The safety and efficacy of varenicline in cocaine using smokers maintained on methadone: a pilot study

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

Background

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

Objectives

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

Search methods

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

Selection criteria

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

Data collection and analysis

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

Main results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authors' conclusions

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

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

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

Key messages

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

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

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

What are 'nicotine receptor partial agonists'?

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

What did we want to find out?

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

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

· how many people had unwanted effects.

What did we do?

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

What did we find?

We found 75 studies that compared NRPAs with:

· placebo or no medicine;

· nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches or gum;

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

· another NRPA;

· e‐cigarettes.

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

Main results

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

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

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

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

What are the limitations of the evidence?

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

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

How up to date is the evidence?

The evidence is up to date to 29 April 2022.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Varenicline for the Treatment of Cocaine Dependence

OBJECTIVES

Varenicline is a partial agonist at the α2β4 and α6β2 nAChR receptors and a full agonist at α7 receptors. Both α7 and α6β2 receptors are implicated in the neural reward circuitry activated by cocaine use. A preliminary clinical trial suggested that varenicline treatment reduced cocaine use. This trial was intended to replicate and extend the findings of the previous trial.

METHODS

This was a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial involving 156 subjects with DSM IV cocaine dependence. Subjects received up to 2 mg of varenicline or identical placebo daily along with weekly relapse prevention psychotherapy. The primary outcome measure was cocaine use measured by thrice-weekly urine drug screens. Additional outcome measures included end of study cocaine abstinence, cocaine craving, cocaine withdrawal symptom severity, cigarette use, and global improvement measure by the Clinical Global Improvement Scale.

RESULTS

End of study cocaine abstinence, measured by urine drug screens during the last 3 weeks of the trial, was not different between groups (8% in the varenicline treated subjects and versus 9% in placebo-treated subjects). Generalized estimating equations analysis of urine drug screen results showed no significant difference between groups in cocaine abstinence over the 12 weeks of the trial. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in cocaine craving or cocaine withdrawal symptom severity. Varenicline was well-tolerated. There were no medication-associated serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline plus cognitive-behavioral therapy does not seem to be an efficacious treatment for cocaine dependence.

Pharmacotherapy treatment of stimulant use disorder

Stimulant use disorder (SUD) is a public health problem in the United States that is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Psychosocial interventions, such as cognitive behavioral therapy and contingency management, are the main treatment modality for SUDs and no pharmacotherapy is currently FDA approved for this indication. Although some medications show promising data for the treatment of SUD, the evidence remains inconsistent, and the clinical application is limited due to the heterogenicity of the population and the lack of studies in patients with various comorbidities. Selection of pharmacotherapy treatment for methamphetamine intoxication, persistent methamphetamine-associated psychosis with methamphetamine use disorder, and cocaine use disorder in patients with co-occurring OUD are discussed in 3 patient cases.

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.

Comparison of Treatments for Cocaine Use Disorder Among Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

In the US and the United Kingdom, cocaine use is the second leading cause of illicit drug overdose death. Psychosocial treatments for cocaine use disorder are limited, and no pharmacotherapy is approved for use in the US or Europe.

OBJECTIVE

To compare treatments for active cocaine use among adults.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for clinical trials published between December 31, 1995, and December 31, 2017.

STUDY SELECTION

This meta-analysis was registered on Covidence.org (study 8731) on December 31, 2015. Clinical trials were included if they (1) had the term cocaine in the article title; (2) were published between December 31, 1995, and December 31, 2017; (3) were written in English; (4) enrolled outpatients 18 years or older with active cocaine use at baseline; and (5) reported treatment group size, treatment duration, retention rates, and urinalysis results for the presence of cocaine metabolites. A study was excluded if (1) more than 25% of participants were not active cocaine users or more than 80% of participants had negative test results for the presence of cocaine metabolites at baseline and (2) it reported only pooled urinalysis results indicating the presence of multiple substances and did not report the specific proportion of positive test results for cocaine metabolites. Multiple reviewers reached criteria consensus. Of 831 records screened, 157 studies (18.9%) met selection criteria and were included in the analysis.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Search results were imported from PubMed XML into Covidence.org then Microsoft Excel. Data extraction was completed in 2 iterations to ensure fidelity. Analyses included a multilevel random-effects model, a multilevel mixed-effects meta-regression model, and sensitivity analyses. Treatments were clustered into 11 categories (psychotherapy, contingency management programs, placebo, opioids, psychostimulants, anticonvulsants, dopamine agonists, antidepressants, antipsychotics, miscellaneous medications, and other therapies). Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation by chained equations. The significance threshold for all analyses was P = .05. Data were analyzed using the metafor and mice packages in R software, version 3.3.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Data were analyzed from January 1, 2018, to February 28, 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the intention-to-treat logarithm of the odds ratio (OR) of having a negative urinalysis result for the presence of cocaine metabolites at the end of each treatment period compared with baseline. The hypothesis, which was formulated after data collection, was that no treatment category would have a significant association with objective reductions in cocaine use.

RESULTS

A total of 157 studies comprising 402 treatment groups and 15 842 participants were included. Excluding other therapies, the largest treatment groups across all studies were psychotherapy (mean [SD] number of participants, 40.04 [36.88]) and contingency management programs (mean [SD] number of participants, 37.51 [25.51]). Only contingency management programs were significantly associated with an increased likelihood of having a negative test result for the presence of cocaine (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.62-2.80), and this association remained significant in all sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this meta-analysis, contingency management programs were associated with reductions in cocaine use among adults. Research efforts and policies that align with this treatment modality may benefit those who actively use cocaine and attenuate societal burdens.

Effect of varenicline directly observed therapy versus varenicline self-administered therapy on varenicline adherence and smoking cessation in methadone-maintained smokers: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Level of adherence to tobacco cessation medication regimens is believed to be causally related to medication effectiveness. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of varenicline directly observed therapy (DOT) on varenicline adherence and smoking cessation rates among smokers with opioid use disorder (OUD) receiving methadone treatment.

DESIGN

Multicenter, parallel-group two-arm randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Urban opioid treatment program (OTP) in the Bronx, New York, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Daily smokers of ≥ 5 cigarettes/day, interested in quitting (ladder of change score 6-8), in methadone treatment for ≥ 3 months, attending OTP ≥ 3 days/week. Participants' mean age was 49 years, 56% were male, 44% Latino, 30% Black, and they smoked a median of 10 cigarettes/day.

INTERVENTIONS

Individual, block, random assignment to 12 weeks of varenicline, either directly observed with methadone (DOT, n = 50) or via unsupervised self-administered treatment (SAT, n = 50).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was adherence measured by pill count. The secondary outcome was 7-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence verified by expired carbon monoxide (CO) < 8 parts per million.

FINDINGS

Retention at 24 weeks was 92%. Mean adherence was 78.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 71.8-85.2%] in the DOT group versus 61.8% in the SAT group (95% CI = 55.0-68.6%); differences were driven by DOT effects in the first 6 weeks. CO-verified abstinence did not differ between groups during the intervention (P = 0.26), but was higher in the DOT than the SAT group at intervention end (DOT = 18% versus SAT = 10%, difference = 8%, 95% CI = -13, 28); this difference was not significant (P = 0.39) and was not sustained at 24-week follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Among daily smokers attending opioid treatment programs, opioid treatment program-based varenicline directly observed therapy was associated with early increases in varenicline adherence compared with self-administered treatment, but findings were inconclusive as to whether directly observed therapy was associated with a difference in tobacco abstinence.

The impact of three weeks of pre-quit varenicline on reinforcing value and craving for cigarettes in a laboratory choice procedure

RATIONALE

Varenicline, a partial nicotinic agonist, is theorized to attenuate pre-quit smoking reinforcement and post-quit withdrawal and craving. However, the mechanisms of action have not been fully characterized, as most studies employ only retrospective self-report measures, hypothetical indices of reinforcing value, and/or nontreatment-seeking samples.

OBJECTIVES

The current research examined the impact of pre-quit varenicline (vs. placebo) on laboratory measures of smoking and food (vs. water) reinforcement and craving.

METHODS

Participants were 162 treatment-seeking smokers enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of smoking cessation ( clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03262662). Participants completed two laboratory sessions: a pre-treatment session, ~ 1 week prior to beginning varenicline or placebo, and an active treatment session, after ~ 3 weeks of treatment. At each session, participants completed a laboratory choice procedure; on each of 36 trials, a lit cigarette, food item, or cup of water was randomly presented. Participants reported level of craving and spent $0.01-0.25 to have a corresponding 5-95% chance to sample the cue.

