Varenicline for Smoking Cessation in Hospitalized Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome

Varenicline and Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Smokers Admitted to Hospitals: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Varenicline is the most effective sole pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. If used in combination with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), cessation rates may be further improved, but the efficacy and safety of the combination need to be evaluated.

Objective

To examine whether hospitalized smokers treated with varenicline and NRT lozenges achieve higher prolonged smoking abstinence rates compared with those treated with varenicline alone.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in adult medical or surgical inpatients of 5 Australian public hospitals with a history of smoking 10 cigarettes or more per day, interested in quitting, and available for 12-month follow-up between May 1, 2019, and May 1, 2021 (final 12-month data collection in May 2022). Data analysis was performed from June 1 to August 30, 2023.

Interventions

A 12-week varenicline regimen was initiated during hospitalization at standard doses in all participants. Participants were randomized to additionally use NRT (2 mg) or placebo lozenges if there was an urge to smoke. Behavioral support (Quitline) was offered to all participants.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was biochemically verified sustained abstinence at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included self-reported prolonged abstinence, 7-day point prevalence abstinence (3, 6, and 12 months), and medicine-related adverse events.

Results

A total of 320 participants (mean [SD] age, 52.5 [12.1] years; 183 [57.2%] male) were randomized. The conduct of biochemical verification was affected by COVID-19 restrictions; consequently, the biochemically verified abstinence in the intervention vs control arms (18 [11.4%] vs 16 [10.1%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.56-2.33) did not support the combination therapy. The secondary outcomes in the intervention vs control arms of 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6 months (54 [34.2%] vs 37 [23.4%]; OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.04-2.80), prolonged abstinence at 12 months (47 [29.9%] vs 30 [19.1%]; OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.05-3.00), and 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12-months (48 [30.6%] vs 31 [19.7%]; OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.07-2.99) significantly improved with the combination therapy. The self-reported 6-month prolonged abstinence (61 [38.6%] vs 47 [29.7%]; OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.93-2.39) favored the combination therapy but was not statistically significant. Medicine-related adverse events were similar in the 2 groups (102 [74.5%] in the intervention group vs 86 [68.3%] in the control group).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of the combination of varenicline and NRT lozenges in hospitalized adult daily smokers, the combination treatment improved self-reported abstinence compared with varenicline alone, without compromising safety, but it did not improve biochemically validated abstinence.

Trial Registration

anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12618001792213.

