The dynamics of the urge-to-smoke following smoking cessation via pharmacotherapy

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.

Validity of urges to smoke measures in predicting smoking relapse during treatment in primary care

In the context of smoking cessation treatment in primary care, identifying patients at the highest risk of relapse is relevant. We explored data from a primary care trial to assess the validity of two simple urges to smoke questions in predicting long-term relapse and their diagnostic value. Of 295 patients who received behavioural support and varenicline, 180 were abstinent at week 9. In this subgroup, we measured time spent with urges to smoke (TSU) and strength of urges to smoke (SUT; both scales 1 to 6 = highest). We used separate regression models with TSU or SUT as predictor and relapse from week 9–26 or week 9–52 as an outcome. We also calculated the sensitivity (SP), specificity and positive predictive values (PPV) of TSU and SUT in correctly identifying patients who relapsed at follow-up. The adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for predicting relapse from week 9–26 were 1.74 per point increase (95% CI = 1.05–2.89) for TSU and 1.59 (95% CI = 1.11–2.28) for SUT. The aORs for predicting relapse from week 9–52 were 2.41 (95% CI = 1.33–4.37) and 1.71 (95% CI = 1.14–2.56), respectively. Applying a cut-point of ≥3 on TSU resulted in SP = 97.1 and PPV = 70.0 in week 9–26, and SP = 98.8 and PPV = 90.0 in week 9–52. Applying a cut-point of ≥4 on SUT resulted in SP = 99.0 and PPV = 85.7 in week 9–26, and SP = 98.8 and PPV = 85.7 in week 9–52. Both TSU and SUT were valid predictors of long-term relapse in patients under smoking cessation treatment in primary care. These simple questions may be useful to implement in primary care.

Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register (NTR3067).

Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation in healthy adults: A network meta-analysis

Smoking is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in different non-communicable diseases, and cessation leads to immense health benefits. The present network meta-analysis has been conducted to evaluate and compare the effects of available pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation in adults. A standard meta-analysis protocol was developed and after performing a comprehensive literature search on MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane databases, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, reviewers extracted data from 97 randomized controlled trials. PRISMA guidelines were followed in data extraction, analysis and reporting of findings. Random effects Bayesian network meta-analysis was done to pool the effects across the interventions. Network graph was built, and for closed triangles in the network graph, node splitting analysis was performed. The primary outcome measure was self-reported biochemically verified smoking abstinence at six months. The number of participants achieving continuous abstinence was reported. Data for the number of participants reporting at least one adverse event was also extracted, if available. Combination of nicotine receptor agonist and nicotine replacement therapy had a significant odd of 4.4 (95%CrI:2.2-8.7), bupropion and nicotine receptor agonist 4.0 (95%CrI:2.1-7.7), bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy 3.8 (95%CrI:2.3-6.2), combination nicotine replacement therapy has an odd of 2.6 (95%CrI:1.8-3.8), and nicotine receptor agonist had a significant odd of 2.7 (95%CrI:2.3-3.2) when compared to placebo (moderate quality of evidence) for continuous abstinence at 6 months. When compared with behavioural therapy, the odds ratio of interventions was not statistically significant. Combination of nicotine receptor agonist and nicotine replacement therapy has the highest probability of being the best treatment for 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.

Relationship between Tobacco Craving and Quality of Life among French Students: Results of a Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Understanding the factors leading to smoking cessation is of primary importance in reducing the death burden. Recently introduced in the DSM-5, craving is a potentially promising mechanism involved in relapse, but its articulation with quality of life and deprivation on tobacco student's consumers has never been investigated.

OBJECTIVES

Our study explores the relationship between tobacco craving and sub-dimensions of quality of life when controlling effect of deprivation on a youth population with tobacco consumption.

METHOD

Comparison between deprived and non-deprived students were conducted with online questionnaires on demographic data, level of dependency, perceived quality of life, deprivation and craving. Multivariate linear regression with backward procedure was conducted to assess the predictive validity of these variables on craving. Finally, Bayesian analysis was conducted to evaluate the model proposed by the regression.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-four participants were included. Craving was significantly correlated with all the other variables and increases when the level of deprivation rises, while it decreases when physical health improves. These results are confirmed by Bayesian linear regression. Conclusions/Importance: Environmental and social factors are usually overlooked when it comes to understanding individuals, deeply rooted biological mechanisms such as craving. Working on physical health is of interest to diminished craving and improves the quality of life during smoking cessation and thereby to support success on the student population. Consequences for the triadic neurocognitive model of addiction are discussed.

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

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

Time dependency of craving and response inhibition during nicotine abstinence

BACKGROUND

Nicotine withdrawal produces increased craving for cigarettes and deficits in response inhibition, and these withdrawal symptoms are predictive of relapse. Although it is well-established that these symptoms emerge early during abstinence, there is mixed evidence regarding whether they occur simultaneously. Given the importance of the early withdrawal period, this study examined craving and response inhibition at 24h and 72h abstinence.

METHODS

Twenty-one non-treatment seeking adult smokers were evaluated at baseline, 24h, and 72h abstinence for craving (Questionnaire on Smoking Urges - Brief) and response inhibition (Stop Signal Task, Stroop Task, Continuous Performance Task). Generalized linear regression models were used for primary outcomes, and Pearson correlations for examining the association between craving and response inhibition.

