Targeting heavy smokers in general practice: randomised controlled trial of transdermal nicotine patches

Preoperative intervention for smoking cessation: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Smoking is associated with increased postoperative complications. Pre-surgical smoking cessation remains a challenge. Our aim was to summarize pre-hospital smoking cessation interventions and impact on smoking cessation rates.

METHODS

Independent review of English language articles identified from systematic searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycInfo, Embase, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature databases from 1998 to 2019 was performed (PROSPERO registration number CRD42021247927). Studies of adult patients enrolled in a pre-hospital smoking cessation intervention were included. Studies with historical controls or only self-reported outcomes were excluded.

RESULTS

Nine articles including 1762 patients were identified. Exhaled CO was used to confirm cessation. Six studies reported smoking status day of surgery. Interventions included NRT, hand-held technology, e-cigarettes, decision aids/counseling and medications. Four studies demonstrated a difference in smoking cessation rates. Ethics and study appraisal were assessed using ROB2.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the variability of interventions, settings, and outcomes, best practice for successful pre-hospital smoking cessation in surgery clinics would benefit from ongoing investigation.

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This helps to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and ease the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. Although there is high-certainty evidence that NRT is effective for achieving long-term smoking abstinence, it is unclear whether different forms, doses, durations of treatment or timing of use impacts its effects.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords, most recently in April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded studies that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of fewer than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Separate reviews cover studies comparing NRT to control, or to other pharmacotherapies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking abstinence after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and study withdrawals due to treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 68 completed studies with 43,327 participants, five of which are new to this update. Most completed studies recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. We judged 28 of the 68 studies to be at high risk of bias. Restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results for any comparisons apart from the preloading comparison, which tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day whilst still smoking.  There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form plus patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.37; I2 = 12%; 16 studies, 12,169 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg patches are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; I2 = 38%; 5 studies, 1655 participants), and that 21 mg patches are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08; 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3446 participants). Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4395 participants). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 3319 participants). We found no clear evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); or fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence). Cardiac AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no clear evidence of an effect on these outcomes, and rates were low overall. More withdrawals due to treatment were reported in people using nasal spray compared to patches in one study (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46; 1 study, 922 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in people using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two studies (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 544 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum can result in an increase in the chances of successfully stopping smoking. Due to imprecision, evidence was of moderate certainty for patch dose comparisons. There is some indication that the lower-dose nicotine patches and gum may be less effective than higher-dose products. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT before quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is limited. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are reported.

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Modelling continuous abstinence rates over time from clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND AND AIM

It is useful, for theoretical and practical reasons, to be able to specify functions for continuous abstinence over time in smoking cessation attempts. This study aimed to find the best-fitting models of mean proportion abstinent with different smoking cessation pharmacotherapies up to 52 weeks from the quit date.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological treatments to aid smoking cessation. For comparability, we selected trials that provided 12 weeks of treatment. Continuous abstinence rates for each treatment at each follow-up point in trials were extracted along with methodological details of the trial. Data points for each pharmacotherapy at each follow-up point were aggregated where the total across contributing studies included at least 1000 participants per data point. Continuous abstinence curves were modelled using a range of different functions from the quit date to 52-week follow-up. Models were compared for fit using R2 and Bayesian information criterion (BIC).

RESULTS

Studies meeting our selection criteria covered three pharmacotherapies [varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and bupropion] and placebo. Power functions provided the best fit (R2  > 0.99, BIC < 17.0) to continuous abstinence curves from the target quit date in all cases except for varenicline, where a logarithmic function described the curve best (R2  = 0.99, BIC = 21.2). At 52 weeks, abstinence rates were 22.5% (23.0% modelled) for varenicline, 16.7% (16.0% modelled) for bupropion, 13.0% (12.4% modelled) for NRT and 8.3% (8.9% modelled) for placebo. For varenicline, bupropion, NRT and placebo, respectively, 55.9, 65.0, 62.3 and 56.5% of participants who were abstinent at the end of treatment were still abstinent at 52 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Mean continuous abstinence rates up to 52 weeks from initiation of smoking cessation attempts in clinical trials can be modelled using simple power functions for placebo, nicotine replacement therapy and bupropion and a logarithmic function for varenicline. This allows accurate prediction of abstinence rates from any time point to any other time point up to 52 weeks.

Different doses, durations and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes to ease the transition from cigarette smoking to abstinence. It works by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. Although there is clear evidence that NRT used after smoking cessation is effective, it is unclear whether higher doses, longer durations of treatment, or using NRT before cessation add to its effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to one another.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register, and trial registries for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search: April 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up less than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Trials comparing NRT to control, and trials comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered elsewhere.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking abstinence was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and study withdrawals due to treatment. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 63 trials with 41,509 participants. Most recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day. We judged 24 of the 63 studies to be at high risk of bias, but restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results, apart from in the case of the preloading comparison. There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form + patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.36, 14 studies, 11,356 participants; I² = 4%). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29, 5 studies, 1655 participants; I² = 38%), and that 21 mg are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08, 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence (again limited by imprecision) also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41, 3 studies, 3446 participants; I² = 0%). Five studies comparing 4 mg gum to 2 mg gum found a benefit of the higher dose (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.83, 5 studies, 856 participants; I² = 63%); however, results of a subgroup analysis suggest that only smokers who are highly dependent may benefit. Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward; there was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44, 9 studies, 4395 participants; I² = 0%). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05, 8 studies, 3319 participants; I² = 0%). We found no evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); 16-hour versus 24-hour daily patch use; duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); tapering of patch dose versus abrupt patch cessation; fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence); duration of nicotine gum use; ad lib versus fixed dosing of fast-acting NRT; free versus purchased NRT; length of provision of free NRT; ceasing versus continuing patch use on lapse; and participant- versus clinician-selected NRT. However, in most cases these findings are based on very low- or low-certainty evidence, and are the findings from single studies.AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no evidence of an effect on cardiac AEs, SAEs or withdrawals. Rates of these were low overall. Significantly more withdrawals due to treatment were reported in participants using nasal spray in comparison to patch in one trial (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46, 922 participants; very low certainty) and in participants using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two trials (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50, 2 studies, 544 participants; I² = 0%; low certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT, and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum, can increase the chances of successfully stopping smoking. For patch dose comparisons, evidence was of moderate certainty, due to imprecision. Twenty-one mg patches resulted in higher quit rates than 14 mg (24-hour) patches, and using 25 mg patches resulted in higher quit rates than using 15 mg (16-hour) patches, although in the latter case the CI included one. There was no clear evidence of superiority for 42/44 mg over 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT prior to quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is of low and very low certainty. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are both measured and reported.

