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

2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, chronic symptomatic, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and acute limb ischemia).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2020 to June 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that was published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2023 during the peer review process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from the "2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with peripheral artery disease have been developed.

2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, chronic symptomatic, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and acute limb ischemia).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2020 to June 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that was published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2023 during the peer review process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from the "2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with peripheral artery disease have been developed.

Anti-smoking drugs cytisine and varenicline reduce cardiac reperfusion injury in rat model of myocardial ischemia

Evidence to date indicates that activation of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) can reduce cardiac injury from ischemia and subsequent reperfusion. The use of nAChR agonists in various animal models leads to a reduction in reperfusion injury. Earlier this effect was shown for the agonists of α7 nAChR subtype. In this work, we demonstrated the expression of mRNA encoding α4, α6 and β2 nAChR subunits in the left ventricle of rat heart. In a rat model of myocardial ischemia, we studied the effect of α4β2 nAChR agonists cytisine and varenicline, medicines used for the treatment of nicotine addiction, and found them to significantly reduce myocardium ischemia-reperfusion injury, varenicline manifesting a higher protection. Dihydro-β-erythroidine, antagonist of α4β2 nAChR, as well as methyllycaconitine, antagonist of α7 and α6β2-containing nAChR, prevented protective effect of varenicline. This together with the presence of α4, α6 and β2 subunit mRNA in the left ventricule of rat heart raises the possibility that the varenicline effect is mediated by α4β2 as well as by α7 and/or α6β2-containing receptors. Our results point to a new way for the use of cytisine and varenicline as cardioprotective agents.

Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Smoking Increase the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapy

Tobacco smoking has been a recognized risk factor for cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Smoking is a chronic relapsing disease and pharmacotherapy is a main component of smoking cessation. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and smoking both increase the risk of CVD and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There are few existing data examining how pharmacological treatment, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, and varenicline, affect smokers suffering with OSA and especially their cardiovascular effects. The aim of this review was to evaluate the effects of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy on OSA with a special emphasis on the cardiovascular system. Results: Only small studies have assessed the effect of NRTs on OSA. Nicotine gum administration showed an improvement in respiratory events but with no permanent results. No specific studies were found on the effect of bupropion on OSA, and a limited number evaluated varenicline's effects on sleep and specifically OSA. Varenicline administration in smokers suffering from OSA reduced the obstructive respiratory events, especially during REM. Studies on second-line medication (nortriptyline, clonidine, cytisine) are even more limited. There are still no studies evaluating the cardiovascular effects of smoking cessation medications on OSA patients. Conclusions: Sleep disturbances are common withdrawal effects during smoking cessation but could be also attributed to pharmacotherapy. Smokers should receive personalized treatment during their quitting attempts according to their individual needs and problems, including OSA. Future studies are needed in order to evaluate the efficacy and safety of smoking cessation medications in OSA patients.

The utility of the self-controlled study design for pharmacoepidemiological studies without an active comparator medication using a medical information database: An application to assess the risk of varenicline on cardiovascular outcomes

PURPOSE

To illustrate the utility of the self-controlled study design for studies without an active comparator, we compared the results of a cohort design study with a non-user comparator with those of a self-controlled design study in evaluating the risk of varenicline on cardiovascular outcomes, using a Japanese medical claims database.

METHODS

The participating smokers were identified from health-screening results collected between May 2008 and April 2017. Using a non-user-comparator cohort study design, we estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of varenicline on initial hospitalization with cardiovascular outcomes using Cox's model adjusted for patients' sex, age, medical history, medication history, and health-screening results. Using a self-controlled study design, the within-subject HR was estimated using a stratified Cox's model adjusted for medical history, medication history, and health-screening results. The estimate from a recent meta-analysis was considered the gold standard (risk ratio: 1.03).

RESULTS

We identified 460 464 smokers (398 694 males [86.6%]; mean (standard deviation) age: 42.9 [10.8] years) in the database. Of these, 11 561 had been dispensed varenicline at least once, and 4511 had experienced cardiovascular outcomes. The estimate of the non-user-comparator cohort study design exceeded the gold standard (HR [95% CI]: 2.04 [1.22-3.42]), whereas that of the self-controlled study design was close to the gold standard (within-subject HR [95% CI]: 1.12 [0.27-4.70]).

CONCLUSIONS

The self-controlled study design is useful alternative to a non-user-comparator cohort design when evaluating the risk of medications relative to their non-use, based on a medical information database.

Safety and efficacy of early varenicline prescription in hospitalized patients with acute myocardial infarction: East Asian population

BACKGROUND

Smoking is a strong risk factor for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Varenicline is commonly used as a smoking cessation medication, but little is known about its usage in patients with AMI, particularly in hospitalized patients.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational, single-center study collected from May 2018 to July 2021. Study patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for AMI. The primary end point was set as safety of varenicline, focusing on any serious adverse cardiac events within 24 weeks after treatment. Efficacy of smoking abstinence was also assessed through self-reports of complete abstinence over a week before the 24- week clinic visit.

RESULTS

A total of 162 patients hospitalized with AMI were enrolled in our study. Mean age was 56.7 ± 9.95 years and 97% of the patients were male. Most patients (93.2%) received their first dose of varenicline during hospitalization. Time from admission to first dose of study medication was 2.31 ± 2.73 days and duration of drug intake was 7.41 ± 5.18 weeks. At week 24, only one patient had recurrent myocardial infarction, five patients had undergone revascularization for target lesion failure, and no additional patients developed stroke or died. In terms of efficacy, the rate of smoking abstinence was 79%. Light smokers found it easier to quit smoking than heavy smokers.

CONCLUSION

This study may represent the first report on the safety and efficacy of early initiation of varenicline treatment in East Asian population hospitalized due to AMI who recently underwent percutaneous coronary intervention.

[Questions and Answers in Tobacco Smoking]

Smoking is an addictive, chronic and relapsing disease that, due to its high prevalence, morbidity and mortality, has become one of the main public health problems worldwide, affecting both smokers and rest of population involuntarily exposed to smoke tobacco.To overcome this pandemic, it is essential that all health professionals intervene on the problem in a manner adapted to their level of care, from giving brief advice for stop smoking to proposing intensive cognitive-behavioral and pharmacological treatment.Smoking cessation treatments have proven to be safe and effective, but unfortunately, the personal and economic resources dedicated to smoker care are not proportional to the magnitude of the problem, with few specialized consultations and lack of funding for pharmacological treatments.In addition, we must confront the arguments of the tobacco industry that interferes in the fight against smoking with new products that they pretend to offer as «harm reduction strategies» when really it is their way of attracting new addicts to tobacco products.