RESULTS

As predicted, spending was significantly higher on cigarette trials than water trials, and varenicline resulted in a greater between-session decline in spending on cigarette trials (but not water) than did placebo. Cigarette craving was enhanced in the presence of smoking cues compared to water, but neither average (tonic) cigarette craving nor cue-specific cigarette craving was significantly influenced by varenicline. Food spending and craving were generally unaffected by varenicline treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

These laboratory data from treatment-seeking smokers provide the strongest evidence to date that varenicline selectively attenuates smoking reinforcement prior to quitting.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of medications for stimulant use disorders in patients with co-occurring opioid use disorders

BACKGROUND

Stimulant (cocaine and/or methamphetamine) use has increased among people with opioid use disorder. We conducted a systematic review of medications for stimulant use disorders in this population.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials in multiple databases through April 2019, and dual-screened studies using pre-specified inclusion criteria. Primary outcomes were abstinence defined as stimulant-negative urine screens for ≥3 consecutive weeks; overall use as the proportion of stimulant-negative urine specimens; and retention as the proportion of participants who completed treatment. We rated strength of evidence using established criteria and conducted meta-analyses of comparable interventions and outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty-four trials of 22 medications focused on cocaine use disorder in patients with opioid use disorder. Most studies enrolled participants stabilized on opioid maintenence therapy, generally methadone. None of the six studies that assessed abstinence found significant differences between groups. We found moderate-strength evidence that antidepressants (desipramine, bupropion, and fluoxetine) worsened retention. There was moderate-strength evidence that disulfiram worsened treatment retention (N = 605, RR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.77 to 0.95). We found low-strength evidence that psychostimulants (mazindol and dexamphetamine) may reduce cocaine use, though the difference was not statistically significant (standard mean difference 0.35 [95 % CI -0.05 to 0.74]). There was only 1 trial for methamphetamine use disorder, which showed insufficient-strength evidence for naltrexone.

CONCLUSIONS

Co-occurring stimulant/opioid use disorder is an important problem for targeting future research. Medication trials for methamphetamine use disorder are lacking in this population. Most of the medications studied for cocaine use were ineffective, although psychostimulants warrant further study.

Mirtazapine decreased induction and expression of cocaine + nicotine-induced locomotor sensitisation in rats

Objectives: Concurrent abuse of cocaine and nicotine is considered a public health problem. To date, no effective therapy has been known to reduce the reinforcing effects of concurrent use of cocaine and nicotine. Mirtazapine, an antagonist of the α₂-adrenoceptor and the 5-HT_2A/C and the 5-HT₃ receptors has proven effective in reducing the cocaine, nicotine and methamphetamine behavioural effects in humans and animals. Our study evaluated the effect of mirtazapine on enhancing locomotor activity during the induction and expression of locomotor sensitisation induced by a cocaine + nicotine mixture.Methods: Wistar rats were dosed with cocaine, nicotine or cocaine + nicotine combination. Mirtazapine (30 mg/kg, i.p.) was administered during the extinction phase.Results: Mirtazapine decreased cocaine + nicotine-induced locomotor activity and induction and expression of locomotor sensitisation. In addition, we found that co-administration of mecamylamine and mirtazapine significantly enhanced the effect of mirtazapine on cocaine + nicotine-induced locomotor activity during induction and expression of behavioural sensitisation.Conclusions: Our results suggest that mirtazapine demonstrated efficacy in decreasing the psycho-stimulant effects of concurrent use of cocaine and nicotine.

Achieving Smoking Cessation Among Persons with Opioid Use Disorder

While prevalence of tobacco use in the US general population is declining, prevalence among those with opioid use disorder (OUD) remains high and results in excessive tobacco-related disease and premature mortality. Among smokers with OUD, tobacco cessation rates are negligible without treatment. However, both low-intensity behavioral interventions and more intensive motivational interventions yield negligible cessation rates. While contingency management has potent short-term cessation effects, effects are not maintained at post-intervention follow-up. Evidence-based smoking cessation pharmacotherapies, such as nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, and varenicline, result in very modest cessation rates among smokers with OUD. Intensification of pharmacotherapy, such as high-dose and combination nicotine replacement therapy or extended medication treatment, has failed to improve cessation outcomes compared with standard treatment regimens. Targeting the unique challenges faced by smokers with OUD, including nicotine-opioid interactions and poor medication adherence, has potential to improve cessation outcomes, but further research is needed to optimize intervention efficacy among smokers with OUD.

Pharmacotherapy for Cocaine Use Disorder-a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, there are no accepted FDA-approved pharmacotherapies for cocaine use disorder, though numerous medications have been tested in clinical trials. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to better understand the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for cocaine use disorder.

METHODS

We searched multiple data sources (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library) through November 2017 for systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological interventions in adults with cocaine use disorder. When possible, we combined the findings of trials with comparable interventions and outcome measures in random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed the risk of bias of individual trials and the strength of evidence for each outcome using standardized criteria. Outcomes included continuous abstinence (3+ consecutive weeks); cocaine use; harms; and study retention. For relapse prevention studies (participants abstinent at baseline), we examined lapse (first cocaine positive or missing UDS) and relapse (two consecutive cocaine positive or missed UDS').

RESULTS

Sixty-six different drugs or drug combinations were studied in seven systematic reviews and 48 RCTs that met inclusion criteria. Antidepressants were the most widely studied drug class (38 RCTs) but appear to have no effect on cocaine use or treatment retention. Increased abstinence was found with bupropion (2 RCTs: RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.59), topiramate (2 RCTs: RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.39 to 4.73), and psychostimulants (14 RCTs: RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.77), though the strength of evidence for these findings was low. We found moderate strength of evidence that antipsychotics improved treatment retention (8 RCTs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.75).

DISCUSSION

Most of the pharmacotherapies studied were not effective for treating cocaine use disorder. Bupropion, psychostimulants, and topiramate may improve abstinence, and antipsychotics may improve retention. Contingency management and behavioral interventions along with pharmacotherapy should continue to be explored.

SR REGISTRATION

Prospero CRD42018085667.

The Cholinergic System as a Treatment Target for Opioid Use Disorder

Opioid overdoses recently became the leading cause of accidental death in the US, marking an increase in the severity of the opioid use disorder (OUD) epidemic that is impacting global health. Current treatment protocols for OUD are limited to opioid medications, including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone. While these medications are effective in many cases, new treatments are required to more effectively address the rising societal and interpersonal costs associated with OUD. In this article, we review the opioid and cholinergic systems, and examine the potential of acetylcholine (ACh) as a treatment target for OUD. The cholinergic system includes enzymes that synthesize and degrade ACh and receptors that mediate the effects of ACh. ACh is involved in many central nervous system functions that are critical to the development and maintenance of OUD, such as reward and cognition. Medications that target the cholinergic system have been approved for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, tobacco use disorder, and nausea. Clinical and preclinical studies suggest that medications such as cholinesterase inhibitors and scopolamine, which target components of the cholinergic system, show promise for the treatment of OUD and further investigations are warranted.

Positive and negative affect in cocaine use disorder treatment: Change across time and relevance to treatment outcome

BACKGROUND

Cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT) for substance use disorder is empirically supported, and may be associated with change in affect over time.

OBJECTIVES

Understanding the role of affect in cocaine use disorder could help to improve CBT outcomes.

METHODS

This secondary analysis included 140 adults with cocaine use disorder, 57.9% female, drawn from two randomized controlled studies of web-based cognitive-behavior therapy who completed the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) before and during treatment.

RESULTS

In mixed-effects regression models, baseline negative affect (NA) scores were not associated with self-reported cocaine use during treatment, but baseline PA scores were associated with less frequent cocaine use (β = -0.04, p = .02). During treatment, NA scores reduced over time in CBT and treatment as usual (β = -0.27, p < .01), although PA scores did not change. Higher weekly NA scores were associated with weekly cocaine use (β = .02, SE = .01, t(746.15) = 2.37, p = .02), although weekly PANAS PA scores were not associated with weekly cocaine use.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Results indicated that individuals with higher baseline PA were more likely to abstain from cocaine use during treatment, even when controlling for baseline cocaine use frequency. Although baseline NA was not associated with cocaine use, NA during treatment was associated with greater cocaine use.

SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE

PA at baseline and NA during treatment were associated with cocaine use. If findings are replicated, treatment developers may wish to include treatment interventions to boost early PA and reduce NA throughout treatment. (Am J Addict 2018;XX:1-8).

Interventions for tobacco use cessation in people in treatment for or recovery from substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

Smoking rates in people with alcohol and other drug dependencies are two to four times those of the general population. Concurrent treatment of tobacco dependence has been limited due to concern that these interventions are not successful in this population or that recovery from other addictions could be compromised if tobacco cessation was combined with other drug dependency treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether interventions for tobacco cessation are associated with tobacco abstinence for people in concurrent treatment for or in recovery from alcohol and other drug dependence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases, with the most recent search completed in August 2016. A grey literature search of conference abstracts from the Society on Nicotine Research and Treatment and the ProQuest database of digital dissertations yielded one additional study, which was excluded.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions among people in concurrent treatment for alcohol or other drug dependence or in outpatient recovery programmes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study risk of bias and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by consensus. The primary outcome was abstinence from tobacco use at the longest period of follow-up, and the secondary outcome was abstinence from alcohol or other drugs, or both. We reported the strictest definition of abstinence. We summarised effects as risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Two clustered studies did not provide intraclass correlation coefficients, and were excluded from the sensitivity analysis. We used the I² statistic to assess heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-five randomised controlled trials, one ongoing, involving 5796 participants met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Included studies assessed the efficacy of tobacco cessation interventions, including counselling, and pharmacotherapy consisting of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or non-NRT, or the two combined, in both inpatient and outpatient settings for participants in treatment and in recovery. Most studies did not report information to assess the risk of allocation, selection, and attrition bias, and were classified as unclear.Analyses considered the nature of the intervention, whether participants were in treatment or recovery and the type of dependency. Of the 34 studies included in the meta-analysis, 11 assessed counselling, 11 assessed pharmacotherapy, and 12 assessed counselling in combination with pharmacotherapy, compared to usual care or no intervention. Tobacco cessation interventions were significantly associated with tobacco abstinence for two types of interventions. Pharmacotherapy appeared to increase tobacco abstinence (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.12, 11 studies, 1808 participants, low quality evidence), as did combined counselling and pharmacotherapy (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.18, 12 studies, 2229 participants, low quality evidence) at the period of longest follow-up, which ranged from six weeks to 18 months. There was moderate evidence of heterogeneity (I² = 56% with pharmacotherapy and 43% with counselling plus pharmacotherapy). Counselling interventions did not significantly increase tobacco abstinence (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.95).Interventions were significantly associated with tobacco abstinence for both people in treatment (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.50) and people in recovery (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.67), and for people with alcohol dependence (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.81) and people with other drug dependencies (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.40).Offering tobacco cessation therapy to people in treatment or recovery for other drug dependence was not associated with a difference in abstinence rates from alcohol and other drugs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.03, 11 studies, 2231 participants, moderate evidence of heterogeneity (I² = 66%)).Data on adverse effect of the interventions were limited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The studies included in this review suggest that providing tobacco cessation interventions targeted to smokers in treatment and recovery for alcohol and other drug dependencies increases tobacco abstinence. There was no evidence that providing interventions for tobacco cessation affected abstinence from alcohol and other drugs. The association between tobacco cessation interventions and tobacco abstinence was consistent for both pharmacotherapy and combined counselling and pharmacotherapy, for participants both in treatment and in recovery, and for people with alcohol dependency or other drug dependency. The evidence for the interventions was low quality due primarily to incomplete reporting of the risks of bias and clinical heterogeneity in the nature of treatment. Certain results were sensitive to the length of follow-up or the type of pharmacotherapy, suggesting that further research is warranted regarding whether tobacco cessation interventions are associated with tobacco abstinence for people in recovery, and the outcomes associated with NRT versus non-NRT or combined pharmacotherapy. Overall, the results suggest that tobacco cessation interventions incorporating pharmacotherapy should be incorporated into clinical practice to reduce tobacco addiction among people in treatment for or recovery from alcohol and other drug dependence.

Psychostimulant drugs for cocaine dependence

BACKGROUND

Cocaine dependence is a severe disorder for which no medication has been approved. Like opioids for heroin dependence, replacement therapy with psychostimulants could be an effective therapy for treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychostimulants for cocaine abuse and dependence. Specific outcomes include sustained cocaine abstinence and retention in treatment. We also studied the influence of type of drug and comorbid disorders on psychostimulant efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

This is an update of the review previously published in 2010. For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO up to 15 February 2016. We handsearched references of obtained articles and consulted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised parallel group controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy of a psychostimulant drug versus placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 studies involving 2366 participants. The included studies assessed nine drugs: bupropion, dexamphetamine, lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate, modafinil, mazindol, methamphetamine, mixed amphetamine salts and selegiline. We did not consider any study to be at low risk of bias for all domains included in the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Attrition bias was the most frequently suspected potential source of bias of the included studies. We found very low quality evidence that psychostimulants improved sustained cocaine abstinence (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.77, P = 0.02), but they did not reduce cocaine use (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.16, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.33) among participants who continued to use it. Furthermore, we found moderate quality evidence that psychostimulants did not improve retention in treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06). The proportion of adverse event-induced dropouts and cardiovascular adverse event-induced dropouts was similar for psychostimulants and placebo (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01, respectively). When we included the type of drug as a moderating variable, the proportion of patients achieving sustained cocaine abstinence was higher with bupropion and dexamphetamine than with placebo. Psychostimulants also appeared to increase the proportion of patients achieving sustained cocaine and heroin abstinence amongst methadone-maintained, dual heroin-cocaine addicts. Retention to treatment was low, though, so our results may be compromised by attrition bias. We found no evidence of publication bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found mixed results. Psychostimulants improved cocaine abstinence compared to placebo in some analyses but did not improve treatment retention. Since treatment dropout was high, we cannot rule out the possibility that these results were influenced by attrition bias. Existing evidence does not clearly demonstrate the efficacy of any pharmacological treatment for cocaine dependence, but substitution treatment with psychostimulants appears promising and deserves further investigation.

A threshold model for opposing actions of acetylcholine on reward behavior: Molecular mechanisms and implications for treatment of substance abuse disorders

The cholinergic system plays important roles in both learning and addiction. Medications that modify cholinergic tone can have pronounced effects on behaviors reinforced by natural and drug reinforcers. Importantly, enhancing the action of acetylcholine (ACh) in the nucleus accumbens and ventral tegmental area (VTA) dopamine system can either augment or diminish these behaviors. A threshold model is presented that can explain these seemingly contradictory results. Relatively low levels of ACh rise above a lower threshold, facilitating behaviors supported by drugs or natural reinforcers. Further increases in cholinergic tone that rise above a second upper threshold oppose the same behaviors. Accordingly, cholinesterase inhibitors, or agonists for nicotinic or muscarinic receptors, each have the potential to produce biphasic effects on reward behaviors. Pretreatment with either nicotinic or muscarinic antagonists can block drug- or food- reinforced behavior by maintaining cholinergic tone below its lower threshold. Potential threshold mediators include desensitization of nicotinic receptors and biphasic effects of ACh on the firing of medium spiny neurons. Nicotinic receptors with high- and low- affinity appear to play greater roles in reward enhancement and inhibition, respectively. Cholinergic inhibition of natural and drug rewards may serve as mediators of previously described opponent processes. Future studies should evaluate cholinergic agents across a broader range of doses, and include a variety of reinforced behaviors.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist).