Nicotine replacement therapy versus control for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), including gum, transdermal patch, intranasal spray and inhaled and oral preparations, for achieving long-term smoking cessation, compared to placebo or 'no NRT' interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search is July 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in people motivated to quit which compared NRT to placebo or to no treatment. We excluded trials that did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months, except for those in pregnancy (where less than six months, these were excluded from the main analysis). We recorded adverse events from included and excluded studies that compared NRT with placebo. Studies comparing different types, durations, and doses of NRT, and studies comparing NRT to other pharmacotherapies, are covered in separate reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 136 studies; 133 with 64,640 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The majority of studies were conducted in adults and had similar numbers of men and women. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day at the start of the studies. We judged the evidence to be of high quality; we judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias but restricting the analysis to only those studies at low risk of bias did not significantly alter the result. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.61). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 56 trials, 22,581 participants) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.75, 51 trials, 25,754 participants) for nicotine patch; 1.52 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.74, 8 trials, 4439 participants) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials, 976 participants) for nicotine inhalator; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials, 887 participants) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the definition of abstinence, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. A subset of six trials conducted in pregnant women found a statistically significant benefit of NRT on abstinence close to the time of delivery (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.69; 2129 participants); in the four trials that followed up participants post-partum the result was no longer statistically significant (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.86; 1675 participants). Adverse events from using NRT were related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. Attempts to quantitatively synthesize the incidence of various adverse effects were hindered by extensive variation in reporting the nature, timing and duration of symptoms. The odds ratio (OR) of chest pains or palpitations for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.88 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.57, 15 included and excluded trials, 11,074 participants). However, chest pains and palpitations were rare in both groups and serious adverse events were extremely rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that all of the licensed forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhalator and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50% to 60%, regardless of setting, and further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect. The relative effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT. NRT often causes minor irritation of the site through which it is administered, and in rare cases can cause non-ischaemic chest pain and palpitations.

Step Care treatment for smoking cessation

We compared the effectiveness of a ‘stepped care’ approach with increasing treatment intensity (‘Step Care’) to one with repeated treatments (‘Recycle’) among cigarette smokers interested in quitting smoking. Step 1 of the Step Care intervention consisted of a single counseling session, nicotine patch for six weeks and telephonic contact. For smokers not achieving tobacco abstinence 6 months after randomization with Step 1, the intensity of the intervention increased to four counseling sessions, bupropion sustained-release, nine telephone calls and three mailings (Step 2). For those not achieving tobacco abstinence 12 months after randomization, smokers received six behavioral counseling sessions, nicotine patch and nicotine gum, nine telephone calls and three mailings (Step 3). The Recycle participants received one session of health behavior counseling, six weeks of the nicotine patch and a telephone call at each step. 270 cigarette smokers were randomized. At 24 months after randomization using an intention to treat analysis, no statistically significant difference was observed in prolonged smoking abstinence between the Step Care and Recycle condition (16.9% versus 9.4%; adjusted OR = 1.88; 95% CI 0.88–4.01; P =0.10). Additional research is needed to explore whether a stepped care intervention increases long-term smoking abstinence rates compared with repeating the same intervention.

Combination Therapies for Smoking Cessation: A Hierarchical Bayesian Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT

Treatment guidelines recommend the use of combination therapies for smoking cessation, particularly behavioral therapy (BT) as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy. However, these guidelines rely on previous reviews with important limitations. This study's objective was to evaluate the efficacy of combination therapies compared with monotherapies, using the most rigorous data available.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs of pharmacotherapies, BTs, or both were conducted. The Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed databases were systematically searched from inception to July 2015. Inclusion was restricted to RCTs reporting biochemically validated abstinence at 12 months. Direct and indirect comparisons were made in 2015 between therapies using hierarchical Bayesian models.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The search identified 123 RCTs meeting inclusion criteria (60,774 participants), and data from 115 (57,851 participants) were meta-analyzed. Varenicline with BT increased abstinence more than other combinations of a pharmacotherapy with BT (varenicline versus bupropion: OR=1.56, 95% credible interval [CrI]=1.07, 2.34; varenicline versus nicotine patch: OR=1.65, 95% CrI=1.10, 2.51; varenicline versus short-acting nicotine-replacement therapies: OR=1.68, 95% CrI=1.15, 2.53). Adding BT to any pharmacotherapy compared with pharmacotherapy alone was inconclusive, owing to wide CrIs (OR=1.17, CrI=0.60, 2.12). Nicotine patch with short-acting nicotine-replacement therapy appears safe and increases abstinence versus nicotine-replacement monotherapy (OR=1.63, CrI=1.06, 3.03). Data are limited concerning other pharmacotherapy combinations and their safety and tolerability.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that combination therapy benefits may be less than previously thought. Combined with BT, varenicline increases abstinence more than other pharmacotherapy with BT combinations.

Melatonin administration alters nicotine preference consumption via signaling through high-affinity melatonin receptors

RATIONALE

While it is known that tobacco use varies across the 24-h day, the time-of-day effects are poorly understood. Findings from several previous studies indicate a potential role for melatonin in these time-of-day effects; however, the specific underlying mechanisms have not been well characterized. Understanding of these mechanisms may lead to potential novel smoking cessation treatments.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is examine the role of melatonin and melatonin receptors in nicotine free-choice consumption

METHODS

A two-bottle oral nicotine choice paradigm was utilized with melatonin supplementation in melatonin-deficient mice (C57BL/6J) or without melatonin supplementation in mice proficient at melatonin synthesis (C3H/Ibg) compared to melatonin-proficient mice lacking both or one of the high-affinity melatonin receptors (MT1 and MT2; double-null mutant DM, or MT1 or MT2). Preference for bitter and sweet tastants also was assessed in wild-type and MT1 and MT2 DM mice. Finally, home cage locomotor monitoring was performed to determine the effect of melatonin administration on activity patterns.

RESULTS

Supplemental melatonin in drinking water significantly reduced free-choice nicotine consumption in C57BL/6J mice, which do not produce endogenous melatonin, while not altering activity patterns. Independently, genetic deletion of both MT1 and MT2 receptors in a melatonin-proficient mouse strain (C3H) resulted in significantly more nicotine consumption than controls. However, single genetic deletion of either the MT1 or MT2 receptor alone did not result in increased nicotine consumption. Deletion of MT1 and MT2 did not impact taste preference.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that nicotine consumption can be affected by exogenous or endogenous melatonin and requires at least one of the high-affinity melatonin receptors. The fact that expression of either the MT1 or MT2 melatonin receptor is sufficient to maintain lower nicotine consumption suggests functional overlap and potential mechanistic explanations.

Consideration of sex in clinical trials of transdermal nicotine patch: a systematic review

Transdermal nicotine patch (TNP) is 1 of the most commonly used smoking cessation treatments; however, the efficacy of TNP by sex is not yet clear. The purpose of the current review was to synthesize how sex has been considered in published clinical trials of TNP for smoking cessation. The specific aims of the study were to examine the inclusion of sex in analyses of cessation outcomes, TNP-related variables (compliance, side effects), and quit-related variables (withdrawal, cravings); to review the consideration of sex-related variables (menstrual cycle phase, pregnancy); and to identify needs for future research. Potential articles published through December 31, 2013 were identified through a MEDLINE search of the terms "clinical trial," "nicotine patch," and "smoking cessation." Forty-two studies used all 3 terms and met the inclusion criteria. Approximately half of the studies reported that they considered sex in smoking cessation outcomes, with 15 studies finding no difference by sex and 7 studies finding better outcomes for men versus women. Only 5 studies reported data on outcomes by sex in their publications. No studies reported analysis of TNP compliance or withdrawal by sex. In the 1 study that examined side effects by sex, more women than men reported discontinuing TNP because of skin irritation. No study examined the association of cessation outcomes with menstrual cycle phase. There is a need to include sex in research on TNP, as well as other pharmacological and behavioral smoking treatments, to clarify the picture of treatment efficacy for women compared with men.

Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were: To determine the effect of NRT compared to placebo in aiding smoking cessation, and to consider whether there is a difference in effect for the different forms of NRT (chewing gum, transdermal patches, oral and nasal sprays, inhalers and tablets/lozenges) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes. To determine whether the effect is influenced by the dosage, form and timing of use of NRT; the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; or the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated. To determine whether combinations of NRT are more likely to lead to successful quitting than one type alone. To determine whether NRT is more or less likely to lead to successful quitting compared to other pharmacotherapies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search July 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or to no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the type of participants, the dose, duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 150 trials; 117 with over 50,000 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The risk ratio (RR) of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.60 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53 to 1.68). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 55 trials) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.52 to 1.78, 43 trials) for nicotine patch; 1.95 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.36, 6 trials) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials) for nicotine inhaler; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials) for nicotine nasal spray. One trial of oral spray had an RR of 2.48 (95% CI 1.24 to 4.94). The effects were largely independent of the duration of therapy, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. The effect was similar in a small group of studies that aimed to assess use of NRT obtained without a prescription. In highly dependent smokers there was a significant benefit of 4 mg gum compared with 2 mg gum, but weaker evidence of a benefit from higher doses of patch. There was evidence that combining a nicotine patch with a rapid delivery form of NRT was more effective than a single type of NRT (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.51, 9 trials). The RR for NRT used for a short period prior to the quit date was 1.18 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.40, 8 trials), just missing statistical significance, though the efficacy increased when we pooled only patch trials and when we removed one trial in which confounding was likely. Five studies directly compared NRT to a non-nicotine pharmacotherapy, bupropion; there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.18). A combination of NRT and bupropion was more effective than bupropion alone (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.45, 4 trials). Adverse effects from using NRT are related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. There is no evidence that NRT increases the risk of heart attacks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All of the commercially available forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhaler and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50 to 70%, regardless of setting. The effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT.

Beyond drug use: a systematic consideration of other outcomes in evaluations of treatments for substance use disorders

Across the addictions field, the primary outcome in treatment research has been reduction in drug consumption. A comprehensive view of the impact of substance use disorders on human functioning suggests that effective treatments should address the many consequences and features of addiction beyond drug use, a recommendation forwarded by multiple expert panels and review papers. Despite recurring proposals, and a compelling general rationale for moving beyond drug use as the sole standard for evaluating addiction treatment, the field has yet to adopt any core set of 'other' measures that are routinely incorporated into treatment research. Among the many reasons for the limited impact of previous proposals has been the absence of a clear set of guidelines for selecting candidate outcomes. This paper is the result of the deliberations of a panel of substance abuse treatment and research experts convened by the National Institute on Drug Abuse to discuss appropriate outcome measures for clinical trials of substance abuse treatments. This paper provides an overview of previous recommendations and outlines specific guidelines for consideration of candidate outcomes. A list of outcomes meeting those guidelines is described and illustrated in detail with two outcomes: craving and quality of life. The paper concludes with specific recommendations for moving beyond the outcome listing offered in this paper to promote the programmatic incorporation of these outcomes into treatment research.

How Addictive Can Cigarettes Be? Two Case Reports

The addiction literature contains numerous case reports of individuals dependent on a range of chemical substances, but strong dependence on cigarettes has not been similarly documented. This report attempts to fill this gap by describing two exceptionally dependent smokers. Both suffer with a smoking-related disease and have a very strong motivation to quit. Despite receiving intensive behavioural and pharmacological treatments to help them stop smoking, they have been unable to maintain even a short period of abstinence. The two cases provide reference examples for the assertion that while not all smokers are hopelessly hooked, some are. Such illustrative cases may stimulate research into the area of individual differences in cigarette dependence.

The clinical significance of drug craving

Although drug craving has received considerable research attention over the past several decades, to date there has been no systematic review of the general clinical significance of craving. This paper presents an overview of measurement issues of particular relevance to a consideration of use of craving in clinical settings. The paper then considers the relevance of craving across a broad array of clinical domains, including diagnosis, prognostic utility, craving as an outcome measure, and the potential value of craving as a direct target of intervention. The paper is both descriptive and prescriptive, informed by the current state of the science on craving with recommendations for the definition of craving, assessment practices, future research, and clinical applications. We conclude that craving has considerable utility for diagnosis and as a clinical outcome, and that findings from future research will likely expand the clinical potential of the craving construct in the domains of prognosis and craving as a treatment target.

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Systematic review of the relationship between the 3-hydroxycotinine/cotinine ratio and cigarette dependence

RATIONALE

Individual differences in the rate of nicotine metabolism (RNM) could be related to dependence and success in stopping smoking. A range of studies have examined RNM measured by the ratio of trans-3'-hydroxycotinine and cotinine in body fluids (the ratio). A systematic review of this literature is needed to draw conclusions and identify gaps in evidence.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to review evidence on the association of the ratio to cigarette dependence and its role in individual tailoring of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy.

RESULTS

We reviewed 27 studies of the ratio related to its reliability, validity, and relationship to dependence. The ratio is a reasonably accurate proxy for RNM. There is little evidence that the ratio is related to questionnaire measures of dependence, though the existing data are limited and the ratio has been linked to smoking at night and to some aspects of smoking topography. The ratio is also only weakly associated with cigarette consumption. Its relationship to the severity of withdrawal symptoms seems also weak at best, but limited data exist. One study suggests the ratio predicts outcome of unaided quitting. Importantly, the ratio seems to predict responses both to NRT and bupropion, and thus could guide pharmacotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence that the ratio is related to smoking behaviours and to cigarette dependence is limited, but the ratio seems to influence treatment response to two stop smoking medications. Further studies of the relationship between the ratio and cigarette dependence and trials of ratio-guided pharmacotherapy are needed.

Treating heavy smokers in primary care with the nicotine nasal spray: randomized placebo-controlled trial

AIMS

Of six established nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) formulations, only the gum and patch have been tested without specialist clinic support in placebo-controlled trials. We aimed to broaden the evidence base by examining if the nicotine nasal spray (NNS) could be effective with only brief support in general practice.

DESIGN

Randomized placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Twenty-seven English general practices.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 761 heavy smokers received brief support and 12 weeks of treatment with NNS (506) or placebo (255).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was biochemically verified complete abstinence from smoking throughout weeks 3-12.

FINDINGS

NNS compared with placebo more than doubled the number who successfully stopped smoking [15.4% versus 6.7%, odds ratio (OR) = 2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.5-4.4]. Many participants reported minor irritant adverse symptoms. NNS was particularly effective among those who were more highly dependent on nicotine (OR = 6.17, 95% CI = 2.13-17.9). Of those who failed to stop during the first week (417, 54.8%), only one (0.2%) achieved later success.

CONCLUSIONS

NNS is effective when given in primary care. The benefit was lower than in a specialist clinic but similar to that with the nicotine patch in primary care. Unlike most other NRT formulations, bupropion or varenicline, NNS was especially helpful for more dependent smokers. Continuing treatment of those initially failing was not beneficial. An initial 1-week prescription to those more dependent on nicotine is likely to be the most cost-effective NNS treatment protocol. These results should offer support to the effectiveness of the other NRT formulations untested in this setting.

Pharmacogenetics of smoking cessation in general practice: results from the patch II and patch in practice trials

INTRODUCTION

Cigarette smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death worldwide. However, the efficacy of available first-line therapies remains low, particularly in primary care practice where most smokers seek and receive treatment. These observations reinforce the notion that 'one size fits all' smoking cessation therapies may not be optimal. Therefore, a translational research effort was launched by the Imperial Cancer Research Fund (later Cancer Research UK) General Practice Research Group, who led a decade-long research enterprise that examined the influence of pharmacological hypothesis-driven research into genetic influences on drug response for smoking cessation with transdermal nicotine replacement therapy in general practice.