Safety and Effectiveness of Varenicline in Korean Smokers: A Nationwide Post-Marketing Surveillance Study

PURPOSE

Varenicline has demonstrated its safety and efficacy in Western studies including <3% of Asian participants. This prospective multi-center observational study investigated the safety and effectiveness of varenicline in Korean smokers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Smokers prescribed varenicline for the first time were enrolled from 252 medical institutions. Investigators recorded and graded all adverse events (AEs). To assess the effectiveness of varenicline, the 7-day point prevalence (PP) of smoking cessation was evaluated at the four visits during the 12-week treatment course. Rates of AE incidence and smoking cessation were analyzed using Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00483002.

RESULTS

A total of 3719 and 3700 study subjects were included in the safety and effectiveness analyses, respectively. Overall, 346 (9.3%) subjects experienced 471 AEs: 358 mild, 97 moderate, 9 severe, and 7 serious. The most frequent AEs were nausea (5.1%), dyspepsia (0.8%), abnormal dreams (0.8%), insomnia (0.8%), and headache (0.7%). Among the subjects with AEs, 73 subjects discontinued treatment, of which 68 were due to AE occurrence. The 7-day PP of smoking cessation at weeks 1-2, 3-6, 7-10, and ≥ week 11 were 51.7% (387/749), 59.6% (1740/2922), 73.3% (1114/1520), and 77.0% (1116/1449), respectively (p for trend = 0.023). Comorbidities and allergies were associated with a higher incidence of AEs and lower smoking cessation rate (p < 0.05). Younger subjects, infrequent alcohol drinkers, and lighter smokers showed a higher smoking cessation rate (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Varenicline in adult Korean smokers was well tolerated and effective as a smoking cessation aid in routine clinical practice.

Comparison of Cardiovascular Safety for Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapies in a Population-Based Cohort in Australia

IMPORTANCE

Although concerns exist regarding a potential increased risk of cardiovascular events for smoking cessation pharmacotherapies, there is general consensus that any increased risk associated with their use would be outweighed by the benefits of smoking cessation; thus, clinical guidelines recommend that such pharmacotherapies be offered to everyone who wants to quit smoking. In the interest of minimizing risk to patients, prescribers need evidence indicating how these pharmacotherapies compare with one another in terms of cardiovascular safety.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among individuals initiating varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) patches, or bupropion.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective, population-based cohort study using linked pharmaceutical dispensing, hospital admissions, and death data was conducted in New South Wales, Australia. Participants included adults who were dispensed a prescription smoking cessation pharmacotherapy between 2008 and 2015 or between 2011 and 2015, depending on the availability of the pharmacotherapies being compared. Pairwise comparisons were conducted for risk of MACE among 122 932 varenicline vs 92 148 NRT initiators; 342 064 varenicline vs 10 457 bupropion initiators; and 102 817 NRT vs 6056 bupropion initiators.

EXPOSURE

First course of the smoking cessation pharmacotherapy of interest.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was MACE, defined as a composite of acute coronary syndrome, stroke, and cardiovascular death. Secondary outcomes were the individual components of MACE. Inverse probability of treatment weighting with high-dimensional propensity scores was used to account for potential confounding. Cox proportional hazards regression models with robust variance were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. Data were analyzed January 24, 2019, to September 1, 2021.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) age of included individuals ranged from 41.9 (14.2) to 49.8 (14.9) years, and the proportion of women ranged from 42.8% (52 702 of 123 128) to 52.2% (53 693 of 102 913). The comparison of 122 932 varenicline initiators and 92 148 NRT patch initiators showed no difference in the risk of MACE (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72-1.07) nor in the risk of the secondary outcomes of acute coronary syndrome (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76-1.21) and stroke (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.45-1.14). However, decreased risk of cardiovascular death was found among varenicline initiators (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.79). The results of comparisons involving bupropion were inconclusive owing to wide confidence intervals (eg, risk of MACE: 342 064 varenicline vs 10 457 bupropion initiators, HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.53-1.41]; 102 817 NRT patch vs 6056 bupropion initiators, HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.39-1.62]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The finding of this cohort study that varenicline and NRT patch use have similar risk of MACE suggests that varenicline, the most efficacious smoking cessation pharmacotherapy, may be prescribed instead of NRT patches without increasing risk of major cardiovascular events. Further large-scale studies of the cardiovascular safety of varenicline and NRT relative to bupropion are needed.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

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

PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTIONS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

DATA SOURCES

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

REVIEW METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

FUTURE WORK

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

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

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

Therapeutic concentrations of varenicline increases exocytotic release of catecholamines from human and rat adrenal chromaffin cells in the presence of nicotine

Cardiovascular side effects of varenicline and a case report of a hypertensive crisis in a varenicline-prescribed patient with pheochromocytoma have been reported. The goal of the present study was to determine whether such side effects might derive, in part, from increased exocytosis of secretory vesicles and subsequent catecholamine release triggered by varenicline in human chromaffin cells of the adrenal gland. In this study, we performed electrophysiological plasma membrane capacitance and carbon fiber amperometry experiments to evaluate the effect of varenicline on exocytosis and catecholamine release, respectively, at concentrations reached during varenicline therapy (100 nM). Experiments were conducted in the absence or presence of nicotine, at plasma concentrations achieved right after smoking (250 nM) or steady-state concentrations (110 nM), in chromaffin cells of the adrenal gland obtained from human organ donors. Cells were stimulated with short pulses (10 ms) of acetylcholine (ACh; 300 μM) applied at 0.2 Hz, in order to closer mimic the physiological situation at the splanchnic nerve-chromaffin cell synapse. In addition, rat chromaffin cells were used to compare the effects obtained in cells from a more readily available species. Varenicline increased the exocytosis of secretory vesicles in human and rat chromaffin cells in the presence of nicotine, effects that were not due to an increase of plasma membrane capacitance or currents triggered by the nicotinic agonists alone. These results should be considered in nicotine addiction therapies when varenicline is used.

Risk of neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular adverse events following treatment with varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink: a case-cross-over study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) are the most commonly used medications to quit smoking. Given their widespread use, monitoring adverse risks remains important. This study aimed to estimate the neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular risks associated with varenicline and NRT as used in routine UK care.

DESIGN

Case-cross-over study.

SETTING

UK-based electronic primary care records in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink from 2006 to 2015 linked to hospital and mortality data sets.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult smokers (n =282,429) observed during periods when exposed and not exposed to either varenicline or NRT.