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register for trials, using the terms ('cytisine' or 'Tabex' or 'dianicline' or 'varenicline' or 'nicotine receptor partial agonist') in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO using MeSH terms and free text to identify controlled trials of interventions for smoking cessation and prevention. We contacted authors of trial reports for additional information where necessary. The latest update of the specialised register was in May 2015, although we have included a few key trials published after this date. We also searched online clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials which compared the treatment drug with placebo. We also included comparisons with bupropion and nicotine patches where available. We excluded trials which did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from start of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on the type of participants, the dose and duration of treatment, the outcome measures, the randomisation procedure, concealment of allocation, and completeness of follow-up.The main outcome measured was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, and preferred biochemically validated rates where they were reported. Where appropriate we pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials of cytisine (937 people) found that more participants taking cytisine stopped smoking compared with placebo at longest follow-up, with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 3.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.01 to 7.87; low-quality evidence). One recent trial comparing cytisine with NRT in 1310 people found a benefit for cytisine at six months (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.80).One trial of dianicline (602 people) failed to find evidence that it was effective (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.75). This drug is no longer in development.We identified 39 trials that tested varenicline, 27 of which contributed to the primary analysis (varenicline versus placebo). Five of these trials also included a bupropion treatment arm. Eight trials compared varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Nine studies tested variations in varenicline dosage, and 13 tested usage in disease-specific subgroups of patients. The included studies covered 25,290 participants, 11,801 of whom used varenicline.The pooled RR for continuous or sustained abstinence at six months or longer for varenicline at standard dosage versus placebo was 2.24 (95% CI 2.06 to 2.43; 27 trials, 12,625 people; high-quality evidence). Varenicline at lower or variable doses was also shown to be effective, with an RR of 2.08 (95% CI 1.56 to 2.78; 4 trials, 1266 people). The pooled RR for varenicline versus bupropion at six months was 1.39 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.54; 5 trials, 5877 people; high-quality evidence). The RR for varenicline versus NRT for abstinence at 24 weeks was 1.25 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; 8 trials, 6264 people; moderate-quality evidence). Four trials which tested the use of varenicline beyond the 12-week standard regimen found the drug to be well-tolerated during long-term use. The number needed to treat with varenicline for an additional beneficial outcome, based on the weighted mean control rate, is 11 (95% CI 9 to 13). The most commonly reported adverse effect of varenicline was nausea, which was mostly at mild to moderate levels and usually subsided over time. Our analysis of reported serious adverse events occurring during or after active treatment suggests there may be a 25% increase in the chance of SAEs among people using varenicline (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.49; 29 trials, 15,370 people; high-quality evidence). These events include comorbidities such as infections, cancers and injuries, and most were considered by the trialists to be unrelated to the treatments. There is also evidence of higher losses to follow-up in the control groups compared with the intervention groups, leading to a likely underascertainment of the true rate of SAEs among the controls. Early concerns about a possible association between varenicline and depressed mood, agitation, and suicidal behaviour or ideation led to the addition of a boxed warning to the labelling in 2008. However, subsequent observational cohort studies and meta-analyses have not confirmed these fears, and the findings of the EAGLES trial do not support a causal link between varenicline and neuropsychiatric disorders, including suicidal ideation and suicidal behaviour. The evidence is not conclusive, however, in people with past or current psychiatric disorders. Concerns have also been raised that varenicline may slightly increase cardiovascular events in people already at increased risk of those illnesses. Current evidence neither supports nor refutes such an association, but we await the findings of the CATS trial, which should establish whether or not this is a valid concern.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cytisine increases the chances of quitting, although absolute quit rates were modest in two recent trials. Varenicline at standard dose increased the chances of successful long-term smoking cessation between two- and three-fold compared with pharmacologically unassisted quit attempts. Lower dose regimens also conferred benefits for cessation, while reducing the incidence of adverse events. More participants quit successfully with varenicline than with bupropion or with NRT. Limited evidence suggests that varenicline may have a role to play in relapse prevention. The most frequently recorded adverse effect of varenicline is nausea, but mostly at mild to moderate levels and tending to subside over time. Early reports of possible links to suicidal ideation and behaviour have not been confirmed by current research.Future trials of cytisine may test extended regimens and more intensive behavioural support.

Financial incentives to promote extended smoking abstinence in opioid-maintained patients: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Prior studies by our group demonstrated the efficacy of a brief but intensive behavioral intervention for producing initial smoking abstinence among opioid-dependent patients. In the present study, our aim was to promote longer-duration abstinence in this population. Following an initial 2-week incentive intervention for smoking abstinence, we examined whether a 10-week maintenance arm involving continuation of contingent reinforcement will produce greater smoking abstinence than a similar duration of noncontingent reinforcement.

DESIGN

Randomized, 12-week, parallel-group study.

SETTING

Out-patient research clinic in Burlington, Vermont, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Opioid-maintained smokers (n = 88) who provided breath carbon monoxide and urinary cotinine specimens and received contingent reinforcement for smoking abstinence during weeks 1-2 (phase 1), with 63 randomized on day 14 to an extended contingent (EC; n = 31) or extended noncontingent (EN; n = 32) experimental condition for weeks 3-12 (phase 2).

INTERVENTION AND CONTROL

The EC condition consisted of voucher values that escalated across consecutive negative samples until they reached $30, after which they remained at $30 per negative sample. A positive or a missing sample resulted in no vouchers for that day and reset the value of the next negative same to $9. Two consecutive negatives returned the schedule to the pre-reset value. The EN control condition consisted of vouchers delivered for providing scheduled samples, but independent of smoking status.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was percentage of biochemically abstinent samples during phase 2. Secondary measures included abstinence status at final study visit, complete abstinence, participants' longest duration of continuous abstinence, cotinine and carbon monoxide (CO) levels and self-reported cigarettes per day.

FINDINGS

EC participants achieved greater smoking abstinence during phase 2 than EN participants [46.7 versus 23.5% negative samples, respectively; odds ratio (OR) = 2.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.16-7.65, χ(2) 1  (=)  5.0, P = 0.02]. When longest duration of continuous abstinence was compared between experimental groups, EC participants achieved twice the mean duration of continuous abstinence compared with EN participants (3.31 versus 1.68 weeks; t61  = 1.83, P = 0.07). An effect of experimental condition was also seen on mean cotinine levels (42.5 versus 210.6 ng/ml, respectively; F1,61 =5.9, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Among opioid-maintained smokers receiving an initial period of daily contingent incentives, a contingent reinforcement intervention appears to be more effective at extending smoking abstinence than noncontingent reinforcement over 10 weeks.

Sex Differences in Varenicline Efficacy for Smoking Cessation: A Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Women have lower rates of quitting than men with both bupropion and nicotine replacement. It is unknown whether varenicline demonstrates differential efficacy for men and women. The purpose of this study was to conduct the first comprehensive meta-analysis of clinical trial data examining sex differences in the efficacy of varenicline for smoking cessation.

METHODS

Searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO, 17 of 43 clinical trials of varenicline for smoking cessation published through December 31, 2014 were low-bias randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials. Data (n = 6710 smokers, 34% female, n = 16 studies, 96% of available data) was analyzed with Metafor program in R. Outcome endpoints were 7-day point-prevalence (PP) and continuous-abstinence (CA) at week 12 (end of treatment), week 24 (6-month follow-up), and week 52 (12-month follow-up).

RESULTS

Using placebo, women were less likely than men to quit (PP-12, CA-24; P < .05 for sex). Using varenicline, similar rates of abstinence for men and women were demonstrated for all six outcomes (eg, PP-12 abstinence rates were 53% in both women and men). Varenicline versus placebo outcomes demonstrated that varenicline was more effective for women for short and intermediate outcomes (PP-12, CA-12, CA-24; P < .05 sex × medication interaction). For end-of-treatment PP, varenicline was 46% more effective for women. For continuous abstinence, varenicline was 34% (CA-12) and 31% (CA-24) more effective for women.

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike other smoking cessation medications, varenicline demonstrated greater efficacy among women smokers for short and immediate-term outcomes and equal efficacy for 1-year outcomes. Varenicline may be particularly useful for reducing the sex disparity typically seen in rates of smoking cessation.

IMPLICATIONS

Varenicline is currently the most effective FDA-approved smoking cessation medication and this is the first demonstration that women compared with men have a preferred therapeutic response for a smoking cessation medication when considering short-term outcomes. Importantly, this is also the first demonstration that women have similar rates of quitting to men when considering longer-term, 1-year outcomes.

Varenicline and Adverse Cardiovascular Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Varenicline is an efficacious smoking‐cessation drug. However, previous meta‐analyses provide conflicting results regarding its cardiovascular safety. The publication of several new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provides an opportunity to reassess this potential adverse drug reaction.