METHODS

New and previously published smoking cessation genetic association results of 30 candidate gene polymorphisms genotyped for participants in two transdermal nicotine replacement clinical trials based in UK general practices, which employed an intention to analyze approach.

RESULTS

By this high bar, one of the polymorphisms (COMT rs4680) was robust to correction for multiple comparisons. Moreover, future research directions are outlined; and lessons learned as well as best-practice models for designing, analyzing, and translating results into clinical practice are proposed.

CONCLUSIONS

The results and lessons learned from this general practice-based pharmacogenetic research programme provide transportable insights at the transition to the second generation of pharmacogenetic and genomic investigations of smoking cessation and its translation to primary care.

The cost-effectiveness of intensive pharmaceutical intervention in assisting people to stop smoking

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of intensive pharmaceutical intervention in assisting people to stop smoking.

Method

A randomised control trial was used to evaluate training of pharmacy personnel based on the “stage of change” model. All 76 non-city community pharmacies registered in Grampian were invited to participate. All intervention personnel were invited to attend the training. Control and intervention groups then recruited clients over a 12-month period. Detailed records were kept of the costs borne by the health service, pharmacies and clients. The effectiveness of the training was assessed by comparing the smoking cessation rates of the two groups at one, four and nine months.

Setting

Community pharmacies in the Grampian region of Scotland.

Key findings

Sixty-two pharmacies (82 per cent) were recruited. The training was undertaken by 94 participants (40 pharmacists, 54 assistants). A total of 492 clients (224 intervention, 268 controls) was recruited. Assuming that non-responders had lapsed, intervention subjects tended to be more likely than control subjects to report not smoking at each follow up. As reported previously, one-month point prevalence was 29.9 per cent intervention and 23.6 per cent control (P=0.12); four months' continuous abstinence was achieved by 16.1 per cent in the intervention group and 10.9 per cent of controls (P&lt;0.094) and nine months' continuous abstinence by 12.0 per cent in the intervention group and 7.4 per cent of controls (P&lt;0.089). The cost of producing one additional successful attempt to quit smoking by using intensive rather than standard pharmaceutical support was £300.

Conclusion

The intervention was associated with higher smoking cessation rates, confirming that community pharmacy personnel have the potential to make a significant, cost-effective contribution to smoking cessation.

Smoking cessation reduces postoperative complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to review randomized trials and observational evidence to establish the effect of preoperative smoking cessation on postoperative complications and to determine if there is an optimal cessation period before surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of all randomized trials evaluating the effect of smoking cessation on postoperative complications and all observational studies evaluating the risk of complications among past smokers compared with current smokers. We searched independently, in duplicate, 10 electronic databases and the bibliographies of relevant reviews. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials using a random effects model and performed a meta-regression to examine the impact of time, in weeks, on the magnitude of effect. For observational studies, we pooled proportions of past smokers in comparison with current smokers.

RESULTS

We included 6 randomized trials and 15 observational studies. We pooled the 6 randomized trials and demonstrated a relative risk reduction of 41% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15-59, P = .01) for prevention of postoperative complications. We found that each week of cessation increases the magnitude of effect by 19%. Trials of at least 4 weeks' smoking cessation had a significantly larger treatment effect than shorter trials (P = .04). Observational studies demonstrated important effects of smoking cessation on decreasing total complications (relative risk [RR] 0.76, 95% CI, 0.69-0.84, P < .0001, I(2) = 15%). This also was observed for reduced wound healing complications (RR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.61-0.87, P = .0006, I(2) = 0%) and pulmonary complications (RR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.70-0.93, P = .003, I(2) = 7%). Observational studies examining duration of cessation demonstrated that longer periods of cessation, compared with shorter periods, had an average reduction in total complications of 20% (RR 0.80, 95% CI, 3-33, P = .02, I(2) = 68%).

CONCLUSION

Longer periods of smoking cessation decrease the incidence of postoperative complications.

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

Background

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Effectiveness of extended-duration transdermal nicotine therapy: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Tobacco dependence is a chronic, relapsing condition that may require extended treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether extended-duration transdermal nicotine therapy increases abstinence from tobacco more than standard-duration therapy in adult smokers.

DESIGN

Parallel randomized, placebo-controlled trial from September 2004 to February 2008. Participants and all research personnel except the database manager were blinded to randomization. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00364156)

SETTING

Academic center.

PARTICIPANTS

568 adult smokers.

INTERVENTION

In an unstratified small block-randomization scheme, participants were randomly assigned to standard therapy (Nicoderm CQ [GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina], 21 mg, for 8 weeks and placebo for 16 weeks) or extended therapy (Nicoderm CQ, 21 mg, for 24 weeks).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was biochemically confirmed point-prevalence abstinence at weeks 24 and 52. Secondary outcomes were continuous and prolonged abstinence, lapse and recovery events, cost per additional quitter, and side effects and adherence.

RESULTS

At week 24, extended therapy produced higher rates of point-prevalence abstinence (31.6% vs. 20.3%; odds ratio, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.23 to 2.66]; P = 0.002), prolonged abstinence (41.5% vs. 26.9%; odds ratio, 1.97 [CI, 1.38 to 2.82]; P = 0.001), and continuous abstinence (19.2% vs. 12.6%; odds ratio, 1.64 [CI, 1.04 to 2.60]; P = 0.032) versus standard therapy. Extended therapy reduced the risk for lapse (hazard ratio, 0.77 [CI, 0.63 to 0.95]; P = 0.013) and increased the chances of recovery from lapses (hazard ratio, 1.47 [CI, 1.17 to 1.84]; P = 0.001). Time to relapse was slower with extended versus standard therapy (hazard ratio, 0.50 [CI, 0.35 to 0.73]; P < 0.001). At week 52, extended therapy produced higher quit rates for prolonged abstinence only (P = 0.027). No differences in side effects and adverse events between groups were found at the extended-treatment assessment.

LIMITATION

The generalizability of the findings may be limited because participants were smokers without medical comorbid conditions who were seeking treatment, and differences in adherence across treatment groups were detected.

CONCLUSION

Transdermal nicotine for 24 weeks increased biochemically confirmed point-prevalence abstinence and continuous abstinence at week 24, reduced the risk for smoking lapses, and increased the likelihood of recovery to abstinence after a lapse compared with 8 weeks of transdermal nicotine therapy.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Most people who stop smoking gain weight, on average about 7 kg in the long term. There are some interventions that have been specifically designed to tackle smoking cessation whilst also limiting weight gain. Many smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and other interventions may also limit weight gain.