MEASUREMENTS

Main outcomes included suicide, self-harm, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause death and cause-specific death [MI, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)]. In primary analyses, conditional logistic regression was used to compare the chance of varenicline or NRT exposure during the risk period (90 days prior to the event) with the chance of exposure during an earlier single reference period (91-180 days prior to the event) or multiple 90-day reference periods to increase statistical power.

FINDINGS

In the primary analyses, findings were inconclusive for the associations between varenicline and the main outcomes using a single reference period, while NRT was associated with MI [odds ratio (OR) = 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.18-1.67]. Using multiple reference periods, varenicline was associated with an increased risk of self-harm (OR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.12-1.56) and suicide (OR = 3.56, 95% CI = 1.32-9.60) but a reduction in all-cause death (OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.61-0.93). NRT was associated with MI (OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.36-1.74), self-harm (OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.18-1.44) and deaths from MI (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.11-2.10), COPD (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.14-1.56) and all causes (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.18-1.40) when using multiple reference periods.

CONCLUSIONS

There appear to be positive associations between (1) nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and myocardial infarction, death and risk of self-harm and (2) varenicline and increased risk of self-harm and suicide, as well as a negative association between varenicline and all-cause death. The associations may not be causal. They may reflect health changes at the time of smoking cessation (nicotine replacement therapy is prescribed for people with cardiac problems) or be associated with quit attempts (exposure to both medicines was associated with self-harm).

A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial of Remote Varenicline Sampling to Promote Treatment Engagement and Smoking Cessation

INTRODUCTION

Medication sampling is a clinically useful tool to engage smokers in the quitting process. Whether varenicline is suitable for sampling purposes is unclear. The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility, uptake, and preliminary outcomes of varenicline sampling.

METHODS

Smokers (N = 99), both motivated to quit and not, were recruited and randomized to varenicline sampling versus not, with 12 week follow-up. The intervention consisted of mailing one-time samples of varenicline (lasting 2-4 wks), with minimally suggestive guidance on use.

RESULTS

Uptake of varenicline was strong, at 2 weeks (54% any use, 66% daily use) and 4 weeks (38%, 46%), with 58% of medication users seeking additional medication. Most users followed conventional titration patterns, self-titrating from 0.5 mg to 2 mg. Relative to control, varenicline sampling increased motivation (p = 0.006) and confidence to quit (p = 0.02), and decreased cigarette smoking (p = 0.02). Smokers receiving varenicline samples were significantly more likely to achieve 50% reduction in cigarettes per day (CPD), both immediately following the sampling exercise (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 4.12; 95% CI: 1.39 to 12.17) and at final follow-up (AOR = 4.50; 95% CI: 1.56 to 13.01). Though cessation outcomes were not statistically significant, there was a 1.5 to 3-fold increase in quit attempts and abstinence from varenicline sampling throughout follow-up. These outcomes were comparable among smokers motivated to quit and not.

CONCLUSIONS

Unguided, user-driven sampling of varenicline sampling is a concrete behavioral exercise that is feasible to do and seems to suggest clinical utility. Sampling is a pragmatic clinical approach to engage more smokers in quitting.

IMPLICATIONS

Use of evidence-based pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation is low. Medication sampling is a pragmatic behavioral exercise that allows smokers to experience the benefits of using them, while promoting positive downstream effects towards quitting. While previous studies have shown that nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) sampling is viable and effective, whether this extends to varenicline is unclear. Results from this trial demonstrate that varenicline sampling is feasible, safe, and suggestive of clinically important steps toward quitting, deserving of a larger trial.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT #03742154.

Smoking cessation: strategies and effects in primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention

Although smoking is seen as a major health problem by most clinicians, few are able to provide evidence based smoking cessation interventions to their patients. Most individuals who smoke actually want to quit. Unfortunately, smoking is still seen as a vice or lifestyle choice, when it is actually a chronic disease which often starts in adolescence. Nicotine dependence is complex and must be quantified and treated differently for each patient in order to achieve high quit rates. Smoking has a significant impact on the development and progression of cardiovascular disease. Smoking cessation is a cost effective and often overlooked prevention tool which improves both short- and long-term outcomes. There are both pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies for smoking cessation that can be applied in clinical practice. Brief advice, specialized counseling including therapeutic education and behavioral support, and first- and second-line pharmacological interventions have been proven to be effective to help smokers quit. Although classically tobacco dependence was seen in relation to smoking, since the early 2000s, new nicotine delivery systems have appeared on the market, which despite being marketed as "healthy" alternatives, can often complicate smoking cessation efforts and act as gateway devices for new generations of smokers. In this article we review the results of several large systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which have shown that many cessation strategies are effective. We also offer practical tips on providing brief cessation advice and how pharmacotherapy can be prescribed and incorporated into clinical practice in both primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention.

Initiating Pharmacologic Treatment in Tobacco-Dependent Adults. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Background: Current tobacco treatment guidelines have established the efficacy of available interventions, but they do not provide detailed guidance for common implementation questions frequently faced in the clinic. An evidence-based guideline was created that addresses several pharmacotherapy-initiation questions that routinely confront treatment teams.

Methods: Individuals with diverse expertise related to smoking cessation were empaneled to prioritize questions and outcomes important to clinicians. An evidence-synthesis team conducted systematic reviews, which informed recommendations to answer the questions. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to rate the certainty in the estimated effects and the strength of recommendations.

Results: The guideline panel formulated five strong recommendations and two conditional recommendations regarding pharmacotherapy choices. Strong recommendations include using varenicline rather than a nicotine patch, using varenicline rather than bupropion, using varenicline rather than a nicotine patch in adults with a comorbid psychiatric condition, initiating varenicline in adults even if they are unready to quit, and using controller therapy for an extended treatment duration greater than 12 weeks. Conditional recommendations include combining a nicotine patch with varenicline rather than using varenicline alone and using varenicline rather than electronic cigarettes.

Conclusions: Seven recommendations are provided, which represent simple practice changes that are likely to increase the effectiveness of tobacco-dependence pharmacotherapy.