Methods and Results

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs that compare varenicline with placebo for smoking cessation. RCTs reporting cardiovascular serious adverse events and/or all‐cause mortality during the treatment period or within 30 days of treatment discontinuation were eligible for inclusion. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs were generated by using DerSimonian–Laird random‐effects models. Thirty‐eight RCTs met our inclusion criteria (N=12 706). Events were rare in both varenicline (57/7213) and placebo (43/5493) arms. No difference was observed for cardiovascular serious adverse events when comparing varenicline with placebo (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.72–1.49). Similar findings were obtained when examining cardiovascular (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.57–1.89) and noncardiovascular patients (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.64–1.64). Deaths were rare in both varenicline (11/7213) and placebo (9/5493) arms. Although 95% CIs were wide, pooling of all‐cause mortality found no difference between groups (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.50–1.52), including when stratified by participants with (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.40–3.83) and without (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.40–1.48) cardiovascular disease.

Conclusions

We found no evidence that varenicline increases the rate of cardiovascular serious adverse events. Results were similar among those with and without cardiovascular disease. Given varenicline's efficacy as a smoking cessation drug and the long‐term cardiovascular benefits of cessation, it should continue to be prescribed for smoking cessation.

Are Pharmacotherapies Ineffective in Opioid-Dependent Smokers? Reflections on the Scientific Literature and Future Directions

While rates of smoking in the general population have decreased in recent years, dramatic disparities remain among disadvantaged subgroups of smokers, particularly those with concurrent substance abuse. Prevalence rates of smoking among opioid-dependent patients, for example, are fourfold those of the general population. While pharmacotherapies are recommended as a first-line treatment for nicotine dependence, the few studies that have investigated their effectiveness in this population have shown dramatically poorer outcomes compared to the general population. Indeed, these findings have led some researchers to suggest that pharmacotherapies may simply be ineffective in opioid-maintained smokers. In this commentary, we briefly summarize the extant literature on pharmacotherapies in opioid-maintained smokers and contribute new data investigating the contribution of bupropion on smoking outcomes in 81 methadone- and buprenorphine-maintained participants from two randomized trials of financial incentives for smoking cessation. We also discuss several important parameters (ie, timing of the quit attempt, medication adherence, nicotine withdrawal) that may be leveraged to strengthen smoking pharmacotherapy outcomes in opioid-dependent patients. Taken together, an improved understanding of these issues will aid efforts to reduce tobacco-related health disparities in this group of challenging smokers.

Psychostimulants: Basic and Clinical Pharmacology

Substance use disorder, and particularly psychostimulant use disorder, has considerable socioeconomic burden globally. The psychostimulants include several chemical classes, being derivatives of benzoylecgonine, phenethylamine, phenylpropanolamine, or aminoaryloxazoline. Psychostimulant drugs activate the brain reward pathways of the mesoaccumbal system, and continued use leads to persistent neuroplastic and dysfunctional changes of a variety of structures involved in learning and memory, habit-forming learning, salience attribution, and inhibitory control. There are a variety of neurochemical and neurobehavioral changes in psychostimulant addiction, for example, dopaminergic, glutamatergic, serotonergic (5-HT-ergic), and γ-amino butyric acid (GABA) changes have all noted. In this chapter, we will review pharmacological changes associated with psychostimulant use and abuse in humans and animals, and on the basis of the best characterized and most widely abused psychostimulants (amphetamines, cocaine) discuss why use transitions into abuse and review basic science and clinical strategies that might assist in treating psychostimulant abuse.

Risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events associated with varenicline: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events associated with use of varenicline compared with placebo in randomised controlled trials.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing study effects using two summary estimates in fixed effects models, risk differences, and Peto odds ratios.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and clinicaltrials.gov.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials with a placebo comparison group that reported on neuropsychiatric adverse events (depression, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, suicide, insomnia, sleep disorders, abnormal dreams, somnolence, fatigue, anxiety) and death. Studies that did not involve human participants, did not use the maximum recommended dose of varenicline (1 mg twice daily), and were cross over trials were excluded.

RESULTS

In the 39 randomised controlled trials (10,761 participants), there was no evidence of an increased risk of suicide or attempted suicide (odds ratio 1.67, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 8.57), suicidal ideation (0.58, 0.28 to 1.20), depression (0.96, 0.75 to 1.22), irritability (0.98, 0.81 to 1.17), aggression (0.91, 0.52 to 1.59), or death (1.05, 0.47 to 2.38) in the varenicline users compared with placebo users. Varenicline was associated with an increased risk of sleep disorders (1.63, 1.29 to 2.07), insomnia (1.56, 1.36 to 1.78), abnormal dreams (2.38, 2.05 to 2.77), and fatigue (1.28, 1.06 to 1.55) but a reduced risk of anxiety (0.75, 0.61 to 0.93). Similar findings were observed when risk differences were reported. There was no evidence for a variation in depression and suicidal ideation by age group, sex, ethnicity, smoking status, presence or absence of psychiatric illness, and type of study sponsor (that is, pharmaceutical industry or other).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis found no evidence of an increased risk of suicide or attempted suicide, suicidal ideation, depression, or death with varenicline. These findings provide some reassurance for users and prescribers regarding the neuropsychiatric safety of varenicline. There was evidence that varenicline was associated with a higher risk of sleep problems such as insomnia and abnormal dreams. These side effects, however, are already well recognised.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014009224.

Effectiveness of secondary prevention and treatment interventions for crack-cocaine abuse: a comprehensive narrative overview of English-language studies

There are an estimated several million crack-cocaine users globally; use is highest in the Americas. Most crack users are socio-economically marginalized (e.g., homeless), and feature elevated risks for morbidity (e.g., blood-borne viruses), mortality and crime/violence involvement, resulting in extensive burdens. No comprehensive reviews of evidence-based prevention and/or treatment interventions specifically for crack use exist. We conducted a comprehensive narrative overview of English-language studies on the efficacy of secondary prevention and treatment interventions for crack (cocaine) abuse/dependence. Literature searches (1990-2014) using pertinent keywords were conducted in main scientific databases. Titles/abstracts were reviewed for relevance, and full studies were included in the review if involving a primary prevention/treatment intervention study comprising a substantive crack user sample. Intervention outcomes considered included drug use, health risks/status (e.g., HIV or sexual risks) and select social outcome indicators. Targeted (e.g., behavioral/community-based) prevention measures show mixed and short-term effects on crack use/HIV risk outcomes. Material (e.g., safer crack use kit distribution) interventions also document modest efficacy in risk reduction; empirical assessments of environmental (e.g., drug consumption facilities) for crack smokers are not available. Diverse psycho-social treatment (including contingency management) interventions for crack abuse/dependence show some positive but also limited/short-term efficacy, yet likely constitute best currently available treatment options. Ancillary treatments show little effects but are understudied. Despite ample studies, pharmaco-therapeutic/immunotherapy treatment agents have not produced convincing evidence; select agents may hold potential combined with personalized approaches and/or psycho-social strategies. No comprehensively effective 'gold-standard' prevention/treatment interventions for crack abuse exist; concerted research towards improved interventions is urgently needed.

Smoking reductions and increased self-efficacy in a randomized controlled trial of smoking abstinence-contingent incentives in residential substance abuse treatment patients

INTRODUCTION

Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) experience increased smoking-related morbidity and mortality but severely compromised smoking treatment benefits. Residential SUD treatment settings may be particularly positioned to target smoking, with ever-increasing smoking bans and culture shifts, but most smokers continue smoking. This study examined the effects of contingency management (CM) for increasing smoking abstinence in residential patients.

METHODS

Smokers interested in quitting were recruited from a residential SUD program for men and were randomized to frequent smoking monitoring with behavioral support (monitoring; n = 21) or that plus smoking abstinence-contingent (expired carbon monoxide [CO] ≤ 6 ppm; urinary cotinine ≤ 30ng/ml) incentives (CM, n = 24) for 4 weeks. After setting a quit date, procedures included daily behavioral support and smoking self-reports, 2 CO samples (a.m./p.m.) Monday through Friday, and cotinine tests on Mondays. CM participants received escalating draws for prizes ($1, $20, and $100 values) for negative tests; positive and missed samples reset draws. Follow-ups involved samples, self-reported smoking, and self-efficacy (weeks 4, 8, 12, and 24).

RESULTS

Percent days CO-negative was higher with CM (median [interquartile range] 51.7% [62.8%]) compared to monitoring (0% [32.1%]) (p = .002). Cigarettes per day declined and point-prevalence abstinence increased through follow-up (p < .01), without significant group by time effects (p > .05). Abstinence self-efficacy increased overall during the intervention and more with CM compared to monitoring and was associated with abstinence across conditions through follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

CM improved some measures of response to smoking treatment in residential SUD patients.

