 1.86 (95% CI, 1.49-2.33, P =< 0.0001 at 4 weeks post-target quit date. Indirect comparisons were: NRT and bupropion, OR, 1.09, 95% CI, 0.93-1.31, P = 0.28; varenicline and NRT, OR 1.56, 95% CI, 1.23-1.96, P = 0.0002; and, varenicline and bupropion, OR 1.40, 95% CI, 1.08-1.85, P = 0.01.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacotherapeutic interventions are effective for increasing smoking abstinence rates in the short-term.

The novel nicotinic receptor antagonist, N,N'-dodecane-1,12-diyl-bis-3-picolinium dibromide (bPiDDB), inhibits nicotine-evoked [(3)H]norepinephrine overflow from rat hippocampal slices

Smoking is a significant health concern and strongly correlated with clinical depression. Depression is associated with decreased extracellular NE concentrations in brain. Smokers may be self-medicating and alleviating their depression through nicotine stimulated norepinephrine (NE) release. Several antidepressants inhibit NE transporter (NET) function, thereby augmenting extracellular NE concentrations. Antidepressants, such as bupropion, also inhibit nicotinic receptor (nAChR) function. The current study determined if a recently discovered novel nAChR antagonist, N,N'-dodecane-1,12-diyl-bis-3-picolinium dibromide (bPiDDB), inhibits nicotine-evoked NE release from superfused rat hippocampal slices. Previous studies determined that bPiDDB potently (IC(50)=2 nM) inhibits nicotine-evoked striatal [(3)H]dopamine (DA) release in vitro, nicotine-evoked DA release in nucleus accumbens in vivo, and nicotine self-administration in rats. In the current study, nicotine stimulated [(3)H]NE release from rat hippocampal slices (EC(50)=50 microM). bPiDDB inhibited (IC(50)=430 nM; I(max)=90%) [(3)H]NE release evoked by 30 microM nicotine. For comparison, the nonselective nAChR antagonist, mecamylamine, and the alpha7 antagonist, methyllycaconitine, also inhibited nicotine-evoked [(3)H]NE release (IC(50)=31 and 275 nM, respectively; I(max)=91% and 72%, respectively). Inhibition by bPiDDB and mecamylamine was not overcome by increasing nicotine concentrations; Schild regression slope was different from unity, consistent with allosteric inhibition. Thus, bPiDDB was 200-fold more potent inhibiting nAChRs mediating nicotine-evoked [(3)H]DA release from striatum than those mediating nicotine-evoked [(3)H]NE release from hippocampus.

Relapse prevention in UK Stop Smoking Services: a qualitative study of health professionals' views and beliefs

Background

NHS Stop Smoking Services in the UK provide cost effective smoking cessation interventions, but approximately 75% of smokers who are abstinent at 4 weeks relapse to smoking by 12 months. This study aimed to explore health professionals' understanding of relapse prevention interventions (RPIs), the feasibility of offering such support and whether and how these are currently used in UK NHS Stop Smoking Services.

Methods

Sixteen health professionals working in UK NHS Stop Smoking Services, selected from those attending a national conference were interviewed and Framework Analysis was used to identify recurrent key themes and concepts in their perceptions and experiences of providing relapse prevention interventions (RPIs).

Results

Interviewees had diverse perceptions of relapse prevention as a concept. Whilst relapse prevention was largely seen as support to prevent abstinent smokers from relapsing to smoking, some interviewees stated that RPIs were being delivered to lapsed or relapsed smokers. Current provision of RPIs was most commonly described as behavioural counselling being offered predominantly after completed cessation treatment, often in the format of 'rolling groups' which the client was encouraged to attend. Commonly identified barriers to the introduction of RPIs were funding and government targets focussed on short term cessation, smokers' low uptake of offered RPIs and an uncertain evidence base for their effectiveness. Interviewees were positive about the potential use of pharmacotherapy for relapse prevention, but were negative about the possibility of introducing proactive telephone counselling for this purpose.