Varenicline: mode of action, efficacy, safety and accumulated experience salient for clinical populations

Objective: Varenicline, a selective partial agonist of the α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, is a smoking cessation pharmacotherapy that more than doubles the chance of quitting smoking at 6 months compared with placebo. This article reviews salient knowledge of the discovery, pharmacological characteristics, and the efficacy and safety of varenicline in general and in specific populations of smokers and provides recommendations to support use in clinical practice.Methods: Literature searches for varenicline were conducted using PubMed, with date limitations of 2000-2018 inclusive, using search terms covering the discovery, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety in different populations of smokers, alternative quit approaches and combination therapy. Selection of safety and efficacy data was limited to clinical trials, meta-analyses and observational studies.Results: Standard administration of varenicline is efficacious in helping smokers to quit, including smokers with cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Furthermore, varenicline efficacy may be improved with pre-loading, a gradual quitting approach for smokers unwilling or unable to quit abruptly, and extended treatment in smokers who have recently quit to help maintain abstinence. Initial concerns regarding the association of varenicline with increased risk of neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular adverse events have been disproven after extensive clinical evaluations, and the benefit-risk profile of varenicline is considered favorable.Conclusions: Varenicline is efficacious and safe for all adult smokers with a range of clinical characteristics. Evidence suggests that approaches offering greater flexibility in timing and duration of treatment may further extend treatment efficacy and clinical reach.

Efficacy of guided self-change for smoking cessation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: A randomized controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of guided self-change (GSC), nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and their combination, on smoking cessation among patients with COPD.

METHODS

A total of 60 participants were randomly assigned to three groups for GSC (n=20), nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (n=20) or their combination (n=20), from December 2016 to November 2017. The quality of life (QoL) questionnaire, clinical assessment test (CAT) and exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), were measured at baseline and post-treatment.

RESULTS

At 6, 12, and 29 weeks, the abstinence rate in the NRT group was 5.3%, 15.8% and 21.1%, in the GSC group 21.1%, 31.6% and 47.4%, and in the combined group 36.8%, 36.8% and 47.4%, respectively. The exhaled CO in the NRT group was greater than the GSC group, however this difference was not statistically significant (3.4; 95% CI: -0.24–7.0; p=0.067), CO levels in the combined group were less than the GSC group, while this difference was also not significant (-0.75; 95% CI : -4.2–2.7; p=0.68). CAT and QoL recovery in the GSC and combined groups were higher than in the NRT group (9.2; 95% CI: 5.0–13.4; p=0.001) and (-4.5; 95% C: -8.1– -0.6; p=0.02), respectively. However, differences between combined and GSC groups were not significant (p=0.24 and p=0.41, respectively). There was a statistically significant difference between the abstinence rate in the GSC or combined group and the NRT group (p=0.001). The GEE model showed that GSC reduced the odds of smoking compared with the NRT group (interaction group effect) (OR=0.31, 95% CI: 0.022–0.545; p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In our context among COPD patients, GSC was more effective in decreasing smoking than NRT alone. Moreover, the recovery of exhaled carbon monoxide, CAT and QoL in GSC was more than in the NRT group. Moreover, since GSC was as effective as GSC plus NRT, the effectiveness of the combination method for smoking cessation in COPD patients may be attributed to GSC.

Clinical trial registration details: IRCT201609271457N11; www.irct.ir

Combined nicotine patch with gum versus nicotine patch alone in smoking cessation in Hong Kong primary care clinics: a randomised controlled trial

Background

The prevalence of daily cigarette smoking has dropped to 10% in Hong Kong (HK) in 2017, however, smoking still kills 5700 persons per year. Studies suggest that abstinence rates are higher with combined NRT than single NRT, although local data on safety and benefits of combined NRT are lacking. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of combined NRT with single NRT among HK Chinese.

Methods

This is a one-year, two-arm, parallel randomised trial. Five hundred sixty smokers, who smoked ≥10 cigarettes/day for ≥1 year, were randomized to combined and single NRT. Combined NRT group received counseling and nicotine patch & gum. Single NRT group received counselling and nicotine patch. Primary outcome was abstinence rate measured as self-reported 7-day point prevalence with CO validated at 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes included smoking abstinence rates at 4, 12, & 26 weeks. Crude odds ratio and p-value were reported from logistic regression without adjustment; for trend analysis, adjusted odds ratio (AOR) and p-value were reported from Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) (controlling for time). All AORs were adjusted for age, sex, baseline CO and clusters.

Results

Abstinence rates at 4, 12, 26 and 52 weeks were all higher in the combined NRT group (35.8, 21.9, 16.8, 20.1%) compared with the single NRT group (28, 16.8, 11.2, 14.3%). At 4 weeks, combined NRT group was more likely to quit smoking (OR 1.43, 95% CI, 1.00 to 2.05) than the single NRT group. From GEE analysis, combined NRT group had a significantly higher abstinence rate (23.6%) than the single NRT group (17.6%) across repeated measures at all-time points. Combined NRT group was more likely to quit smoking (OR 1.43, 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.77). No significant difference in the side effect profile was detected between groups.

Conclusions

Smokers given 8 weeks of combined NRT were more likely to quit smoking at 4, 12, 26 and 52 weeks compared with single NRT. Combined NRT was as well tolerated as single NRT and it should be further promoted in our community.

Trial registration

NCT03836560 from ClinicalTrial.gov, 9 Feb 2019.

Smoking Effects in Foot and Ankle Surgery: An Evidence-Based Review

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this article was to review the basic science pertaining to the harmful effects of cigarette smoke, summarize recent clinical outcome studies, and examine the benefits of smoking cessation and the efficacy of current smoking cessation strategies.

METHODS

The literature concerning basic science, clinical outcomes, and smoking cessation was reviewed; over half (56%) of the 52 articles reviewed were published in the last 5 years.

RESULTS

Smoking is associated with low bone mineral density, delayed fracture union, peri-implant bone loss, and implant failure. Orthopedic surgical patients who smoke have increased pain and lower overall patient satisfaction, along with significantly increased rates of wound healing complications.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

Active smoking is a significant modifiable risk factor and should be discontinued before foot and ankle surgery whenever possible. Orthopedic surgeons play an important role in educating patients on the effects of smoking and facilitating access to smoking cessation resources.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, expert opinion.

Treatment With Bupropion and Varenicline for Smoking Cessation and the Risk of Acute Cardiovascular Events and Injuries: a Swedish Case-Crossover Study

Introduction

Bupropion and varenicline are non-nicotine medications used for smoking cessation that mitigate craving and withdrawal symptoms. We aim to investigate whether these drugs increase the risk of selected acute adverse outcomes when used in medical practice.