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

In 2020, 32.6% of the world's population used tobacco. Smoking contributes to many illnesses that require hospitalisation. A hospital admission may prompt a quit attempt. Initiating smoking cessation treatment, such as pharmacotherapy and/or counselling, in hospitals may be an effective preventive health strategy. Pharmacotherapies work to reduce withdrawal/craving and counselling provides behavioural skills for quitting smoking. This review updates the evidence on interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, to understand the most effective smoking cessation treatment methods for hospitalised smokers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of any type of smoking cessation programme for patients admitted to an acute care hospital.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 7 September 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised studies of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients admitted to hospital quit. Interventions had to start in the hospital (including at discharge), and people had to have smoked within the last month. We excluded studies in psychiatric, substance and rehabilitation centres, as well as studies that did not measure abstinence at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from smoking assessed at least six months after discharge or the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically-validated rates where reported. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 82 studies (74 RCTs) that included 42,273 participants in the review (71 studies, 37,237 participants included in the meta-analyses); 36 studies are new to this update. We rated 10 studies as being at low risk of bias overall (low risk in all domains assessed), 48 at high risk of bias overall (high risk in at least one domain), and the remaining 24 at unclear risk. Cessation counselling versus no counselling, grouped by intensity of intervention Hospitalised patients who received smoking cessation counselling that began in the hospital and continued for more than a month after discharge had higher quit rates than patients who received no counselling in the hospital or following hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.49; 28 studies, 8234 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might account for an additional 76 quitters in every 1000 participants (95% CI 51 to 103). The evidence was uncertain (very low-certainty) about the effects of counselling interventions of less intensity or shorter duration (in-hospital only counselling ≤ 15 minutes: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1417 participants; and in-hospital contact plus follow-up counselling support for ≤ 1 month: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 7 studies, 4627 participants) versus no counselling. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that smoking cessation counselling for at least 15 minutes in the hospital without post-discharge support led to higher quit rates than no counselling in the hospital (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.58; 12 studies, 4432 participants). Pharmacotherapy versus placebo or no pharmacotherapy Nicotine replacement therapy helped more patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.67; 8 studies, 3838 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 62 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 9 to 126). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision (as CI encompassed the possibility of no difference), that varenicline helped more hospitalised patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 4 studies, 829 participants). Evidence for bupropion was low-certainty; the point estimate indicated a modest benefit at best, but CIs were wide and incorporated clinically significant harm and clinically significant benefit (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43, 4 studies, 872 participants). Hospital-only intervention versus intervention that continues after hospital discharge Patients offered both smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge had higher quit rates than patients offered counselling in hospital but not offered post-discharge support (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.38; 7 studies, 5610 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 34 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 to 55). Post-discharge interventions offering real-time counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.60, 8 studies, 2299 participants; low certainty-evidence) and those offering unscheduled counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 2 studies, 1598 participants; very low-certainty evidence) may have little to no effect on quit rates compared to control. Telephone quitlines versus control To provide post-discharge support, hospitals may refer patients to community-based telephone quitlines. Both comparisons relating to these interventions had wide CIs encompassing both possible harm and possible benefit, and were judged to be of very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias (post-discharge telephone counselling versus quitline referral: RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.51; 3 studies, 3260 participants; quitline referral versus control: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.96; 2 studies, 1870 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Offering hospitalised patients smoking cessation counselling beginning in hospital and continuing for over one month after discharge increases quit rates, compared to no hospital intervention. Counselling provided only in hospital, without post-discharge support, may have a modest impact on quit rates, but evidence is less certain. When all patients receive counselling in the hospital, high-certainty evidence indicates that providing both counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge increases quit rates compared to no post-discharge intervention. Starting nicotine replacement or varenicline in hospitalised patients helps more patients to quit smoking than a placebo or no medication, though evidence for varenicline is only moderate-certainty due to imprecision. There is less evidence of benefit for bupropion in this setting. Some of our evidence was limited by imprecision (bupropion versus placebo and varenicline versus placebo), risk of bias, and inconsistency related to heterogeneity. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies to implement, disseminate, and sustain interventions, and to ensure cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy initiated in the hospital is sustained after discharge.

Identifying determinants of varenicline adherence using the Theoretical Domains framework: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Adhering to varenicline has been shown to significantly improve the chances of successfully quitting smoking, with studies indicating a twofold increase in 6-month quit rates. However, despite its potential benefits, many individuals struggle with maintaining good adherence to varenicline; thus there is a need to develop scalable strategies to help people adhere. As a first step to inform the development of an intervention to improve adherence to varenicline, we conducted a rapid literature review to identify: 1) modifiable barriers and facilitators to varenicline adherence, and 2) behaviour change techniques associated with increased adherence to varenicline.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published between 2006 and 2022. Search terms included "varenicline," "smoking cessation," and "adherence," and their respective subject headings and synonyms. We screened and included studies reporting modifiable determinants of adherence to varenicline and then assessed quality, extracted modifiable determinants and mapped them to the Theoretical Domains Framework version 2 and the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy version 1.

RESULTS

A total of 1,221 titles were identified through the database searches; 61 met the eligibility criteria. Most of the studies were randomized controlled trials and predominantly focused on barriers to varenicline. Only nine studies explicitly mentioned behaviour change techniques used to help varenicline adherence. Eight domains were identified as barriers to varenicline adherence (behavioural regulation, memory, goals, intentions, beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences, optimism/pessimism, and environmental context) and five as facilitators (knowledge, behavioural regulation, beliefs about capabilities, social influences, and environmental context).

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies barriers and facilitators that should be addressed when developing a complex adherence intervention tailored to patients' needs based on modifiable determinants of medication adherence, some of which are under- used by existing adherence interventions. The findings from this review will inform the design of a theory-based healthbot planned to improve varenicline adherence in people undergoing smoking cessation treatment.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This study was registered with PROSPERO (# CRD42022321838).