OBJECTIVES

This review is divided into two parts. (1) Interventions designed specifically to aid smoking cessation and limit post-cessation weight gain (2) Interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that may also plausibly have an effect on weight

SEARCH STRATEGY

Part 1: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register which includes trials indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, SciSearch and PsycINFO, and other reviews and conference abstracts. Part 2: We searched the included studies of Cochrane smoking cessation reviews of nicotine replacement therapy, antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, cannabinoid type 1 receptor antagonists (rimonabant), and exercise interventions, published in Issue 4, 2008 of The Cochrane Library.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Part 1: We included trials of interventions designed specifically to address both smoking cessation and post-cessation weight gain that had measured weight at any follow-up point and/or smoking six months or more after quitting.Part 2: We included trials from the selected Cochrane reviews that could plausibly modify post-cessation weight gain if they had reported weight gain by trial arm at end of treatment or later.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on smoking and weight for part 1 trials, and on weight only for part 2. Abstinence from smoking is expressed as a risk ratio (RR), using the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. The outcome is expressed as the difference in weight change between trial arms from baseline. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking and inverse variance for weight using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We found evidence that pharmacological interventions aimed at reducing post-cessation weight gain resulted in a significant reduction in weight gain at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine (-2.50kg [-2.98kg to -2.02kg], fluoxetine (-0.80kg [-1.27kg to -0.33kg], phenylpropanolamine (PPA) (-0.50kg [-0.80kg to -0.20kg], naltrexone (-0.76kg [-1.51kg to -0.01kg])). No evidence of maintenance of the treatment effect was found at six or 12 months.Among the behavioural interventions, only weight control advice was associated with no reduction in weight gain and with a possible reduction in abstinence. Individualized programmes were associated with reduced weight gain at end of treatment and at 12 months (-2.58kg [-5.11kg to -0.05kg]), and with no effect on abstinence (RR 0.74 [0.39 to 1.43]). Very low calorie diets (-1.30kg (-3.49kg to 0.89kg] at 12 months) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) (-5.20kg (-9.28kg to -1.12kg] at 12 months) were both associated with improved abstinence and reduced weight gain at end of treatment and at long-term follow up.Both bupropion (300mg/day) and fluoxetine (30mg and 60mg/day combined) were found to limit post-cessation weight gain at the end of treatment (-0.76kg [-1.17kg to -0.35kg] I(2)=48%) and -1.30kg [-1.91kg to -0.69kg]) respectively. There was no evidence that the weight reducing effect of bupropion was dose-dependent. The effect of bupropion at one year was smaller and confidence intervals included no effect (-0.38kg [-2.001kg to 1.24kg]).We found no evidence that exercise interventions significantly reduced post-cessation weight gain at end of treatment but evidence for an effect at 12 months (-2.07kg [-3.78kg, -0.36kg]).Treatment with NRT resulted in attenuation of post-cessation weight gain (-0.45kg [-0.70kg, -0.20kg]) at the end of treatment, with no evidence that the effect differed for different forms of NRT. The estimated weight gain reduction was similar at 12 months (-0.42kg [-0.92kg, 0.08kg]) but the confidence intervals included no effect.There were no relevant data on the effect of rimonabant on weight gain.We found no evidence that varenicline significantly reduced post-cessation weight gain at end of treatment and no follow-up data are currently available. One study randomizing successful quitters to 12 more weeks of active treatment showed weight to be reduced by 0.71kg (-1.04kg to -0.38kg). In three studies, participants taking bupropion gained significantly less weight at the end of treatment than those on varenicline (-0.51kg [-0.93kg to -0.09kg]).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural interventions of general advice only are not effective and may reduce abstinence. Individualized interventions, very low calorie diets, and CBT may be effective and not reduce abstinence. Exercise interventions are not associated with reduced weight gain at end of treatment, but may be associated with worthwhile reductions in weight gain in the long term, Bupropion, fluoxetine, nicotine replacement therapy, and probably varenicline all reduced weight gain while being used. Although this effect was not maintained one year after quitting for bupropion, fluoxetine, and nicotine replacement, the evidence is insufficient to exclude a modest long-term effect. The data are not sufficient to make strong clinical recommendations for effective programmes.

Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is temporarily to replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were:To determine the effect of NRT compared to placebo in aiding smoking cessation, and to consider whether there is a difference in effect for the different forms of NRT (chewing gum, transdermal patches, nasal spray, inhalers and tablets/lozenges) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes. To determine whether the effect is influenced by the dosage, form and timing of use of NRT; the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; or the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated. To determine whether combinations of NRT are more likely to lead to successful quitting than one type alone. To determine whether NRT is more or less likely to lead to successful quitting compared to other pharmacotherapies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers with 'nicotine' or 'NRT' in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search July 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or to no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow up of less than six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the type of participants, the dose, duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 132 trials; 111 with over 40,000 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The RR of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.58 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50 to 1.66). The pooled RR for each type were 1.43 (95% CI: 1.33 to 1.53, 53 trials) for nicotine gum; 1.66 (95% CI: 1.53 to 1.81, 41 trials) for nicotine patch; 1.90 (95% CI: 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials) for nicotine inhaler; 2.00 (95% CI: 1.63 to 2.45, 6 trials) for oral tablets/lozenges; and 2.02 (95% CI: 1.49 to 3.73, 4 trials) for nicotine nasal spray. The effects were largely independent of the duration of therapy, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. The effect was similar in a small group of studies that aimed to assess use of NRT obtained without a prescription. In highly dependent smokers there was a significant benefit of 4 mg gum compared with 2 mg gum, but weaker evidence of a benefit from higher doses of patch. There was evidence that combining a nicotine patch with a rapid delivery form of NRT was more effective than a single type of NRT. Only one study directly compared NRT to another pharmacotherapy. In this study quit rates with nicotine patch were lower than with the antidepressant bupropion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All of the commercially available forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhaler and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50-70%, regardless of setting. The effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT.

Varenicline in the routine treatment of tobacco dependence: a pre-post comparison with nicotine replacement therapy and an evaluation in those with mental illness

AIMS

To compare the effectiveness of varenicline with nicotine replacement for smoking cessation and to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of varenicline in people with mental illness.

DESIGN

Evaluation of consecutive routine cases before and after the introduction of varenicline.

SETTING

National Health Service (NHS) tobacco dependence clinic in London, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 412 cases receiving routine care.

INTERVENTION

Seven group support sessions over 6 weeks with either nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (n = 204) or varenicline (n = 208).

MEASUREMENTS

Verified abstinence 4 weeks after quit day, severity of withdrawal symptoms, incidence and severity of adverse drug symptoms, cost per patient treated and cost per successful short-term quitter.

FINDINGS

Short-term cessation rates were higher with varenicline than NRT (odds ratio = 1.70, 95% confidence interval = 1.09-2.67). Varenicline was equally effective in those with and without mental illness. Craving to smoke, but not adverse mood, was less severe with varenicline than NRT. The cost per quitter was similar for varenicline and NRT. There was a higher incidence of adverse drug symptoms among those taking varenicline, but these were tolerated by most smokers. There was no evidence that varenicline exacerbated mental illness.

CONCLUSIONS

In this setting and with group support varenicline appears to improve success rates over those achieved with NRT, and is equally effective and safe in those with and without a mental illness.

Which is the best primary medication for long-term smoking cessation--nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion or varenicline?

Nicotine chewing gum has been available since 1982, when it was shown to increase smoking cessation rates by approximately 1.5- to 2-fold after 12 months. Despite the introduction of many other preparations of nicotine (sublingual, lozenge, transdermal, nasal spray and inhaler) and numerous other clinical trials, there has been no major improvement in effectiveness for smoking cessation, just an increase in the choice of how the nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is administered. Smoking cessation rates with NRT are similar in subjects with serious chest and cardiovascular disorders. There is no evidence that intensive counselling improves the smoking cessation rates with NRT over standard counselling. The first major alternative to NRT introduced for smoking cessation was bupropion, an inhibitor of the neuronal uptake of noradrenaline and dopamine. Bupropion is effective for smoking cessation, and effectiveness is improved by a moderate level of counselling. A long-term direct comparison of bupropion with transdermal nicotine showed than bupropion was more effective than nicotine. Despite this, NRT remains the standard treatment for smoking cessation in many countries. An exciting new development for the treatment of smoking cessation is varenicline, a partial agonist at nicotinic alpha4beta2 receptors. A direct comparison of varenicline with bupropion has shown that varenicline is as least as good as and probably more effective than bupropion for smoking cessation. At present, the number of subjects who have used varenicline in clinical trial is relatively small, and probably does not allow assessment of any rare serious adverse effects. Thus, it may be premature to recommend varenicline for smoking cessation in preference to bupropion.