Methods

Population-based case-crossover design using data from Swedish health and administrative registers. Adult individuals diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction, stroke, suicide, suicide attempt, fall injury, or that suffered a road traffic crash from 01.10.2006 for bupropion, or from 01.03.2008 for varenicline, until 31.12.2013 were included. Different lengths of exposure periods were analyzed within the 12-week hazard period prior to the adverse outcome (1-14, 15-28, and 29-84 days). The control period was matched using the interval preceding the hazard period (85-168 days), and breaking it up into equivalent periods (85-98, 99-112, and 113-168 days). Conditional logistic regression with each case considered as one stratum was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Neither medication was associated with consistent higher risks for any of the adverse outcomes. For bupropion and varenicline, respectively, in the 1-14 days hazard period, OR (95% CI) were: myocardial infarction 1.14 (0.55 to 2.34) and 1.06 (0.70 to 1.62); stroke 1.16 (0.39 to 3.47) and 1.26 (0.72 to 2.17), and traffic crashes 0.85 (0.39 to 1.85) and 1.48 (0.90 to 2.41). In the other periods, ORs were similar or even lower. For falls and suicidal events ORs were generally below one for both drugs.

Conclusion

The available evidence suggests that if prescription guidelines are properly followed regarding potential contraindications both of these medications could be considered relatively safe.

Implications

The reliable exposure and diagnosis assessment used in this nationwide register-based study, along with the number of cases gathered makes this sample one of the largest of its type to assess potential side effects associated with the use of these drugs. Neither medication was associated with consistent higher risks for any of the adverse outcomes studied.

The risk of varenicline-induced seizure among those who have attempted to quit smoking using pharmacotherapy

OBJECTIVE

Varenicline is an effective smoking cessation agent; however, its use is limited because of black box warnings issued by regulatory agencies in the U.S. and Australia. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration updated the label for varenicline in 2015 to warn about the risk of varenicline-induced seizures. The objective of this study was to examine the risk of seizure associated with varenicline use.

METHODS

A nested case-control study was performed using IMS LifeLink PharMetrics Plus administrative claims data (2009-2015). The outcome was presumptive seizures. All smokers making an attempt to quit smoking and having no recent seizure events were included in the nest. Cases and controls were matched (1:4) on age (±5 years), sex, index date (±30 days), event date, and duration of enrollment. An exposure period of 90 days preceding the event date was used. Chi-square tests were used to compare the characteristics of cases and controls. Conditional logistic regression was conducted to determine if an association between presumptive seizures and varenicline use exists.

RESULTS

Our final sample was comprised of 1342 cases and 5368 controls. The adjusted analysis showed that odds of a seizure for patients with a varenicline prescription were 1.09 (confidence interval [CI] = 0.88-1.36) times those of patients with no varenicline exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not find a significant association between varenicline and increased risk of presumptive seizures. These findings raise questions regarding the necessity for a warning label for increased risk of seizures associated with varenicline.

Smoking abstinence 1 year after acute coronary syndrome: follow-up from a randomized controlled trial of varenicline in patients admitted to hospital

BACKGROUND

Patients who continue to smoke after acute coronary syndrome are at increased risk of reinfarction and death. We previously found use of varenicline to increase abstinence 24 weeks after acute coronary syndrome; here we report results through 52 weeks.

METHODS

The EVITA trial was a multicentre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of varenicline for smoking cessation in patients admitted to hospital with acute coronary syndrome. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive varenicline or placebo for 12 weeks, in conjunction with low-intensity counselling. Smoking abstinence was assessed via 7-day recall, with biochemical validation using exhaled carbon monoxide. Participants lost to follow-up or withdrawn were assumed to have returned to smoking.

RESULTS

Among the 302 participants, abstinence declined over the course of the trial, with 34.4% abstinent 52 weeks after acute coronary syndrome. Compared with placebo, point estimates suggest use of varenicline increased point-prevalence abstinence (39.9% v. 29.1%, difference 10.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01% to 21.44%; number needed to treat 10), continuous abstinence (31.1% v. 21.2%, difference 9.9%, 95% CI -0.01% to 19.8%) and reduction in daily cigarette smoking by 50% or greater (57.8% v. 49.7%, difference 8.1%, 95% CI -3.1% to 19.4%). Varenicline and placebo groups had similar occurrence of serious adverse events (24.5% v. 21.9%, risk difference 2.7%, 95% CI -7.3% to 12.6%) and major adverse cardiovascular events (8.6% v. 9.3%, risk difference -0.7%, 95% CI -7.8% to 6.5%).

INTERPRETATION

Varenicline was efficacious for smoking cessation in this high-risk patient population. However, 60% of patients who received treatment with varenicline still returned to smoking. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT00794573.

Big Health Data and Cardiovascular Diseases: A Challenge for Research, an Opportunity for Clinical Care

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) accounts for the majority of death and hospitalization, health care expenditures and loss of productivity in developed country. CVD research, thus, plays a key role for improving patients' outcomes as well as for the sustainability of health systems. The increasing costs and complexity of modern medicine along with the fragmentation in healthcare organizations interfere with improving quality care and represent a missed opportunity for research. The advancement in diagnosis, therapy and prognostic evaluation of patients with CVD, indeed, is frustrated by limited data access to selected small patient populations, not standardized nor computable definition of disease and lack of approved relevant patient-centered outcomes. These critical issues results in a deep mismatch between randomized controlled trials and real-world setting, heterogeneity in treatment response and wide inter-individual variation in prognosis. Big data approach combines millions of people's electronic health records (EHR) from different resources and provides a new methodology expanding data collection in three direction: high volume, wide variety and extreme acquisition speed. Large population studies based on EHR holds much promise due to low costs, diminished study participant burden, and reduced selection bias, thus offering an alternative to traditional ascertainment through biomedical screening and tracing processes. By merging and harmonizing large data sets, the researchers aspire to build algorithms that allow targeted and personalized CVD treatments. In current paper, we provide a critical review of big health data for cardiovascular research, focusing on the opportunities of this largely free data analytics and the challenges in its realization.

Prevention and Treatment of Tobacco Use: JACC Health Promotion Series

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death worldwide and is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Both prevention of smoking initiation among youth and smoking cessation among established smokers are key for reducing smoking prevalence and the associated negative health consequences. Proven tobacco cessation treatment includes pharmacotherapy and behavioral support, which are most effective when provided together. First-line medications (varenicline, bupropion, and nicotine replacement) are effective and safe for patients with CVD. Clinicians who care for patients with CVD should give as high a priority to treating tobacco use as to managing other CVD risk factors. Broader tobacco control efforts to raise tobacco taxes, adopt smoke-free laws, conduct mass media campaigns, and restrict tobacco marketing enhance clinicians' actions working with individual smokers.

The effects of prescribing varenicline on two-year health outcomes: an observational cohort study using electronic medical records

AIMS

To investigate whether smokers prescribed varenicline had lower risks of serious ill-health during the 4 years following treatment compared with those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).