2024 Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics: A Report of US and Global Data From the American Heart Association

BACKGROUND

The American Heart Association (AHA), in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors, including core health behaviors (smoking, physical activity, nutrition, sleep, and obesity) and health factors (cholesterol, blood pressure, glucose control, and metabolic syndrome) that contribute to cardiovascular health. The AHA Heart Disease and Stroke Statistical Update presents the latest data on a range of major clinical heart and circulatory disease conditions (including stroke, brain health, complications of pregnancy, kidney disease, congenital heart disease, rhythm disorders, sudden cardiac arrest, subclinical atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, cardiomyopathy, heart failure, valvular disease, venous thromboembolism, and peripheral artery disease) and the associated outcomes (including quality of care, procedures, and economic costs).

METHODS

The AHA, through its Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee, continuously monitors and evaluates sources of data on heart disease and stroke in the United States and globally to provide the most current information available in the annual Statistical Update with review of published literature through the year before writing. The 2024 AHA Statistical Update is the product of a full year's worth of effort in 2023 by dedicated volunteer clinicians and scientists, committed government professionals, and AHA staff members. The AHA strives to further understand and help heal health problems inflicted by structural racism, a public health crisis that can significantly damage physical and mental health and perpetuate disparities in access to health care, education, income, housing, and several other factors vital to healthy lives. This year's edition includes additional global data, as well as data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, with an enhanced focus on health equity across several key domains.

RESULTS

Each of the chapters in the Statistical Update focuses on a different topic related to heart disease and stroke statistics.

CONCLUSIONS

The Statistical Update represents a critical resource for the lay public, policymakers, media professionals, clinicians, health care administrators, researchers, health advocates, and others seeking the best available data on these factors and conditions.

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.

Clinical Practice Guideline of Spanish Society of Pneumology and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR) on Pharmacological Treatment of Tobacco Dependence 2023

INTRODUCTION

There are multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments against nicotine dependence. However, there are few guidelines to answer frequent questions asked by a clinician treating a smoker. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to facilitate the treatment of tobacco addiction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

12 PICO questions are formulated from a GLOBAL PICO question: "Efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatment of tobacco dependence". A systematic review was carried out to answer each of the questions and recommendations were made. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system was used to grade the certainty of the estimated effects and the strength of the recommendations.

RESULTS

Varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion and cytisine are more effective than placebo. Varenicline and combined nicotine therapy are superior to the other therapies. In smokers with high dependence, a combination of drugs is recommended, being more effective those associations containing varenicline. Other optimization strategies with lower efficacy consist of increasing the doses, the duration, or retreat with varenicline. In specific populations varenicline or NRT is recommended. In hospitalized, the treatment of choice is NRT. In pregnancy it is indicated to prioritize behavioral treatment. The financing of smoking cessation treatments increases the number of smokers who quit smoking. There is no scientific evidence of the efficacy of pharmacological treatment of smoking cessation in adolescents.

CONCLUSIONS

The answers to the 12 questions allow us to extract recommendations and algorithms for the pharmacological treatment of tobacco dependence.

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.

Clinical challenges facing patient participation in cardiac rehabilitation: cigarette smoking

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is highly effective at reducing morbidity and mortality. However, CR is underutilized, and adherence remains challenging. In no group is CR attendance more challenging than among patients who smoke. Despite being more likely to be referred to CR, they are less likely to enroll, and much more likely to drop out. CR programs generally do not optimally engage and treat those who smoke, but this population is critical to engage given the high-risk nature of continued smoking in those with cardiovascular disease.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers four areas relating to CR in those who smoke. First, we review the evidence of the association between smoking and lack of participation in CR. Second, we examine how smoking has historically been identified in this population and propose objective screening measures for all patients. Third, we discuss the optimal treatment of smoking within CR. Fourth, we review select populations within those who smoke (those with lower-socioeconomic status, females) that require additional research and attention.

EXPERT OPINION

Smoking poses a challenge on multiple fronts, being a significant predictor of future morbidity and mortality, as well as being strongly associated with not completing the secondary prevention program (CR) that could benefit those who smoke the most.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

Background

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

Objectives

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

Search methods

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

Selection criteria

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

Data collection and analysis

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

Main results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authors' conclusions

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

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

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

Key messages

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

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

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

What are 'nicotine receptor partial agonists'?