The impact of pre-cessation varenicline on behavioral economic indices of smoking reinforcement

BACKGROUND

Varenicline was developed to aid smoking cessation by reducing smoking reinforcement. The present study tests this reinforcement-reduction hypothesis among smokers preparing to quit.

METHOD

After a one-week baseline, treatment-seeking smokers were randomized to receive three weeks of varenicline or placebo (Weeks 2-4). During each of the four weeks of the study, smokers completed a hypothetical cigarette purchase task (CPT) via handheld devices in their natural environment. Behavioral economic measures of simulated smoking if cigarettes were free (demand intensity), sensitivity of consumption to increasing price (elasticity), and price at which purchases would drop to 0 (breakpoint) were estimated.

RESULTS

The exponential demand equation fit the purchase task data well across subjects and time. As predicted, demand intensity decreased and sensitivity to price (elasticity) increased over time. However, changes in demand intensity did not differ by treatment group. Contrary to our hypothesis that varenicline would increase sensitivity to price, the placebo group tended to become more elastic in their purchases during Weeks 2 and 3; the groups did not differ in elasticity at Week 4. Breakpoint did not vary by group, time, or their interaction.

CONCLUSION

Simulated smoking demand can be validly assessed in the natural environment of treatment-seeking smokers. Simulated demand indices of smoking reinforcement diminished as smokers approached their target quit date. However, there was no evidence that varenicline facilitated these changes over a three-week period, leaving open the mechanisms by which varenicline reduces smoking rate prior to cessation and improves long-term abstinence.

Future pharmacological treatments for substance use disorders

Substance use disorders represent a serious public health and social issue worldwide. Recent advances in our understanding of the neurobiological basis of the addictive processes have led to the development of a growing number of pharmacological agents to treat addictions. Despite this progress, there are no approved pharmacological treatments for cocaine, methamphetamine and cannabis addiction. Moving treatment development to the next stage will require novel ways of approaching substance use disorders. One such novel approach is to target individual vulnerabilities, such as cognitive function, sex differences and psychiatric comorbidities. This review provides a summary of promising pharmacotherapies for alcohol, opiate, stimulant and nicotine addictions. Many medications that target positive and negative reinforcement of drugs, as well as individual vulnerabilities to addiction, are in different phases of development. Clinical trials testing the efficacy of these medications for substance use disorder are warranted.

Varenicline efficacy and safety among methadone maintained smokers: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

AIMS

To test the efficacy and safety of varenicline as an aid to smoking cessation in methadone-maintained smokers.

DESIGN

Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with random assignment to 12 weeks of varenicline 1 mg twice daily (n = 57) or matched placebo (n = 55), with in-person and telephone counseling.

SETTING

Urban methadone programs in the Bronx, New York City, New York, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Methadone maintenance patients, smoking ≥5 cigarettes/day, interested in quitting, stable in methadone treatment, without current Axis I psychiatric disorders, suicidal ideation or recent suicide attempts.

MEASUREMENTS

Seven-day point prevalence abstinence verified by expired carbon monoxide (CO) < 8 parts per million at week 12 (primary outcome); carbon monoxide (CO)-verified abstinence, cigarettes/day, incident Axis I psychiatric illness, suicidal ideation or serious adverse events (SAEs) at weeks 2, 4, 8, 12 or 24 (secondary outcomes).

FINDINGS

Baseline demographic, smoking and clinical factors were similar between groups. Retention at 24 weeks was 90%. Subjects receiving varenicline were more likely than those receiving placebo to achieve abstinence (10.5 versus 0%, P = 0.03; effect size 10.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.4-19.3%) and to reduce smoking (median five versus two cigarettes/day, P < 0.001) at 12 weeks. These effects were not maintained after drug treatment ceased. Incident psychiatric illness (OR= 0.84, 95% CI = 0.16, 4.4) and suicidality [odds ratio (OR) = 0.88, 95% CI 0.2, 3.9] were not different between groups. There were no psychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline can aid short-term smoking abstinence in methadone-maintained smokers.

Drugs currently in Phase II clinical trials for cocaine addiction

INTRODUCTION

There are no FDA-approved pharmacotherapies for treating cocaine addiction; thus, developing drugs to treat cocaine dependence is an unmet critical need. Fortunately, there are a number of drugs that are currently in Phase II clinical trial/s. This is due in part to the advances from in vivo imaging in humans which provided a roadmap of the neurochemistry of the cocaine-dependent brain. Most drugs currently in Phase II clinical trials attempt to modulate the disturbed neurochemistry in cocaine dependents to resemble those of healthy individuals. These predominantly modulate dopamine, serotonin, glutamate, GABA or noradrenaline signalling.

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes the therapeutic potential of each drug as evidenced by clinical and preclinical studies. It also discusses their utility in terms of bioavailability and half-life.

EXPERT OPINION

Amphetamine salts and topiramate clearly stand out in terms of their potential efficacy in treating cocaine addiction. The efficacy of topiramate was closely associated with regular cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), which highlights the importance of a combined effort to promote abstinence and enhance retention via CBT. Cognitive/psychological screening appears necessary for a more symptom-based approach with more reasonable outcomes other than abstinence (e.g., improved quality of life) in treating cocaine addiction.

Effects of chronic varenicline treatment on nicotine, cocaine, and concurrent nicotine+cocaine self-administration

Nicotine dependence and cocaine abuse are major public health problems, and most cocaine abusers also smoke cigarettes. An ideal treatment medication would reduce both cigarette smoking and cocaine abuse. Varenicline is a clinically available, partial agonist at α4β2* and α6β2* nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) and a full agonist at α7 nAChRs. Varenicline facilitates smoking cessation in clinical studies and reduced nicotine self-administration, and substituted for the nicotine-discriminative stimulus in preclinical studies. The present study examined the effects of chronic varenicline treatment on self-administration of IV nicotine, IV cocaine, IV nicotine+cocaine combinations, and concurrent food-maintained responding by five cocaine- and nicotine-experienced adult rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Varenicline (0.004-0.04 mg/kg/h) was administered intravenously every 20 min for 23 h each day for 7-10 consecutive days. Each varenicline treatment was followed by saline-control treatment until food- and drug-maintained responding returned to baseline. During control treatment, nicotine+cocaine combinations maintained significantly higher levels of drug self-administration than nicotine or cocaine alone (P<0.05-0.001). Varenicline dose-dependently reduced responding maintained by nicotine alone (0.0032 mg/kg/inj) (P<0.05), and in combination with cocaine (0.0032 mg/kg/inj) (P<0.05) with no significant effects on food-maintained responding. However, varenicline did not significantly decrease self-administration of a low dose of nicotine (0.001 mg/kg), cocaine alone (0.0032 and 0.01 mg/kg/inj), or 0.01 mg/kg cocaine combined with the same doses of nicotine. We conclude that varenicline selectively attenuates the reinforcing effects of nicotine alone but not cocaine alone, and its effects on nicotine+cocaine combinations are dependent on the dose of cocaine.

EPA Guidance on Tobacco Dependence and Strategies for Smoking Cessation in People with Mental Illness

Tobacco dependence is the most common substance use disorder in adults with mental illness. The prevalence rates for tobacco dependence are two to four times higher in these patients than in the general population. Smoking has a strong, negative influence on the life expectancy and quality of life of mental health patients, and remains the leading preventable cause of death in this group. Despite these statistics, in some countries smokers with mental illness are disadvantaged in receiving intervention and support for their tobacco dependence, which is often overlooked or even tolerated. This statement from the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) systematically reviews the current evidence on tobacco dependence and withdrawal in patients with mental illness and their treatment. It provides seven recommendations for the core components of diagnostics and treatment in this patient group. These recommendations concern: (1) the recording process, (2) the timing of the intervention, (3) counselling specificities, (4) proposed treatments, (5) frequency of contact after stopping, (6) follow-up visits and (7) relapse prevention. They aim to help clinicians improve the care, health and well-being of patients suffering from mental illness.