DESIGN

Observational cohort study of electronic medical records.

SETTING

A total of 370 UK general practices sampled from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 126 718 patients aged 18 and over who were issued smoking cessation prescriptions between 1 September 2006 and 31 March 2014.

MEASUREMENTS

Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 2 years of first prescription as indicated by linked Office of National Statistics data. Our secondary outcomes were cause-specific mortality, all-cause, cause-specific hospitalization, primary care diagnosis of myocardial infarction or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), body mass index and attendance rate to primary care within 2 years of first prescription. Risk differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by multivariable adjusted regression and propensity score matched regression. We used instrumental variable analysis to overcome residual confounding.

FINDINGS

People prescribed varenicline were healthier at baseline than those prescribed NRT in almost all characteristics, highlighting the potential for residual confounding. Our instrumental variable analysis results found that people prescribed varenicline had a similar risk of mortality at 2 years [risk difference per 100 patients treated = 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.11 to 1.46)] to those prescribed NRT, and there were similar rates of all-cause hospitalization, incident primary-care diagnoses of myocardial infarction and COPD. People prescribed varenicline subsequently attended primary care less frequently.

CONCLUSIONS

Smokers prescribed varenicline in primary care in the United Kingdom do not appear to be less likely to die, be hospitalized or experience a myocardial infarction or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease during the following 2 years compared with smokers prescribed nicotine replacement therapy, but they gain more weight and attend primary care less frequently.

[Interventions for smoking cessation in 2018]

Smoking cessation treatments have been proved effective to stop smoking. For pharmacological treatments, nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) as well as bupropion allow to increase 6 month-abstinence rates by more than 80% in comparison with placebo while varenicline prescription doubles success rates in the same conditions. These results mean that for 10 smokers who quit with placebo, 18 are expected to quit with NRT or bupropion and 28 are expected to quit with varenicline. Varenicline is 50% more effective than nicotine patch and 70% more effective than nicotine gum. Nevertheless, a combination including NRT patch and oral nicotine forms is as effective as varenicline, thus leading to encourage the prescription of a combination NRT when NRT are chosen. For these three pharmacological treatments, cardiovascular as well as neuropsychiatric tolerance were not found statistically different from placebo in randomized controlled trials. Yet, bupropion prescription leads to an increasing risk of seizure (1/1000 to 1/1500). For behavioral treatment, motivational interviewing as well as cognitive behavior therapies are been proven to be effective to stop smoking but few smokers have access to this treatment. Smoking cessation mobile application and smartphone application seem to be promising in terms of effectiveness and might be useful to reach more smokers.

Adverse events of smoking cessation treatments (nicotine replacement therapy and non-nicotine prescription medication) and electronic cigarettes in the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System, 2004-2016

Objectives:

Several smoking cessation treatments (nicotine replacement therapy and non-nicotine prescription medication) and electronic cigarettes are widely used. We evaluated the adverse events related to smoking cessation treatments and electronic cigarettes in the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System database.

Methods:

We analyzed reports of adverse events associated with smoking cessation treatment and electronic cigarettes terms dated between January 2004 and December 2016. We used the reporting odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals to detect a signal for each adverse event.

Results:

In total, 8,867,135 reports in the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System database were analyzed. The numbers of adverse events for nicotine replacement therapy (transdermal, buccal, oral, and respiratory administration) were 1673, 1016, 425, and 56, respectively. Nicotine replacement therapy (transdermal, buccal, and oral) demonstrated adverse events of nausea, nicotine dependence, and dizziness. For nicotine (transdermal) exposure, the top 5 adverse events reported were nausea (149 cases, reporting odds ratio: 2.28 (95% confidence interval: 1.92–2.69)), dizziness (132 cases, reporting odds ratio: 3.04 (95% confidence interval: 2.54–3.63)), application site erythema (108 cases, reporting odds ratio: 32.52 (95% confidence interval: 26.74–39.55)), headache (98 cases, reporting odds ratio: 1.84 (95% confidence interval: 1.50–2.25)), and dyspnea (94 cases, reporting odds ratio: 1.93 (95% confidence interval: 1.57–2.38)). Many cases of improper use of nicotine replacement therapies were reported. Nausea, depression, abnormal dreams, insomnia, and other adverse events were reported for varenicline. Insomnia, rash, anxiety, and dizziness were reported for bupropion. We observed electronic cigarettes–related adverse events such as dizziness, dyspnea, nausea, heart rate increased, and tremor.

Conclusion:

Our findings suggest that an association exists between nicotine-related adverse events and nicotine replacement therapy. Healthcare professionals should closely monitor smokers trying to quit nicotine use for the misuse of nicotine replacement therapy. These findings may be informative to healthcare professionals in order to improve the management of smoking cessation treatment.

Cardiovascular Safety of Varenicline, Bupropion, and Nicotine Patch in Smokers: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Quitting smoking is enhanced by the use of pharmacotherapies, but concerns have been raised regarding the cardiovascular safety of such medications.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the relative cardiovascular safety risk of smoking cessation treatments.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A double-blind, randomized, triple-dummy, placebo- and active-controlled trial (Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study [EAGLES]) and its nontreatment extension trial was conducted at 140 multinational centers. Smokers, with or without established psychiatric diagnoses, who received at least 1 dose of study medication (n = 8058), as well as a subset of those who completed 12 weeks of treatment plus 12 weeks of follow up and agreed to be followed up for an additional 28 weeks (n = 4595), were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline, 1 mg twice daily; bupropion hydrochloride, 150 mg twice daily; and nicotine replacement therapy, 21-mg/d patch with tapering.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was the time to development of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE: cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) during treatment; secondary end points were the occurrence of MACE and other pertinent cardiovascular events (MACE+: MACE or new-onset or worsening peripheral vascular disease requiring intervention, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina).

RESULTS

Of the 8058 participants, 3553 (44.1%) were male (mean [SD] age, 46.5 [12.3] years). The incidence of cardiovascular events during treatment and follow-up was low (<0.5% for MACE; <0.8% for MACE+) and did not differ significantly by treatment. No significant treatment differences were observed in time to cardiovascular events, blood pressure, or heart rate. There was no significant difference in time to onset of MACE for either varenicline or bupropion treatment vs placebo (varenicline: hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.05-1.68 and bupropion: hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.10-2.50).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

No evidence that the use of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies increased the risk of serious cardiovascular adverse events during or after treatment was observed. The findings of EAGLES and its extension trial provide further evidence that smoking cessation medications do not increase the risk of serious cardiovascular events in the general population of smokers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01574703.