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

What did we want to find out?

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

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

· how many people had unwanted effects.

What did we do?

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

What did we find?

We found 75 studies that compared NRPAs with:

· placebo or no medicine;

· nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches or gum;

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

· another NRPA;

· e‐cigarettes.

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

Main results

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

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

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

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

What are the limitations of the evidence?

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

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

How up to date is the evidence?

The evidence is up to date to 29 April 2022.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

[Smoking cessation in hospitalised patients - Initiate among inpatients, continue when outpatients - A Position Paper by the German Respiratory Society (DGP) Taskforce for Smoking Cessation]

Tobacco smoking is the greatest preventable health risk. The effects are serious, both individually and societal. Nevertheless, the current prevalence of tobacco smokers in Germany is still high at around 35 %. A recent strong increase in actively smoking adolescents (14- to 17-year-olds, current prevalence approx. 16 %) and young adults (18- to 24-year-olds, current prevalence approx. 41 %) is also a cause for concern. About a third of all inpatients continue smoking while being treated. The hospitalization of active smokers in acute and rehabilitation hospitals serves as a "teachable moment" for initiation of cessation offers. An intervention that begins in hospital and continues for at least a month after discharge results in about 40 % additional smokefree patients. It is scientifically well-researched, effective and cost-efficient. After initiation in hospital these measures can be continued via ambulatory cessation programs, rehabilitation facilities, an Internet or telephone service. In Germany, there are structured and quality-assured cessation offers, both for the inpatient and for the outpatient area. The biggest obstacle to broad establishment of such offers is the lack of reimbursement. Two feasible ways to change this would be the remuneration of the existing OPS 9-501 "Multimodal inpatient treatment for smoking cessation" and the establishment of quality contracts according to § 110a SGB V. An expansion of tobacco cessation measures in healthcare facilities would reduce smoking prevalence, associated burden of disease and consecutive costs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Interventions in Patients With Ischemic Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation rates after stroke and transient ischemic attack are suboptimal, and smoking cessation interventions are underutilized. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of smoking cessation interventions in this population.

METHODS

We constructed a decision tree and used Markov models that aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of varenicline, any pharmacotherapy with intensive counseling, and monetary incentives, compared with brief counseling alone in the secondary stroke prevention setting. Payer and societal costs of interventions and outcomes were modeled. The outcomes were recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction, and death using a lifetime horizon. Estimates and variance for the base case (35% cessation), costs and effectiveness of interventions, and outcome rates were imputed from the stroke literature. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and incremental net monetary benefits. An intervention was considered cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) or when the incremental net monetary benefit was positive. Probabilistic Monte Carlo simulations modeled the impact of parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

From the payer perspective, varenicline and pharmacotherapy with intensive counseling were associated with more QALYs (0.67 and 1.00, respectively) at less total lifetime costs compared with brief counseling alone. Monetary incentives were associated with 0.71 more QALYs at an additional cost of $120 compared with brief counseling alone, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $168/QALY. From the societal perspective, all 3 interventions provided more QALYs at less total costs compared with brief counseling alone. In 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations, all 3 smoking cessation interventions were cost-effective in >89% of runs.

CONCLUSIONS

For secondary stroke prevention, it is cost-effective and potentially cost-saving to deliver smoking cessation therapy beyond brief counseling alone.

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2023 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

BACKGROUND

The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors, including core health behaviors (smoking, physical activity, diet, and weight) and health factors (cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose control) that contribute to cardiovascular health. The Statistical Update presents the latest data on a range of major clinical heart and circulatory disease conditions (including stroke, congenital heart disease, rhythm disorders, subclinical atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, heart failure, valvular disease, venous disease, and peripheral artery disease) and the associated outcomes (including quality of care, procedures, and economic costs).

METHODS

The American Heart Association, through its Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee, continuously monitors and evaluates sources of data on heart disease and stroke in the United States to provide the most current information available in the annual Statistical Update with review of published literature through the year before writing. The 2023 Statistical Update is the product of a full year's worth of effort in 2022 by dedicated volunteer clinicians and scientists, committed government professionals, and American Heart Association staff members. The American Heart Association strives to further understand and help heal health problems inflicted by structural racism, a public health crisis that can significantly damage physical and mental health and perpetuate disparities in access to health care, education, income, housing, and several other factors vital to healthy lives. This year's edition includes additional COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) publications, as well as data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, with an enhanced focus on health equity across several key domains.