RESULTS

Factor 2 craving (anticipated relief of negative affect) increased from baseline to 24h abstinent (p=0.004), which subsided by 72h (p=0.08). Deficits in response inhibition measured by the Stop Signal Task were observed at 72h (p=0.046), but not 24h (p=0.318). No correlation was found between response inhibition and craving at any time point (p-values>0.19), except between the Stroop Task and factor 1 craving at baseline (p=0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Factor 2 craving peaked at 24h, whereas deficits in response inhibition did not emerge until 72h, indicating that need to target craving and cognitive function during early abstinence may not occur simultaneously. Further characterizing the time course of withdrawal symptoms may guide development of targeted treatments for smoking cessation.

Effects of depressive symptoms on antecedents of lapses during a smoking cessation attempt: an ecological momentary assessment study

AIMS

To investigate pathways through which momentary negative affect and depressive symptoms affect risk of lapse during smoking cessation attempts.

DESIGN

Ecological momentary assessment was carried out during 2 weeks after an unassisted smoking cessation attempt. A 3-month follow-up measured smoking frequency.

SETTING

Data were collected via mobile devices in German-speaking Switzerland.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 242 individuals (age 20-40, 67% men) reported 7112 observations.

MEASUREMENTS

Online surveys assessed baseline depressive symptoms and nicotine dependence. Real-time data on negative affect, physical withdrawal symptoms, urge to smoke, abstinence-related self-efficacy and lapses.

FINDINGS

A two-level structural equation model suggested that on the situational level, negative affect increased the urge to smoke and decreased self-efficacy (β = 0.20; β = -0.12, respectively), but had no direct effect on lapse risk. A higher urge to smoke (β = 0.09) and lower self-efficacy (β = -0.11) were confirmed as situational antecedents of lapses. Depressive symptoms at baseline were a strong predictor of a person's average negative affect (β = 0.35, all P < 0.001). However, the baseline characteristics influenced smoking frequency 3 months later only indirectly, through influences of average states on the number of lapses during the quit attempt.

CONCLUSIONS

Controlling for nicotine dependence, higher depressive symptoms at baseline were associated strongly with a worse longer-term outcome. Negative affect experienced during the quit attempt was the only pathway through which the baseline depressive symptoms were associated with a reduced self-efficacy and increased urges to smoke, all leading to the increased probability of lapses.

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.

A systematic review of the relationships between craving and smoking cessation

INTRODUCTION

Craving is often portrayed as a defining feature of addiction, but the role of craving in the addictive process is controversial. Particularly contentious is the extent to which drug craving predicts subsequent relapse.

METHODS

This review synthesizes findings from 62 smoking cessation studies published through December 2011. Eligible studies measured craving for cigarettes in treatment-seeking smokers and related this to subsequent smoking status. The relationships of general craving and cue-specific craving with treatment outcome were examined separately. Further, analyses that related general craving to smoking status were divided into those that used craving data collected before the quit attempt, after the quit attempt, and those that used change in craving over time as a predictor.

RESULTS

Results across studies revealed a total of 198 indices of association with 94 (47%) of these being significant. In general, the findings indicated (a) there were only a few cases of significant associations between craving collected as part of cue-reactivity studies and treatment outcome, (b) postquit craving was a stronger predictor of treatment outcome than prequit craving, and (c) several moderators likely influence the relationship between craving and cessation outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall results suggest that craving is not a necessary condition of relapse. In addition, inconsistent relationships between craving and treatment outcome call into question the value of craving as a target of treatment and underscore limitations in the prognostic utility of craving.

Comparative dynamics of four smoking withdrawal symptom scales

AIMS

  To examine the association of person-specific trajectories of withdrawal symptoms of urge-to-smoke, negative affect, physical symptoms and hunger during the first 7 days after smoking cessation with abstinence at end of treatment (EOT) and at 6 months.

DESIGN

  Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used to model person-specific trajectory parameters (level, slope, curvature and volatility) for withdrawal symptoms.

SETTING

  University-based smoking cessation trials.

PARTICIPANTS

  Treatment-seeking smokers in clinical trials of transdermal nicotine versus nicotine spray (n = 514) and bupropion versus placebo (n = 421).

MEASUREMENTS

  Self-reported withdrawal symptoms for 7 days after the planned quit date, and 7-day point prevalence and continuous abstinence at EOT and 6 months.

FINDINGS

  In regressions that included trajectory parameters for one group of withdrawal symptoms, both urge-to-smoke and negative affect were predictive of abstinence while physical symptoms and hunger were generally not predictive. In stepwise regressions that included the complete set of trajectory parameters across withdrawal symptoms (for urge-to-smoke, negative affect, physical symptoms and hunger), with a single exception only the trajectory parameters for urge-to-smoke were predictive. Area under the receiver operator characteristic curve was 0.594 for covariates alone, and 0.670 for covariates plus urge-to-smoke trajectory parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

  Among a number of different withdrawal symptoms (urge-to-smoke, negative affect, physical symptoms and hunger) urge-to-smoke trajectory parameters (level, slope and volatility) over the first 7 days of smoking cessation show the strongest prediction of both short- and long-term relapse. Other withdrawal symptoms increase the predictive ability by negligible amounts.