The Effects of Long-Term Varenicline Administration on Ethanol and Sucrose Seeking and Self-Administration in Male P Rats

BACKGROUND

Varenicline, a partial agonist at α4β2 and full agonist at α7 nicotinic cholinergic receptors, is FDA-approved for treatment of smoking cessation and has been found to reduce alcohol craving in clinical populations. In rodents, varenicline decreases free-choice ethanol (EtOH) intake with somewhat mixed findings in operant paradigms that utilize a combined appetitive/consummatory response.

METHODS

The present experiment utilized an operant paradigm that procedurally separates appetitive from consummatory responding and a "reward-blocking" approach (i.e., rats were able to consume EtOH during treatment) to better understand the efficacy of varenicline as a treatment for EtOH self-administration and subsequent EtOH seeking. Separate groups of EtOH- and sucrose-reinforced alcohol-preferring, male P rats experienced alternating cycles of vehicle (2-week cycles) and varenicline (0.3, 1.0, and 2.0 mg/kg self-administered in a gelatin preparation) treatment (3-week cycles) prior to daily sessions where a single lever press resulted in 20 minutes of reinforcer access. At the end of each cycle, a single extinction session assessed the seeking response in the absence of drug pretreatment.

RESULTS

Varenicline dose dependently decreased EtOH intake. Sucrose intake was largely unaffected, with no overall treatment effects and only sporadic days where the medium and high dose differed from vehicle. Neither sucrose nor EtOH seeking was significantly decreased by varenicline, and there were no treatment effects on either lick or lever-press latency. Overall effect sizes were much greater for both drinking and seeking in the EtOH group as compared to the sucrose group.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline effectively attenuates EtOH self-administration during treatment, but the experience with EtOH consumption while varenicline is "on board" is not sufficient to alter subsequent EtOH seeking. The overall pattern of findings indicates that varenicline blocks the rewarding properties of EtOH while not substituting for EtOH, that the nonspecific effects on an alternate reinforcer are negligible, and that blood levels of varenicline need to be maintained in order for treatment to remain effective.

Human nicotinic receptors in chromaffin cells: characterization and pharmacology

During the last 10 years, we have been working on human chromaffin cells obtained from the adrenal gland of organ donors that suffered encephalic or cardiac death. We first electrophysiologically characterized the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) activated by acetylcholine, and their contribution to the exocytosis of chromaffin vesicles and release of catecholamines. We have shown that these cells possess an adrenergic phenotype. This phenotype may contribute to an increased expression of α7 nAChRs in these cells, allowing for recording of α7 nAChR currents, something that had previously not been achieved in non-human species. The use of α-conotoxins allowed us to characterize non-α7 nAChR subtypes and, together with molecular biology experiments, conclude that the predominant nAChR subtype in human chromaffin cells is α3β4* (asterisk indicates the posible presence of additional subunits). In addition, there is a minor population of αxβ2 nAChRs. Both α7 and non-α7 nAChR subtypes contribute to the exocytotic process. Exocytosis mediated by nAChRs could be as large in magnitude as that elicited by calcium entry through voltage-dependent calcium channels. Finally, we have also investigated the effect of nAChR-targeted tobacco cessation drugs on catecholamine release in chromaffin cells. We have concluded that at therapeutic concentrations, varenicline alone does not increase the frequency of action potentials evoked by ACh. However, varenicline in the presence of nicotine does increase this frequency, and thus, in the presence of both drugs, the probability of increased catecholamine release in human chromaffin cells is high.

Cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric risks of varenicline and bupropion in smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Varenicline and bupropion are effective smoking cessation treatments, but there are concerns about their safety in smokers with COPD.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether varenicline and bupropion are associated with serious adverse cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric events in smokers with COPD.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study, we used data from 14 350 patients with COPD included in the QResearch database, which holds data from 753 National Health Service general practices across England. We identified patients with COPD who received a prescription of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT; N=10 426; reference group), bupropion (N=350) or varenicline (N=3574) in the period between January 2007 and June 2012. Patients were followed up for 6 months to compare incident cardiovascular (ie, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease and cardiac arrhythmias) and neuropsychiatric (ie, depression and self-harm) events using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for potential confounders. Propensity score analysis was used as an additional approach to account for potential confounding by indication. We also modelled the effects of possible unmeasured confounders.

RESULTS

Neither bupropion nor varenicline showed an increased risk of adverse events compared with NRT. Varenicline was associated with a significantly reduced risk of heart failure (HR=0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.92) and depression (HR=0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.86). Similar results were obtained from the propensity score analysis. Modelling of unmeasured confounding provided additional evidence that an increased risk of these adverse events was very unlikely.

CONCLUSION

In smokers with COPD, varenicline and bupropion do not appear to be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, depression or self-harm in comparison with NRT.

Interventions for smoking cessation in patients admitted with Acute Coronary Syndrome: a review

Tobacco smoking contributes to about six million deaths per year and is predicted to increase in the future. Several pharmacological interventions are used for smoking cessation. Trials using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) showed inconclusive results. Furthermore, three trials using bupropion in patients admitted with ACS failed to show improvement in smoking cessation compared with placebo. Interestingly, only one trial using varenicline was successful in achieving smoking abstinence in the acute setting. With regard to behavioural interventions, a meta-analysis found that telephone counselling was successful in both the acute and stable settings, with greater effect in the acute setting. The best results for smoking cessation were found in trials that used a combination of pharmacological and behavioural interventions. The objective of this report is to review the results of studies on interventions used for smoking cessation after an ACS.

2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines

Since 1980, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) have translated scientific evidence into clinical practice guidelines with recommendations to improve cardiovascular health. These guidelines, based on systematic methods to evaluate and classify evidence, provide a cornerstone of quality cardiovascular care.

In response to reports from the Institute of Medicine1 ,2 and a mandate to evaluate new knowledge and maintain relevance at the point of care, the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines (Task Force) modified its methodology.3 –5 The relationships among guidelines, data standards, appropriate use criteria, and performance measures are addressed elsewhere.5

Efficacy and Safety of Smoking Cessation Interventions in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease

Background—

Although the efficacy and safety of smoking cessation interventions are well established, their efficacy and safety in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) remain unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and behavioral smoking cessation interventions in CVD patients via a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Methods and Results—

EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Specialized Register were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and behavioral therapies in CVD patients. Outcomes of interest were smoking abstinence at 6 and 12 months, defined using the most rigorous criteria reported. Data were pooled across studies for direct comparisons using random-effects models. Network meta-analysis using a graph-theoretical approach was used to generate the indirect comparisons. Seven pharmacotherapy randomized controlled trials (n=2809) and 17 behavioral intervention randomized controlled trials (n=4666) met our inclusion criteria. Our network meta-analysis revealed that varenicline (relative risk [RR]: 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34–5.21) and bupropion (RR: 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01–2.01) were associated with greater abstinence than placebo. The evidence about nicotine replacement therapies was inconclusive (RR: 1.22; 95% CI, 0.72–2.06). Telephone therapy (RR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.15–1.88) and individual counseling (RR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.17–2.28) were both more efficacious than usual care, whereas in-hospital behavioral interventions were not (RR: 1.05; 95% CI, 0.78–1.43).