RESULTS

Each of the chapters in the Statistical Update focuses on a different topic related to heart disease and stroke statistics.

CONCLUSIONS

The Statistical Update represents a critical resource for the lay public, policymakers, media professionals, clinicians, health care administrators, researchers, health advocates, and others seeking the best available data on these factors and conditions.

Organizational and patient-level predictors for attaining key risk factor targets in cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction: The Perfect-CR study

BACKGROUND

Benefits of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programme components on attaining risk factor targets post-myocardial infarction (MI) and their predictive strength relative to patient characteristics remain unclear. We aimed to identify organizational and patient-level predictors of risk factor target attainment at one-year post-MI.

METHODS

In this observational study data on CR organization at 78 Swedish CR centres was collected and merged with patient-level registry data (n = 7549). Orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis identified predictors (Variables of Importance for the Projection (VIP) values >0.8) of attaining low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) <1.8 mmol/L, blood pressure (BP) <140/90 mmHg and smoking abstinence.

RESULTS

The strongest predictors (VIP [95% CI]) for attaining LDL-C and BP targets were offering psychosocial management (2.14 [1.78-2.50]; 2.45 [1.91-2.99]), having a psychologist in the CR team (1.62 [1.36-1.87]; 2.05 [1.67-2.44]), extended opening hours (2.13 [2.00-2.27]; 1.50 [0.91-2.10]), adequate facilities (1.54 [0.91-2.18]; 1.89 [1.38-2.40]), and having a medical director (1.70 [0.91-2.48]; 1.46 [1.04-1.88]). The strongest patient-level predictors of attaining LDL-C and/or BP targets were low baseline LDL-C (3.95 [3.39-4.51]) and having no history of hypertension (2.93 [2.60-3.26]), respectively, followed by exercise-based CR participation (1.38 [0.66-2.10]; 1.46 [1.14-1.78]). For smoking abstinence, the strongest organizational predictor was varenicline being prescribed by CR physicians (1.88 [0.95-2.80]) and patient-level predictors were participation in exercise-based CR (2.47 [2.07-2.88]) and group education (1.92 [1.43-2-42]), and no cardiovascular disease history (2.13 [1.78-2.48]).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified multiple CR organizational and patient-level predictors of attaining risk factor targets post-MI. These results may influence the future design of comprehensive CR programmes.

Cardiovascular prevention in elderly patients

In recent decades, life expectancy has been increasing significantly. In this scenario, health interventions are necessary to improve prognosis and quality of life of elderly with cardiovascular risk factors and cardiovascular disease. However, the number of elderly patients included in clinical trials is low, thus current clinical practice guidelines do not include specific recommendations. This document aims to review prevention recommendations focused in patients ≥ 75 years with high or very high cardiovascular risk, regarding objectives, medical treatment options and also including physical exercise and their inclusion in cardiac rehabilitation programs. Also, we will show why geriatric syndromes such as frailty, dependence, cognitive impairment, and nutritional status, as well as comorbidities, ought to be considered in this population regarding their important prognostic impact.

Multiple in-hospital counseling increases six-month smoking abstinence among individuals participating in a hospital-initiated smoking cessation program

BACKGROUND

A cessation program for hospitalized smokers is an effective strategy to achieve smoking abstinence. The effects of multiple in-hospital counseling sessions on 6-month smoking abstinence require further investigation.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of smokers who participated in hospital-initiated cessation programs at a medical center between 2017 and 2019. Data on age, sex, comorbidities, daily number of cigarettes, cessation motivation, nicotine dependence, cessation medications, discharge diagnosis, length of hospitalization, and intensive care unit admission were collected. We conducted multiple logistic regression analysis to investigate the effect of multiple in-hospital counseling sessions on 6-month sustained smoking abstinence. Sensitivity analyses were carried out excluding participants who underwent post-discharge cessation programs and assuming that the loss to follow-up participants had failure in 6-month smoking abstinence.