Transdermal nicotine for smoking cessation in postmenopausal women

This study examined the efficacy of transdermal nicotine in postmenopausal smokers, and whether a history of depression or hormone replacement therapy (HRT) moderated smoking cessation outcomes. Postmenopausal smokers (N=152) received intensive smoking cessation counseling and were randomly assigned to use either a 21-mg nicotine patch for 3 months, with a 1-month taper, or a placebo patch. The primary outcome was biochemically validated 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence during treatment (i.e., 1, 2, 6, and 12 weeks after the quit date) and 1 year after study medication was discontinued. Subjects who received transdermal nicotine were significantly more likely than placebo-treated subjects to remain abstinent from smoking during treatment, but not at the 1-year follow-up. The majority of subjects (>50%) in both groups accurately identified their treatment assignment. History of depression was associated with a decreased likelihood to abstain from smoking throughout the study. HRT did not moderate smoking outcomes. These data indicate that transdermal nicotine may provide short-term benefits for smoking cessation in postmenopausal women. However, efforts are needed to improve long-term abstinence rates and smoking outcomes among women with a history of depression.

Abstinencia de tabaquismo tras 12 meses de seguimiento en una unidad de tabaquismo integral

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To assess the cessation and relapse rates of smoking, and analyze the associated variables in a 12-month follow-up study at a smoking cessation unit.

SUBJECTS AND METHOD

Patients from the Area de Salud 19 of the Conselleria de Sanitat of the Generalitat Valenciana, coming to a smoking cessation unit.

VARIABLES

sociodemographic, smoking habits, smoking social context, psychiatric or medical problems, use of other substances, and treatment. Treatment was administered either individually or in group, and with or without pharmacological support. Type of pharmacological treatment: nicotine replacement therapy and/or bupropion. Evaluation of smoking cessation and relapse: at the end of the treatment, and at follow-up months 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12. Criteria to accept cessation were: it had to be uninterrupted, referred as such by the patient and corroborated by relatives or other witnesses, and supported by a co-oxymetry level < or = 6 ppm.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

description of quantitative and qualitative variables, evaluation of the relationship between relapse rate and follow-up time when it happens by means of Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox regression, construction of curves of prediction of cessation for subjects with different patterns in the independent variables, and estimations of risk of relapse between any 2 subjects, according to those patterns.

RESULTS

255 subjects (46.7% males); 41.8 (10.8) years of mean age (standard deviation); 25 years of mean duration of the smoking habit; a mean of 2 to 3 previous attempts of cessation smoking, mean duration of the longest period of cessation 6 to 7 months; smoking habit 26.5 (12.1) mean of cigarrettes per day, the average nicotine dependency was moderate, and the average co-oxymetry levels high. Of all the subjects included, 53.3% received single therapy (60% together with pharmacological treatment) and 46.7% had group therapy (18.4% also with pharmacological treatment). Pharmacological treatment was 14.9% nicotine replacement therapy, 17.3% bupropion, and 7.1% both. At the end of the treatment, 42.7% of the subjects kept smoking and, at the end of the follow-up period only 11.4% remained abstinent. Median cessation extent was one month. VARIABLES associated to the extent of the cessation: type of therapy (individual or in a group), pharmacological support, and previous daily amount of cigarrette consume.

CONCLUSIONS

There were high relapse rates, that depended on the previous amount of consume and on the treatment applied. Both group therapy and pharmacological treatment are significantly useful in order to obtain the best results in long-term cessation rates.

Effect of incorporating a 10 minute point of care test for salivary nicotine metabolites into a general practice based smoking cessation programme: randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of immediate feedback from a point of care test for salivary nicotine metabolites in promoting smoking cessation and reduction in tobacco use.

DESIGN

Prospective, operator blinded, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

General dental practice, London.

PARTICIPANTS

100 adult smokers.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants completed a questionnaire on smoking, undertook a clinical examination, and received counselling in smoking cessation. Saliva samples were analysed at presentation and at eight weeks for salivary nicotine metabolites using a 10 minute semiquantitative point of care test.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Smoking cessation measured by salivary nicotine metabolite values (scale 0-6), patient feedback on the perceived value of the test (visual analogue scale) in quitting, and reduction in tobacco use.

RESULTS

A higher smoking quit rate was achieved with the point of care test (23% cases v 7% controls; P < 0.039), and overall tobacco use also decreased (68% cases v 28% controls; P < 0.001). Baseline values for salivary nicotine metabolites did not differ between the groups (cases, mean 4.1, SD 1.3 and 4.3, 1.4; P = 0.51). 87 participants reattended at eight weeks (44 cases, 43 controls). Mean nicotine metabolite values at eight weeks were 2.58 (2.0) for cases and 4.29 (1.8) for controls (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Incorporation of individualised personal feedback using a point of care test for salivary nicotine metabolites into a general practice based smoking cessation programme increased quit rates by 17% at eight weeks and reduced tobacco use.

Medication compliance during a smoking cessation clinical trial: a brief intervention using MEMS feedback

This study examined the role of a Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) to assess pill-taking behavior and enhance compliance within a randomized trial of bupropion-SR for smoking cessation. Female participants (N = 97) received MEMS bottles containing bupropion-SR 150 mg or placebo, to be taken twice daily. A randomly selected "feedback" group of participants was told about the recording device in the bottle cap and received weekly graphic feedback showing their pill-taking behavior with specific instructions for improving compliance. A "no-feedback" group was not informed about the MEMS bottles, and did not receive further instruction or feedback beyond the standard dosing instructions. Compliance outcomes were the total doses taken and number of doses taken within the prescribed time interval. Results indicated significantly higher compliance over time for the feedback group. Participation in the feedback group predicted higher compliance beyond demographic, smoking, and health belief variables, suggesting significant benefit in providing brief feedback and instruction throughout the medication regimen.

Increased risk of relapse after stopping nicotine replacement therapies: a mathematical modelling approach

AIMS

To describe the effect of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) on the risk of relapse as a function of time since the quit date.

DATA SOURCES

Meta-analysis of 21 published, randomized, controlled clinical trials, comparing NRT to placebo.

DATA EXTRACTION

A total of 6644 smokers were treated with NRT and 2766 smokers treated with placebo.

DATA SYNTHESIS

During treatment with the medication, NRT reduced the hazard ratio (HR) significantly compared with placebo [early HR = 0.62 (95% CI: 0.58-0.67)]. At the end of the average treatment duration (145 days), the HR was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.71-0.94), showing that the benefit was still present at this time. After stopping treatment, the HR increased progressively up to a value of 1.44 (95% CI, 1.18-1.76) showing that the risk of relapse was higher after stopping NRT than after stopping placebo. If NRT and placebo had not been stopped, the HR of smoking relapse would have been established at 0.95 (95% CI: 0.76-1.18, P = 0.64), indicating a similar risk of relapse with NRT and placebo. Moreover, the observed HR of smoking relapse was significantly higher than the expected HR of smoking relapse if NRT had been continued: the difference in HR is 1.51 (95% CI: 1.16-1.98, P < 0.003). This suggests that if NRT had been been continued, around 50% of relapses could have been prevented.

CONCLUSION

The protective effect of NRT against relapse slowly decreases as a function of time. After stopping NRT, the risk of relapse increases. It may be more beneficial not to stop NRT after the usual 3-6-month treatment period but to use NRT for longer periods of time.