Conclusions—

Our meta-analysis suggests varenicline and bupropion, as well as individual and telephone counseling, are efficacious for smoking cessation in CVD patients.

New Pharmacological Agents to Aid Smoking Cessation and Tobacco Harm Reduction: What Has Been Investigated, and What Is in the Pipeline?

A wide range of support is available to help smokers to quit and to aid attempts at harm reduction, including three first-line smoking cessation medications: nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and bupropion. Despite the efficacy of these, there is a continual need to diversify the range of medications so that the needs of tobacco users are met. This paper compares the first-line smoking cessation medications with (1) two variants of these existing products: new galenic formulations of varenicline and novel nicotine delivery devices; and (2) 24 alternative products: cytisine (novel outside Central and Eastern Europe), nortriptyline, other tricyclic antidepressants, electronic cigarettes, clonidine (an anxiolytic), other anxiolytics (e.g. buspirone), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, supplements (e.g. St John's wort), silver acetate, Nicobrevin, modafinil, venlafaxine, monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), opioid antagonists, nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) antagonists, glucose tablets, selective cannabinoid type 1 receptor antagonists, nicotine vaccines, drugs that affect gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) transmission, drugs that affect N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, dopamine agonists (e.g. levodopa), pioglitazone (Actos; OMS405), noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors and the weight management drug lorcaserin. Six 'ESCUSE' criteria-relative efficacy, relative safety, relative cost, relative use (overall impact of effective medication use), relative scope (ability to serve new groups of patients) and relative ease of use-are used. Many of these products are in the early stages of clinical trials; however, cytisine looks most promising in having established efficacy and safety with low cost. Electronic cigarettes have become very popular, appear to be efficacious and are safer than smoking, but issues of continued dependence and possible harms need to be considered.

Effects of varenicline on sympatho-vagal balance and cue reactivity during smoking withdrawal: a randomised placebo-controlled trial

Background

Varenicline is an effective smoking cessation medication. Some concern has been raised that its use may precipitate adverse cardiovascular events although no patho-physiological mechanism potentially underlying such an effect has been reported. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that varenicline impacts on sympatho-vagal balance during smoking withdrawal.

Methods

In this randomised, placebo-controlled trial, muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA), baroreflex sensitivity (BRS), heart rate, and blood pressure were assessed in 17 smokers four weeks before a quit attempt (baseline) and again on the third day of that quit attempt (acute smoking withdrawal).

Results

Regarding the primary endpoint of our study, we did not find a significant effect of varenicline compared to placebo on changes in MSNA burst incidence between baseline and acute smoking withdrawal (−3.0 ± 3.3 vs.−3.9 ± 5.0 bursts/100 heart beats; p = 0.308). However, heart rate and systolic blood pressure significantly decreased in the placebo group only, while no significant changes in these parameters were observed in the varenicline group. Exposure to smoking cues during acute withdrawal lead to a significant increase of heart rate in the placebo group, while heart rate decreased in the varenicline group, and the difference in these changes was significant between groups (+2.7 ± 1.0 vs.−1.8 ± 0.5 1/min; p = 0.002). In all 17 participants combined, a significant increase in heart rate during smoking cue exposure was detected in subjects who relapsed in the course of six weeks after the quit date compared to those who stayed abstinent (+2.5 ± 1.2 vs.−1.1 ± 0.7; p = 0.018). Six-week abstinence rates were higher in the varenicline group compared to placebo (88 vs. 22 % p = 0.015).

Conclusion

We did not find evidence of adverse effects of varenicline on sympatho-vagal balance. Varenicline probably blunts the heart rate response to smoking cues, which may be linked to improved cessation outcome.

Helping patients to reduce tobacco consumption in oncology: a narrative review

The present overview focuses on evidence of smoking cessation approaches in oncology settings with the aim to provide health personnel a critical perspective on how to help their patients. This narrative review is structured in two main sections: the first one describes the psycho-cognitive variables involved in the decision to continue smoking after a cancer diagnosis and during the treatment; the second section relates methods and tools may be recommended, being evidence-based, to support smoking cessation in oncology settings. Active smoking increases not only susceptibility to common cancers in the general population, but also increases disease severity and comorbidities in cancer patients. Nowadays, scientific evidence has identified many strategies to give up smoking, but a lack of knowledge exists for treatment of nicotine dependence in the cancer population. Health personnel is often ambiguous when approaching the problem, while their contribution is essential in guiding patients towards healthier choices. We argue that smoking treatments for cancer patients deserve more attention and that clinical features, individual characteristics and needs of the patient should be assessed in order to increase the attempts success rate. Health personnel that daily work and interact with cancer patients and their caregivers have a fundamental role in the promotion of the health changing. For this reason, it is important that they have adequate knowledge and resources in order to support cancer patients to stop tobacco cigarette smoking and promoting and healthier lifestyle.

Faster drug approval: challenges for safety

INTRODUCTION

More rapid drug premarketing procedures pose a challenge for regulatory agencies in terms of innovation and improving real-world safety and effectiveness Areas covered: This review considers the blockbuster drugs used over the previous fifteen years with adverse reactions after marketing, the elements and time span of risk identification and the measures implemented or considered, based on the existing literature and reports from the agencies Expert opinion: Risk prediction is founded on several factors: randomization, sample size, a well-established endpoint for safety, use of a comparator rather than placebo and a longer Phase-III period, in which a serious illness may be identified by early signs of alteration in the primary parenchyma with the latest biochemical, instrumental and imaging techniques. In comparative non-inferiority evaluations, increased safety should be preferred, with the exception of drugs that may be useful in serious or life-threatening diseases for which there are few or no effective existing therapies. A period of restricted use may be required to test and dispense new drugs, as well as to implement specific methods for the early detection of adverse events. It is important not to regard a new medicine axiomatically as the best treatment before it comes into wide use.