RESULTS

A total of 1943 participants aged ≥ 20 years were analyzed. Compared with single in-hospital counseling session, the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for 2 and ≥ 3 counseling sessions were 1.44 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05 to 1.98) and 2.02 (95% CI 1.27 to 3.22), respectively, with a significant trend for increasing the number of counseling sessions (P < 0.001). The results remained significant after excluding participants who underwent a post-discharge cessation program or when assuming that lost to follow-up participants had failure in smoking abstinence.

CONCLUSION

Multiple in-hospital counseling sessions were associated with a higher 6-month sustained smoking abstinence rate. This strategy could be used to reduce the prevalence of smoking.

Medication-assisted quit rates in participants with smoking-related diseases in EAGLES: Post hoc analyses of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Greater understanding is required of how smokers with smoking-related diseases respond to smoking cessation medications. This post hoc analysis of EAGLES data compared continuous abstinence rates (CARs) in smokers with/without smoking-related diseases and assessed participant demographic and baseline characteristics that may serve as predictors of continuous abstinence (CA).

METHODS

EAGLES was a 24-week (12-week treatment, 12-week follow-up), double-blind, active- (nicotine replacement therapy; patch) and placebo-controlled study in motivated-to-quit smokers with/without psychiatric disorders. This analysis assessed CARs at weeks 9-12 (CAR9-12) and 9-24 (CAR9-24) in participants with smoking-related diseases [asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, and/or cardiovascular disease (n=1372)] versus controls without these comorbidities (n=6039). Participants received varenicline 1 mg twice daily, bupropion 150 mg twice daily, nicotine patches 21 mg/day with taper, or placebo for 12 weeks. Stepwise logistic modeling was also performed to analyze odds ratio (OR) for predictors of CA at weeks 9-12 (CA9-12) and 9-24 (CA9-24).

RESULTS

Smokers with smoking-related diseases were older, had a longer smoking history, more quit attempts, and were more likely to have a psychiatric disorder and reside in the US versus smokers without comorbidities. Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence scores and treatment adherence were comparable between cohorts. Smokers with smoking-related diseases had lower CARs versus controls (CAR9-12: 20.8% vs 24.0%; CAR9-24: 13.0% vs 16.9%). Use of smoking cessation medication was the strongest predictor of CA after control for demographics, smoking characteristics, and psychiatric disorder. By treatment, OR and CI were: varenicline CA9-12 (OR=3.82; 95% CI: 3.21-4.54) and CA9-24 (OR=2.92; 95% CI: 2.40-3.54); bupropion CA9-12 (OR=2.17; 95% CI: 1.81-2.60) and CA9-24 (OR=1.99; 95% CI: 1.63-2.44); nicotine patches CA9-12 (OR=2.23; 95% CI: 1.87-2.67) and CA9-24 (OR=1.86; 95% CI: 1.52-2.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Smokers with smoking-related diseases had lower quit rates than controls. Of the active treatments compared, varenicline was most effective in smokers with asthma, COPD, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01456936 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01456936).

Assessing combined effects of varenicline and N-acetylcysteine on reducing nicotine seeking in rats

Nicotine addiction is a chronic relapsing brain disorder, and cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Currently, the most effective pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation is Varenicline (VRN), which reduces both positive and negative reinforcement by nicotine. Clinically, VRN attenuates withdrawal symptoms and promotes abstinence, but >50% of smokers relapse within 3 months following a quit attempt. This may indicate that VRN fails to ameliorate components of nicotine-induced neuroplasticity that promote relapse vulnerability. Animal models reveal that glutamate dysregulation in the nucleus accumbens is associated with nicotine relapse. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) normalizes glutamate transmission and prolongs cocaine abstinence. Thus, combining VRN and NAC may promote and maintain, respectively, nicotine abstinence. In rats, we found that VRN effectively reduced nicotine self-administration and seeking in early abstinence, but not seeking later in abstinence. In contrast, NAC reduced seeking only later in abstinence. Because VRN and NAC are sometimes associated with mild adverse effects, we also evaluated a sequential approach combining subthreshold doses of VRN during self-administration and early abstinence with subthreshold doses of NAC during late abstinence. As expected, subthreshold VRN did not reduce nicotine intake. However, subthreshold VRN and NAC reduced seeking in late abstinence, suggesting a combined effect. Overall, our results suggest that combining subthreshold VRN and NAC is a viable and drug-specific approach to promote abstinence and reduce relapse while minimizing adverse effects. Our data also suggest that different components and time points in addiction engage the different neurocircuits targeted by VRN and NAC.