Adherence to nicotine replacement therapy versus quitting smoking among Chinese smokers: a preliminary investigation

RATIONALE

There are over 300 million Chinese smokers, but use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is rare. On the other hand, data on the factors associated with quitting and adherence to NRT use are scarce in the East.

OBJECTIVES

To describe adherence and other predictors of quitting smoking at the 12-month follow-up amongst Chinese smokers in Hong Kong.

METHODS

Chinese smokers (1186) who attended the Smoking Cessation Health Centre from August 2000 through January 2002 were studied. Trained counsellors provided individual counselling and carried out follow-up interviews. We used structured questionnaires at baseline and at 1, 3 and 12 months and an intention-to-treat approach for analysis.

RESULTS

Among those who received NRT (1051/1186), the prevalence of adherence (self-reported NRT use for at least 4 weeks) was 16% (95% confidence interval 14-18%). The 7-day point prevalence quit rate at 12 months (not smoking any cigarette during the past 7 days at the 12 month follow-up) was 27% (95% CI, CI 24-29%). Stepwise logistic regression model showed that adherence to NRT use, a higher income, good perceived health and having more confidence in quitting were significant predictors of quitting. The quit rate in the adherent group (40%) was greater than that of the non-adherent group (25%) (P<0.001). Older age, male, higher education, experience of NRT use, perceiving quitting as more difficult and willingness to pay were significant predictors of adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically significant smoking cessation rates can be achieved among Chinese smokers in a clinic-based smoking cessation service. The NRT adherence was low and low adherence was associated with a lower quit rate. Trials of interventions to improve adherence and increase quit rates are needed.

Experimenter-defined quit dates for smoking cessation: adherence improves outcomes for women but not for men

AIMS

Smoking cessation treatment trials often require that smokers quit on or before a protocol-defined date. The goals of this paper were to: (1) identify factors associated with adherence to a protocol-defined quit date and (2) determine whether such adherence predicts cessation outcome (relapse).

DESIGN

A quasi-experimental secondary analysis of data collected from a randomized placebo-controlled trial of fluoxetine (60 mg or 30 mg) versus placebo for smoking cessation.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Clinic-based smoking cessation treatment program comprising 989 non-depressed smokers.

INTERVENTION

Participants received cognitive behavioral therapy for smoking cessation and either study medication or placebo for 10 weeks. They were required to set a quit date within 2 weeks of their second study visit (by visit 4).

FINDINGS

Significant predictors of quit date adherence were low nicotine dependence and active drug treatment. High-dose fluoxetine (60 mg) and male gender were protective against relapse. Adherence to quit date was not an independent predictor of relapse; instead there was a significant interaction between quit date adherence and gender. Among non-adherers to the quit date, women were more than 2.5 times as likely as men to relapse; among adherers to the quit date, women were only 1.3 times as likely as men to relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

Although women were more likely than men to relapse regardless of quit date adherence, adherence was strongly protective against relapse for women.

Clonidine for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Clonidine was originally used to lower blood pressure. It acts on the central nervous system and may reduce withdrawal symptoms in various addictive behaviours, including tobacco use.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to determine clonidine's effectiveness in helping smokers to quit.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for trials of clonidine. Date of the most recent search: May 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized trials of clonidine versus placebo with a smoking cessation endpoint assessed at least 12 weeks following the end of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the type of subjects, the dose and duration of clonidine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least 12 weeks follow up in patients smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials met the inclusion criteria. There were three trials of oral, and three of transdermal clonidine. Some form of behavioural counselling was offered to all participants in five of the six trials. There was a statistically significant effect of clonidine in one of these trials. The pooled odds ratio for success with clonidine versus placebo was 1.89 (95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.74). There was a high incidence of dose-dependent side-effects, particularly dry mouth and sedation.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on a small number of trials, in which there are potential sources of bias, clonidine is effective in promoting smoking cessation. Prominent side-effects limit the usefulness of clonidine for smoking cessation.

Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This reduces withdrawal symptoms associated with smoking cessation thus helping resist the urge to smoke cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were:to determine the effectiveness of the different forms of NRT (chewing gum, transdermal patches, nasal spray, inhalers and tablets) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes, or a sustained reduction in amount smoked; to determine whether the effect is influenced by the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated, the dosage and form of the NRT used, or the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; to determine whether combinations of NRT are more effective than one type alone; to determine its effectiveness compared to other pharmacotherapies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register in March 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or to no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow up of less than six months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on the type of participants, the dose, duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. For each study we calculated summary odds ratios. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 123 trials; 103 contributing to the primary comparison between NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The odds ratio (OR) for abstinence with NRT compared to control was 1.77 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.66 to 1.88). The ORs for the different forms of NRT were 1.66 (95% CI: 1.52 to 1.81) for gum, 1.81 (95% CI: 1.63 to 2.02) for patches, 2.35 (95% CI: 1.63 to 3.38) for nasal spray, 2.14 (95% CI: 1.44 to 3.18) for inhaled nicotine and 2.05 (95% CI: 1.62 to 2.59) for nicotine sublingual tablet/lozenge. These odds were largely independent of the duration of therapy, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. In highly dependent smokers there was a significant benefit of 4 mg gum compared with 2 mg gum (OR 2.20, 95% CI: 1.85 to 3.25). There was weak evidence that combinations of forms of NRT are more effective. Higher doses of nicotine patch may produce small increases in quit rates. Only one study directly compared NRT to another pharmacotherapy. In this study quit rates with bupropion were higher than with nicotine patch or placebo.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

All of the commercially available forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhaler and sublingual tablets/lozenges) are effective as part of a strategy to promote smoking cessation. They increase the odds of quitting approximately 1.5 to 2 fold regardless of setting. The effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the smoker. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT.

Effects of continuous nicotine infusion on nicotine self-administration in rats: relationship between continuously infused and self-administered nicotine doses and serum concentrations

RATIONALE

The efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for smoking cessation is limited. One reason for this limited efficacy may be that typical serum nicotine concentrations provided by NRT do not match the peak arterial nicotine concentrations achieved from smoking.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to determine whether continuous nicotine infusion at a rate producing serum nicotine concentrations that match the estimated peak arterial nicotine concentrations associated with nicotine self-administration (NSA) in rats produces greater suppression of NSA than lower infusion rates.

METHODS

The effects of continuous nicotine infusion were studied by intravenously administering nicotine at various rates (1.0, 3.0, and 8.0 mg/kg per day) to rats concurrently self-administering nicotine (0.03 mg/kg per infusion) during 23-h sessions or cocaine (0.17 mg/kg per infusion) during 2-h sessions.

RESULTS

Continuous nicotine infusion suppressed NSA in a rate-related fashion. NSA was suppressed by 17, 50, and 73% at infusion rates of 1.0, 3.0 and 8.0 mg/kg per day, respectively. The 8.0-mg/kg per day infusion rate, which provided venous serum nicotine concentrations equaling the peak arterial concentrations associated with NSA, suppressed NSA to a greater extent than lower infusion rates. The 8.0-mg/kg per day nicotine infusion rate had no effect on cocaine-maintained responding, demonstrating that its effects were specific for suppression of NSA. This infusion rate provided a mean percentage replacement of nicotine from NSA of more than 700%. Reacquisition of NSA after suppression by the two highest infusion rates was delayed compared with reacquisition after saline extinction.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous nicotine infusion produced an infusion rate-related suppression of NSA that was greatest when the infusion provided nicotine doses and venous serum concentrations substantially higher than those typically associated with NRT in humans.