Conclusion

There is currently no shared understanding of the concept of relapse prevention amongst this sample of health professionals working in UK NHS Stop Smoking Services. For RPIs to be systematically delivered via these services, a commonly-held, widely-accepted and understood definition of relapse prevention would be needed. Other barriers towards introducing RPIs, such as their weak evidence and the short term cessation-focussed targets against which UK stop smoking services are measured, would also need addressing and interventions which are acceptable to abstinent smokers would need to be developed.

Addressing heavy drinking in smoking cessation treatment: a randomized clinical trial

Heavy alcohol use frequently co-occurs with cigarette smoking and may impede smoking cessation. This clinical trial examined whether smoking cessation treatment that incorporates brief alcohol intervention can improve smoking cessation outcomes (7-day verified point prevalence abstinence) and reduce drinks consumed per week. Heavy drinkers seeking smoking cessation treatment were assigned by urn randomization to receive, along with 8 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy, either a 4-session standard smoking cessation treatment (ST, n = 119) or standard treatment of equal intensity that incorporated brief alcohol intervention (ST-BI, n = 117). Across follow-ups over 26 weeks, participants in ST-BI reported approximately 20% fewer drinks per week (p < .027) and greater smoking abstinence (adjusted odds ratio = 1.56; 95% confidence interval = 1.01, 2.43) than did those in ST; however, effects on smoking were primarily evident at 2 weeks after quit date and were essentially absent by 16 weeks. The effect of ST-BI on smoking outcome was most robust among moderately heavy drinkers compared with that on very heavy drinkers. Integrating brief alcohol intervention into smoking cessation treatment appears feasible, but further development is needed to yield lasting effects on smoking.

Smoking cessation and inattention or hyperactivity/impulsivity: a post hoc analysis

Tobacco use is more prevalent and smoking cessation less likely among persons with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) than the general population. Evidence that tobacco use and nicotine hold divergent relationships with inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity, the core symptoms of ADHD, prompted this post hoc investigation of abstinence patterns by type of ADHD symptoms. Subjects were 583 adult smokers treated openly with bupropion and nicotine patch during the initial 8-week phase of a maintenance treatment study. Using the ADHD Current Symptom Scale, clinically significant ADHD symptom subtypes, i.e., predominantly inattention (ADHD-inattention) and predominantly hyperactivity/impulsivity with or without inattention (ADHD-hyperactivity/impulsivity with or without inattention), were identified. The study outcome was abstinence status, verified by expired carbon monoxide </=8 parts per million, at five clinic visits from Week 1 through the end of treatment at Week 8. The distribution by ADHD symptom status was: No ADHD = 540; ADHD-inattention = 20; ADHD-hyperactivity/impulsivity with/without inattention = 23. The study groups did not differ on demographic or smoking variables. The frequency of past major depression was highest with ADHD-inattention and the frequency of past alcohol dependence was highest with ADHD-hyperactivity/impulsivity with/without inattention. Compared to smokers with no ADHD, smokers of both ADHD subtypes combined showed lower abstinence rates throughout the study (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.32-0.99). Disaggregation by symptom subtype and separate comparisons against smokers with no ADHD showed that lower odds of quitting occurred mainly with ADHD-hyperactivity/impulsivity with/without inattention (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.19-0.82), not with ADHD-inattention (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.36-1.51). Combined bupropion and nicotine patch treatment appears to be helpful for smokers with inattention but not smokers with hyperactivity/inattention symptoms. The reasons for this divergent treatment response warrant further investigation.

Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A number of treatments can help smokers make a successful quit attempt, but many initially successful quitters relapse over time. Several interventions were proposed to help prevent relapse.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether specific interventions for relapse prevention reduce the proportion of recent quitters who return to smoking.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register in August 2008 for studies mentioning relapse prevention or maintenance in title, abstracts or keywords.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of relapse prevention interventions with a minimum follow up of six months. We included smokers who quit on their own, or were undergoing enforced abstinence, or who were participating in treatment programmes. We included trials that compared relapse prevention interventions to a no intervention control, or that compared a cessation programme with additional relapse prevention components to a cessation programme alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were screened and data extracted by one author and checked by a second. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or referral to a third author.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-four studies met inclusion criteria, but were heterogeneous in terms of populations and interventions. We considered 36 studies that randomized abstainers separately from studies that randomized participants prior to their quit date.Looking at studies of behavioural interventions which randomised abstainers, we detected no benefit of brief and 'skills-based' relapse prevention methods for women who had quit smoking due to pregnancy, or for smokers undergoing a period of enforced abstinence during hospitalisation or military training. We also failed to detect significant effects of behavioural interventions in trials in unselected groups of smokers who had quit on their own or with a formal programme. Amongst trials randomising smokers prior to their quit date and evaluating the effect of additional relapse prevention components we also found no evidence of benefit of behavioural interventions in any subgroup. Overall, providing training in skills thought to be needed for relapse avoidance did not reduce relapse, but most studies did not use experimental designs best suited to the task, and had limited power to detect expected small differences between interventions. For pharmacological interventions, extended treatment with varenicline significantly reduced relapse in one trial (risk ratio 1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.36). Pooling of five studies of extended treatment with bupropion failed to detect a significant effect (risk ratio 1.17; 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.39). Two small trials of oral nicotine replacement treatment (NRT) failed to detect an effect but treatment compliance was low and in two other trials of oral NRT randomizing short-term abstainers there was a significant effect of intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At the moment there is insufficient evidence to support the use of any specific behavioural intervention for helping smokers who have successfully quit for a short time to avoid relapse. The verdict is strongest for interventions focusing on identifying and resolving tempting situations, as most studies were concerned with these. There is little research available regarding other behavioural approaches. Extended treatment with varenicline may prevent relapse. Extended treatment with bupropion is unlikely to have a clinically important effect. Studies of extended treatment with nicotine replacement are needed.

A randomized trial of short psychotherapy versus sustained-release bupropion for smoking cessation

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of a novel psychological intervention for smoking cessation called psychodynamic model (PDM) training to an active control condition of sustained-release bupropion.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled clinical trial with allocation concealment.

SETTING

Private psychiatric practice.

PARTICIPANTS

Seven hundred and seventy-nine adult smokers recruited by advertising.

INTERVENTIONS

PDM training (n = 366 participants) consisted of a very brief (1.5 days) psychoeducation and a supervised training in autosuggestion techniques (guided imageries) aimed at enhancing self-management, decidedness, assertiveness, security and competence in relationships, natural functions of organs and awareness of bodily functions. Bupropion SR (n = 413) was increased to 150 mg twice daily over 1 week and given over a 8-week period.

MEASUREMENTS

Twelve-month continuous abstinence confirmed by exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) of 9 parts per million (p.p.m.) or less at all interviews conducted at 3, 6 and 12 months.

FINDINGS

Intention-to-treat analysis revealed Russell standard 12-month continuous abstinence rates of 39.1% in the psychotherapy group versus 12.3% in the bupropion SR group (P < 0.001) with a relative benefit (RB) of 3.16 (2.38-4.26). Completer analysis revealed 12-month continuous abstinence rates of 39.9% in the psychotherapy group versus 22.5% in the bupropion group [P < 0.001; RB 1.78 (1.35-2.34)]. Of note, bupropion abstinence rates were comparable to previous medications/placebo-only comparisons in geographically different samples.

CONCLUSIONS

The 1.5-day psychotherapy exceeded bupropion's efficacy, presenting an alternative to pharmacological smoking cessation aids, especially for smokers who reject drugs to treat their substance dependence, at a similar cost (Euro 350) as the bupropion treatment (Euro 355).

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.