The neurocircuitry of illicit psychostimulant addiction: acute and chronic effects in humans

Illicit psychostimulant addiction remains a significant problem worldwide, despite decades of research into the neural underpinnings and various treatment approaches. The purpose of this review is to provide a succinct overview of the neurocircuitry involved in drug addiction, as well as the acute and chronic effects of cocaine and amphetamines within this circuitry in humans. Investigational pharmacological treatments for illicit psychostimulant addiction are also reviewed. Our current knowledge base clearly demonstrates that illicit psychostimulants produce lasting adaptive neural and behavioral changes that contribute to the progression and maintenance of addiction. However, attempts at generating pharmacological treatments for psychostimulant addiction have historically focused on intervening at the level of the acute effects of these drugs. The lack of approved pharmacological treatments for psychostimulant addiction highlights the need for new treatment strategies, especially those that prevent or ameliorate the adaptive neural, cognitive, and behavioral changes caused by chronic use of this class of illicit drugs.

Effects of D-cycloserine on cue-induced craving and cigarette smoking among concurrent cocaine- and nicotine-dependent volunteers

Rates of cigarette smoking are 3- to 4-fold greater among those with cocaine-dependence, and compared to non-users, cocaine users are at greater risk of incurring smoking-related negative health effects and death. The current study examined D-cycloserine's (0 or 50mg once weekly) effects on 1) extinction of cue-induced craving for cigarettes, 2) cigarette smoking in conjunction with cognitive-behavioral therapy, and 3) safety and tolerability in cocaine-dependent smokers. This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, between groups, outpatient study. Participants (N=29) were concurrent cocaine- and nicotine-dependent volunteers seeking treatment for their cigarette smoking. Study visits were 3 times per week for 4 consecutive weeks. At each visit, participants received cognitive-behavioral therapy for smoking, were exposed to smoking cues. A subset of participants (N=22) returned for 6-month follow-up visits. While craving decreased, no significant effects of D-cycloserine treatment were observed. Likewise, significant decreases in smoking were observed at study days 6 (p<0.002) and 12 (p<0.0001) relative to baseline, although no participants achieved complete abstinence. However, there was no effect of D-cycloserine on cigarette smoking during treatment or at 6-mos follow-up. The treatment was safe and tolerable, with nearly 90% of treatment sessions attended based on an intent-to-treat analysis. While no effects of D-cycloserine on craving or smoking were observed in the current study, the results do suggest that smoking treatment is well accepted and may be effective for cocaine-dependent individuals.

The neurocircuitry of illicit psychostimulant addiction: acute and chronic effects in humans

Illicit psychostimulant addiction remains a significant problem worldwide, despite decades of research into the neural underpinnings and various treatment approaches. The purpose of this review is to provide a succinct overview of the neurocircuitry involved in drug addiction, as well as the acute and chronic effects of cocaine and amphetamines within this circuitry in humans. Investigational pharmacological treatments for illicit psychostimulant addiction are also reviewed. Our current knowledge base clearly demonstrates that illicit psychostimulants produce lasting adaptive neural and behavioral changes that contribute to the progression and maintenance of addiction. However, attempts at generating pharmacological treatments for psychostimulant addiction have historically focused on intervening at the level of the acute effects of these drugs. The lack of approved pharmacological treatments for psychostimulant addiction highlights the need for new treatment strategies, especially those that prevent or ameliorate the adaptive neural, cognitive, and behavioral changes caused by chronic use of this class of illicit drugs.

Treatment of tobacco dependence in people with mental health and addictive disorders

People with mental health and addictive disorders (MHADs) have higher rates of cigarette smoking, and less success in quitting smoking compared with the general population. Moreover, tobacco-related medical illness may be the leading cause of death in the MHAD population. We discuss the scope of this comorbidity, and approaches to the treatment of tobacco dependence in people with MHAD, including schizophrenia, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and alcohol and substance use disorders. Finally, at the level of health systems, we emphasize the importance of integrated treatment of tobacco dependence in MHADs.

Risk of cardiovascular serious adverse events associated with varenicline use for tobacco cessation: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the risk of treatment emergent, cardiovascular serious adverse events associated with varenicline use for tobacco cessation.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis comparing study effects using four summary estimates.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Cochrane Library, online clinical trials registries, and reference lists of identified articles.

REVIEW METHODS

We included randomised controlled trials of current tobacco users of adult age comparing use of varenicline with an inactive control and reporting adverse events. We defined treatment emergent, cardiovascular serious adverse events as occurring during drug treatment or within 30 days of discontinuation, and included any ischaemic or arrhythmic adverse cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary revascularisation, coronary artery disease, arrhythmias, transient ischaemic attacks, stroke, sudden death or cardiovascular related death, or congestive heart failure).

RESULTS

We identified 22 trials; all were double blinded and placebo controlled; two included participants with active cardiovascular disease and 11 enrolled participants with a history of cardiovascular disease. Rates of treatment emergent, cardiovascular serious adverse events were 0.63% (34/5431) in the varenicline groups and 0.47% (18/3801) in the placebo groups. The summary estimate for the risk difference, 0.27% (95% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.63; P = 0.15), based on all 22 trials, was neither clinically nor statistically significant. For comparison, the relative risk (1.40, 0.82 to 2.39; P = 0.22), Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (1.41, 0.82 to 2.42; P = 0.22), and Peto odds ratio (1.58, 0.90 to 2.76; P = 0.11), all based on 14 trials with at least one event, also indicated a non-significant difference between varenicline and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta--analysis--which included all trials published to date, focused on events occurring during drug exposure, and analysed findings using four summary estimates-found no significant increase in cardiovascular serious adverse events associated with varenicline use. For rare outcomes, summary estimates based on absolute effects are recommended and estimates based on the Peto odds ratio should be avoided.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist).

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review is to assess the efficacy and tolerability of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including cytisine, dianicline and varenicline for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register for trials, using the terms ('cytisine' or 'Tabex' or 'dianicline' or 'varenicline' or 'nicotine receptor partial agonist') in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Web of Science using MeSH terms and free text to identify controlled trials of interventions for smoking cessation and prevention. We contacted authors of trial reports for additional information where necessary. The latest update of the specialised register was in December 2011. We also searched online clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials which compared the treatment drug with placebo. We also included comparisons with bupropion and nicotine patches where available. We excluded trials which did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from start of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on the type of participants, the dose and duration of treatment, the outcome measures, the randomization procedure, concealment of allocation, and completeness of follow-up.The main outcome measured was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, and preferred biochemically validated rates where they were reported. Where appropriate we pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Two recent cytisine trials (937 people) found that more participants taking cytisine stopped smoking compared with placebo at longest follow-up, with a pooled RR of 3.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.01 to 7.87). One trial of dianicline (602 people) failed to find evidence that it was effective (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.75). Fifteen trials compared varenicline with placebo for smoking cessation; three of these also included a bupropion treatment arm. We also found one open-label trial comparing varenicline plus counselling with counselling alone. We found one relapse prevention trial, comparing varenicline with placebo, and two open-label trials comparing varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). We also include one trial in which all the participants were given varenicline, but received behavioural support either online or by phone calls, or by both methods. This trial is not included in the analyses, but contributes to the data on safety and tolerability. The included studies covered 12,223 participants, 8100 of whom used varenicline.The pooled RR for continuous or sustained abstinence at six months or longer for varenicline at standard dosage versus placebo was 2.27 (95% CI 2.02 to 2.55; 14 trials, 6166 people, excluding one trial evaluating long term safety). Varenicline at lower or variable doses was also shown to be effective, with an RR of 2.09 (95% CI 1.56 to 2.78; 4 trials, 1272 people). The pooled RR for varenicline versus bupropion at one year was 1.52 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.88; 3 trials, 1622 people). The RR for varenicline versus NRT for point prevalence abstinence at 24 weeks was 1.13 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.35; 2 trials, 778 people). The two trials which tested the use of varenicline beyond the 12-week standard regimen found the drug to be well-tolerated during long-term use. The main adverse effect of varenicline was nausea, which was mostly at mild to moderate levels and usually subsided over time. A meta-analysis of reported serious adverse events occurring during or after active treatment and not necessarily considered attributable to treatment suggests there may be a one-third increase in the chance of severe adverse effects among people using varenicline (RR 1.36; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.79; 17 trials, 7725 people), but this finding needs to be tested further. Post-marketing safety data have raised questions about a possible association between varenicline and depressed mood, agitation, and suicidal behaviour or ideation. The labelling of varenicline was amended in 2008, and the manufacturers produced a Medication Guide. Thus far, surveillance reports and secondary analyses of trial data are inconclusive, but the possibility of a link between varenicline and serious psychiatric or cardiovascular events cannot be ruled out.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cytisine increases the chances of quitting, although absolute quit rates were modest in two recent trials. Varenicline at standard dose increased the chances of successful long-term smoking cessation between two- and threefold compared with pharmacologically unassisted quit attempts. Lower dose regimens also conferred benefits for cessation, while reducing the incidence of adverse events. More participants quit successfully with varenicline than with bupropion. Two open-label trials of varenicline versus NRT suggested a modest benefit of varenicline but confidence intervals did not rule out equivalence. Limited evidence suggests that varenicline may have a role to play in relapse prevention. The main adverse effect of varenicline is nausea, but mostly at mild to moderate levels and tending to subside over time. Possible links with serious adverse events, including serious psychiatric or cardiovascular events, cannot be ruled out.Future trials of cytisine may test extended regimens and more intensive behavioural support. There is a need for further trials of the efficacy of varenicline treatment extended beyond 12 weeks.