A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 1-year study of bupropion SR for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Bupropion sustained release (bupropion SR) has been shown to increase smoking cessation success rates in the US studies.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether bupropion SR, in combination with counselling, is effective for smoking cessation in a multi-country study.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled 707 smokers. A total of 527 received bupropion SR 300 mg daily for 7 weeks and 180 received placebo. A total of 11 clinic visits and 10 telephone contacts were scheduled, during the course of 1 year. Seven-week and 12-month abstinence rates were the study outcomes.

RESULTS

Both continuous and weekly point prevalence smoking abstinence rates were significantly higher in the bupropion SR group compared with placebo. The continuous abstinence rate from weeks 4 to 7 was 46% in the bupropion SR group compared with 23% in the placebo group [odds ratio (OR) = 2.82; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.89-4.28; P < 0.001). At month 12, the continuous abstinence rates were 21% for the bupropion SR group and 11% for the placebo group (OR = 2.19; 95% CI 1.29-3.86, P = 0.002). For most nicotine-withdrawal symptoms small changes were measured. Adverse events were higher for the bupropion SR group compared with placebo (insomnia 24% vs. 15%; dry mouth 13% vs. 5%).

CONCLUSION

Bupropion SR in combination with counselling increased the abstinence rate compared with placebo, and was well tolerated.

One year effectiveness of an individualised smoking cessation intervention at the workplace: a randomised controlled trial

AIMS

To assess the effectiveness of a smoking cessation intervention at the workplace. The intervention was adapted to smokers' tobacco dependence, and included minimal structured counselling at the first visit (5-8 minutes), nicotine patches for three months, and three sessions of counselling for reinforcement of abstinence (2-3 minutes) over a three month period.

METHODS

Open randomised trial with two groups: the intervention group, and the control group which was subjected to standard clinical practice, consisting of short (30 seconds to one minute) sporadic sessions of unstructured medical antismoking advice. The trial was carried out among 217 smokers of both sexes, aged 20-63 years, motivated to quit smoking and without contraindications for nicotine patches, who were employees at a public transport company and at two worksites of an electric company. The main outcome measure was self reported tobacco abstinence confirmed by carbon monoxide in expired air </=10 ppm. Analysis was performed according to intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

The rate of continuous abstinence at 12 months was 20.2% for the intervention versus 8.7% for the control group (OR: 2.58; 95% CI: 1.13 to 5.90; p = 0.025). In subgroup analyses, effectiveness of the intervention did not vary substantially with age, tobacco dependence, number of cigarettes smoked per day, number of years of tobacco consumption, degree of desire to quit smoking, time spent with smokers, subjective health, and presence of tobacco related symptoms. Weight gain at 12 months was similar for both groups (1.69 kg in the intervention v 2.01 kg in the control group; p = 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

A simple and easily generalisable intervention at the workplace is effective to achieve long term smoking cessation. In a setting similar to ours, nine subjects would have to be treated for three months for one to achieve continuous abstinence for 12 months.

A meta-analysis of the efficacy of over-the-counter nicotine replacement

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether over-the-counter (OTC) nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is pharmacologically efficacious, whether it produces abstinence rates similar to those in prescription settings, and to estimate the long term (that is, greater than six month) abstinence rate with OTC NRT.

METHOD

Systematic literature review.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Psych Abstracts, bibliographies, requests of scientists.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies comparing OTC NRT versus OTC placebo or studies comparing OTC NRT versus prescription NRT that reported abstinence rates and for which a full study report was available.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two of the authors independently reviewed studies and compared results.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Meta-analysis was performed by first testing for homogeneity across studies, then combining odds ratios (ORs) weighting by inverse variance and proportions weighting by study sample size.

RESULTS

One OTC NRT versus OTC placebo nicotine gum study was excluded due to small sample size and different setting. The four remaining studies were randomised trials of nicotine versus placebo patch with ORs of 2.1-3.2. These outcomes were homogenous and when combined resulted in an OR favouring NRT of 2.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8 to 3.6). Among the two randomised and two non-randomised trials of OTC NRT versus prescription NRT, one small study had an OR of 0.3, two others had ORs of 1.0 and 1.4, and a fourth study had an OR of 3.6. These results were not homogenous; however, when combined via a random effects model the estimated OR was not less than 1.0--that is, OR 1.4 (95% CI 0.6 to 3.3). The long term (that is, greater than six months) quit rates for OTC NRT was 1% and 6% in two studies and 8-11% in five other studies. These results were not homogenous; however, when combined the estimated OR was 7% (95% CI 4% to 11%).

CONCLUSIONS

OTC NRT is pharmacologically efficacious and produces modest quit rates similar to that seen in real world prescription practice.

Tolerability and safety of sustained-release bupropion in the management of smoking cessation

Sustained-release bupropion (bupropion SR) was first launched in the US in 1997 as an aid to smoking cessation and has since been launched in many other countries. Adverse events associated with the use of bupropion SR at the recommended dosage of 150mg twice daily in clinical trials most commonly included insomnia, headache, dry mouth, nausea and anxiety; insomnia and anxiety are also recognised as symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. Only insomnia and dry mouth occurred significantly more frequently with bupropion SR than with placebo. Relative to placebo, no significant changes in mean values for heart rate, blood pressure or routine laboratory parameters have been reported in smokers using bupropion SR alone in clinical trials. When bupropion SR was compared with a nicotine transdermal patch in a clinical trial, insomnia predominated in the bupropion SR group, while dream abnormalities were more common in smokers using the nicotine patch. Bupropion SR and the nicotine transdermal patch in combination can be used safely (with appropriate monitoring) as an aid to smoking cessation. Infrequent but clinically important adverse reactions to bupropion SR include seizures and hypersensitivity reactions: in controlled clinical trials of bupropion SR (300 mg/day), where smokers were carefully screened for risk factors for seizure, the incidence of both seizures and severe hypersensitivity reactions was approximately 0.1% for each event. In order to avoid a risk of seizure of greater than 0.1%, smokers should be screened for predisposing risk factors and adhere to the manufacturer's dosage recommendations (maximum daily dose of 300mg). Thus, bupropion SR is generally well tolerated, as seen by the low discontinuation rate due to an adverse event in clinical trials (6 to 12%). The most common adverse events (insomnia and dry mouth) are generally transient and often resolve quickly without therapeutic intervention; they can be managed if necessary by a reduction in bupropion dose.

Understanding people who smoke and how they change: a foundation for smoking cessation in primary care, part 1

The purpose of this article is to develop an understanding of people who smoke and how they change as a foundation for the delivery of smoking cessation interventions in primary care. Central to our approach is the transtheoretical model of change (TMC). The TMC is an evidence-based model of behavior change that has been developed and tested during the past 2 decades by Prochaska and his colleagues in the context of smoking cessation. We use a review of the literature, in-depth interviews of people who successfully quit smoking, and our experience applying the TMC in the context of primary care and a smoking cessation clinic to explore the clinical work of smoking cessation. This article on smoking cessation will be presented in 2 issues. Part 1 describes the theoretical information known about smoking cessation: why smoking is a powerful behavior, the scientific background of the TMC, and the building-block constructs of the TMC. The first section of part 2 is a review of the Public Health Service clinical practice guideline, Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence, published in 2000. The second section of part 2 is a discussion of clinical assessments and strategies for working with smokers, which is grounded in the Public Health Service practice guideline, our understanding of people who smoke, and the TMC. Woven throughout are transcripts of interviews with 4 people in which they describe their smoking experiences and their pathways to cessation.