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2022 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

BACKGROUND

The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors, including core health behaviors (smoking, physical activity, diet, and weight) and health factors (cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose control) that contribute to cardiovascular health. The Statistical Update presents the latest data on a range of major clinical heart and circulatory disease conditions (including stroke, congenital heart disease, rhythm disorders, subclinical atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, heart failure, valvular disease, venous disease, and peripheral artery disease) and the associated outcomes (including quality of care, procedures, and economic costs).

METHODS

The American Heart Association, through its Statistics Committee, continuously monitors and evaluates sources of data on heart disease and stroke in the United States to provide the most current information available in the annual Statistical Update. The 2022 Statistical Update is the product of a full year's worth of effort by dedicated volunteer clinicians and scientists, committed government professionals, and American Heart Association staff members. This year's edition includes data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population and an enhanced focus on social determinants of health, adverse pregnancy outcomes, vascular contributions to brain health, and the global burden of cardiovascular disease and healthy life expectancy.

RESULTS

Each of the chapters in the Statistical Update focuses on a different topic related to heart disease and stroke statistics.

CONCLUSIONS

The Statistical Update represents a critical resource for the lay public, policymakers, media professionals, clinicians, health care administrators, researchers, health advocates, and others seeking the best available data on these factors and conditions.

Improving smoking cessation after myocardial infarction by systematically implementing evidence-based treatment methods

We compared the odds of smoking cessation at 2-months post-myocardial infarction (MI), before and after implementing routines optimizing use of evidence-based smoking cessation methods, with start during admission. The following routines were implemented at six Swedish hospitals: cardiac rehabilitation nurses offering smokers consultation during admission, optimizing nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline prescription, and contacting patients by telephone during the 1st week post-discharge. Using logistic regression, odds for smoking cessation at 2-months before (n smokers/n admitted = 188/601) and after (n = 195/632) routine implementation were compared. Secondary outcomes included adherence to implemented routines and assessing the prognostic value of each routine on smoking cessation. After implementation, a larger proportion of smokers (65% vs. 54%) were abstinent at 2-months (OR 1.60 [1.04-2.48]). Including only those counselled during admission (n = 98), 74% were abstinent (2.50 [1.42-4.41]). After implementation, patients were more often counselled during admission (50% vs. 6%, p < 0.001), prescribed varenicline (23% vs. 7%, p < 0.001), and contacted by telephone post-discharge (18% vs. 2%, p < 0.001). Being contacted by telephone post-discharge (adjusted OR 2.74 [1.02-7.35]) and prescribed varenicline (adjusted OR 0.39 [0.19-0.83]) predicted smoking cessation at 2-months. In conclusion, readily available methods for aiding smoking cessation can be implemented effectively in routine practice, with beneficial effects for post-MI patients.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

Smoking Cessation

Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, and its harms are well established. Physicians have more evidence-based resources than ever before to effectively treat smoking, including new uses and combinations of U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved pharmacotherapies and expanded community programs. In addition, electronic nicotine delivery systems are potential treatment tools, but their safety and efficacy need to be established. Finally, high-priority groups, such as persons with cancer diagnoses or hospitalized patients, may benefit from particular attention to their tobacco use.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

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

PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTIONS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

DATA SOURCES

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

REVIEW METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

FUTURE WORK

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

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

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

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Poor adherence to lifestyle recommendations in patients with coronary heart disease: results from the EUROASPIRE surveys

AIMS 

Despite the high use of cardioprotective medications, the risk factor control in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) is still inadequate. Guidelines identify healthy lifestyles as equally important in secondary prevention as pharmacotherapy. Here, we describe reasons for poor lifestyle adherence from the patient's perspective.