Results of an initial clinical trial of varenicline for the treatment of cocaine dependence

BACKGROUND

Cocaine use, abuse and dependence remains a pressing public health problem. Based on its mechanism of action, varenicline, an alpha4beta2 partial agonist seemed to be a likely candidate for treating cocaine dependence.

METHODS

Cocaine dependent participants (n=37) were enrolled in a 9-week double-blind placebo controlled clinical trial. Varenicline was titrated up to a target dose of 1mg BID during the first week of medication.

RESULTS

Varenicline was associated with lower odds of cocaine use than placebo (OR=2.02, p=0.08), as measured by thrice-weekly urinalysis results. Compared to placebo-treated participants, varenicline treated participants had significantly decreased rates of cocaine reward, as measured by the Multiple Choice Procedure (MCP) (p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline appears to decrease cocaine use and reward, suggesting that further investigation of varenicline may be warranted.

The effects of extended pre-quit varenicline treatment on smoking behavior and short-term abstinence: a randomized clinical trial

Preclinical research and learning theory suggest that a longer duration of varenicline treatment prior to the target quit date (TQD) would reduce smoking rates before cessation and improve abstinence outcomes. A double-blind randomized controlled trial tested this hypothesis in 60 smokers randomized to either an Extended run-in group (4 weeks of pre-TQD varenicline) or a Standard run-in group (3 weeks of placebo, 1 week of pre-TQD varenicline); all the participants received 11 weeks of post-TQD varenicline and brief counseling. During the pre-quit run-in, the reduction in smoking rates was greater in the Extended run-in group than in the Standard run-in group (42% vs. 24%, P < 0.01), and this effect was greater in women than in men (57% vs. 26%, P = 0.001). The rate of continuous abstinence during the final 4 weeks of treatment was higher among women in the Extended group compared to women in the Standard run-in group (67% vs. 35%). Although these data suggest that extension of varenicline treatment reduces smoking during the pre-quit period and may further enhance cessation rates, confirmatory evidence is needed from phase III clinical trials.

Varenicline decreases alcohol consumption in heavy-drinking smokers

RATIONALE

Emerging evidence suggests that the α4β2 form of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) modulates the rewarding effects of alcohol. The nAChR α4β2 subunit partial agonist varenicline (Chantix™), which is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for smoking cessation, also decreases ethanol consumption in rodents (Steensland et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:12518-12523, 2007) and in human laboratory and open-label studies (Fucito et al., Psychopharmacology (Berl) 215:655-663, 2011; McKee et al., Biol Psychiatry 66:185-190 2009).

OBJECTIVES

We present a randomized, double-blind, 16-week study in heavy-drinking smokers (n = 64 randomized to treatment) who were seeking treatment for their smoking. The study was designed to determine the effects of varenicline on alcohol craving and consumption. Outcome measures included number of alcoholic drinks per week, cigarettes per week, amount of alcohol craving per week, cumulative cigarettes and alcoholic drinks consumed during the treatment period, number of abstinent days, and weekly percentage of positive ethyl glucuronide and cotinine screens.

RESULTS

Varenicline significantly decreases alcohol consumption (χ (2) = 35.32, p < 0.0001) in smokers. Although varenicline has previously been associated with suicidality and depression, side effects were low in this study and declined over time in the varenicline treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline can produce a sustained decrease in alcohol consumption in individuals who also smoke. Further studies are warranted to assess varenicline efficacy in treatment-seeking alcohol abusers who do not smoke and to ascertain the relationship between varenicline effects on smoking and drinking.

Effects of varenicline on the reinforcing and discriminative stimulus effects of cocaine in rhesus monkeys

Varenicline is a low-efficacy, α4β2* subtype-selective nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) agonist that has shown success in smoking cessation and promise in preclinical assessments relating to other drugs of abuse. The primary goal of the present study was to examine the effects of varenicline on cocaine self-administration and cocaine discrimination and compare these effects with those of the nAChR agonist nicotine and antagonist mecamylamine. One limitation of agonist treatments is the potential for abuse. Thus, a second goal was to examine the abuse potential of varenicline in rhesus monkeys. In the first experiment, rhesus monkeys (n = 3) were trained to self-administer cocaine (saline, 0.01-0.56 mg/kg) under a progressive-ratio schedule of reinforcement; monkeys also earned all of their food by responding on another lever under a fixed-ratio 50 schedule of reinforcement. Chronic administration of varenicline (0.01-0.56 mg/kg p.o., salt) potentiated the reinforcing effects of cocaine, whereas mecamylamine (0.3-1.7 mg/kg p.o, i.m., i.v., salt) had no significant effects on cocaine self-administration up to doses that disrupted food-maintained responding. Neither varenicline (0.01-0.17 mg/kg, salt) nor nicotine (0.01-0.1 mg/kg, base) functioned as reinforcers when substituted for cocaine. Finally, in monkeys trained to discriminate self-administered 0.3 mg/kg cocaine, varenicline (0.1-0.3 mg/kg i.v.) did not substitute for cocaine but, along with mecamylamine (0.3-1.7 mg/kg i.v.) and nicotine (0.03-0.1 mg/kg i.v.), potentiated the discriminative stimulus effects of cocaine. These results suggest that varenicline has low abuse liability in monkey models of cocaine abuse, but would not be an effective medication for cocaine addiction.

Varenicline for tobacco dependence: panacea or plight?

INTRODUCTION

This review examines the postmarketing experience with varenicline, including case reports, newer clinical trials and secondary analyses of large clinical datasets.

AREAS COVERED

Varenicline has been shown to be an effective treatment in a broad range of tobacco users with medical, behavioral and diverse demographic characteristics. Recent studies finding excellent safety and efficacy in groups of smokers with diseases including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are particularly encouraging and call for increased use of this medication for smoking cessation. Despite case reports of serious neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients taking varenicline, including changes in behavior and mood, causality has not been established. Recent analyses of large datasets from clinical trials have not demonstrated that varenicline is associated with more depression or suicidality than other treatments for smoking cessation.

EXPERT OPINION

Now that additional clinical trials in specific populations and observational studies on treatment-seeking smokers outside of clinical trials have been published, we can be confident that varenicline remains the most efficacious monotherapy for smoking cessation and that its side-effect profile remains good. The risk-to-benefit ratio of receiving varenicline to quit smoking must include the increased chances of quitting smoking and avoiding the sizeable risks of smoked-caused disease and death that remain if tobacco addiction is not properly treated.

Comparison of available treatments for tobacco addiction

Cigarette smoking is a major public health problem that causes more than 5 million deaths annually worldwide. Cigarette smoking is especially common among individuals with psychiatric comorbidity, including individuals with primary psychiatric disorders and other addictions. Effective behavioral and pharmacologic treatments for smoking cessation are available. Behavioral treatments including brief (< 3 min) counseling by physicians are effective. Seven first-line pharmacologic treatments are currently available: five nicotine replacement therapies, bupropion, and varenicline. In addition, clonidine and nortriptyline are second-line treatments for smoking cessation. These treatments increase the chances of quitting smoking by two- to threefold, supporting their use in smokers who are motivated to quit. However, effective treatments for many subpopulations, including smokers with psychiatric comorbidities as well as adolescent, pregnant, or postpartum smokers, remain to be developed and represent an important challenge.