METHODS AND RESULTS 

In the EUROASPIRE IV and V surveys, 16 259 CHD patients were examined and interviewed during a study visit ≥6 months after hospital discharge. Data gathering was fully standardized. The Brief Illness Perception questionnaire was completed by a subsample of 2379 patients. Half of those who were smoking prior to hospital admission, were still smoking; 37% of current smokers had not attempted to quit and 51% was not considering to do so. The prevalence of obesity was 38%. Half of obese patients tried to lose weight in the past month and 61% considered weight loss in the following month. In relation to physical activity, 40% was on target with half of patients trying to do more everyday activities. Less than half had the intention to engage in planned exercise. Only 29% of all patients was at goal for all three lifestyle factors. The number of adverse lifestyles was strongly related to the way patients perceive their illness as threatening. Lifestyle modifications were more successful in those having participated in a cardiac rehabilitation and prevention programme. Patients indicated lack of self-confidence as the main barrier to change their unhealthy behaviour.

CONCLUSION 

Modern secondary prevention programmes should target behavioural change in all patients with adverse lifestyles.

Cessation classification likelihood increases with higher expired-air carbon monoxide cutoffs: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Expired-air carbon monoxide (CO) is commonly used to biochemically verify smoking status. The CO cutoff and CO monitor brand may affect the probability of classifying smokers as abstinent, thus influencing conclusions about the efficacy of cessation trials. No systematic reviews have tested this hypothesis. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis examining whether the likelihood of smoking cessation classification varied due to CO cutoff and monitor brand.

METHODS

Eligible studies (k = 122) longitudinally assessed CO-verified cessation in adult smokers in randomized trials. Primary meta-regressions separately assessed differences in quit classification likelihood due to continuous and categorical CO cutoffs (Low, 3-4 parts per million [ppm]; [SRNT] Recommended, 5-6 ppm; Moderate, 7-8 ppm; and High, 9-10 ppm); exploratory analyses compared likelihood outcomes between monitor brands: Bedfont and Vitalograph.

RESULTS

The likelihood of quit classification increased 18% with each 1 ppm increase above the lowest cutoff (3 ppm). Odds of classification as quit significantly increased between each cutoff category and High: 261% increase from Low; 162% increase from Recommended; and 150% increase from Moderate. There were no differences in cessation classification between monitor brands.

CONCLUSIONS

As expected, higher CO cutoffs were associated with greater likelihood of cessation classification. The lack of CO monitor brand differences may have been due to model-level variance not able to be followed up in the present dataset. Researchers are advised to report outcomes using a range of cutoffs-including the recommended range (5-6 ppm)-and the CO monitor brand/model used. Using higher CO cutoffs significantly increases likelihood of quit classification, possibly artificially elevating treatment strategies.

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2021 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

BACKGROUND

The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors, including core health behaviors (smoking, physical activity, diet, and weight) and health factors (cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose control) that contribute to cardiovascular health. The Statistical Update presents the latest data on a range of major clinical heart and circulatory disease conditions (including stroke, congenital heart disease, rhythm disorders, subclinical atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, heart failure, valvular disease, venous disease, and peripheral artery disease) and the associated outcomes (including quality of care, procedures, and economic costs).

METHODS

The American Heart Association, through its Statistics Committee, continuously monitors and evaluates sources of data on heart disease and stroke in the United States to provide the most current information available in the annual Statistical Update. The 2021 Statistical Update is the product of a full year's worth of effort by dedicated volunteer clinicians and scientists, committed government professionals, and American Heart Association staff members. This year's edition includes data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, an enhanced focus on social determinants of health, adverse pregnancy outcomes, vascular contributions to brain health, the global burden of cardiovascular disease, and further evidence-based approaches to changing behaviors related to cardiovascular disease.

RESULTS

Each of the 27 chapters in the Statistical Update focuses on a different topic related to heart disease and stroke statistics.

CONCLUSIONS

The Statistical Update represents a critical resource for the lay public, policy makers, media professionals, clinicians, health care administrators, researchers, health advocates, and others seeking the best available data on these factors and conditions.

The efficacy and safety of varenicline alone versus in combination with nicotine lozenges for smoking cessation among hospitalised smokers (VANISH): study protocol for a randomised, placebo-controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Smoking is a leading cause of premature deaths globally. The health benefits of smoking cessation are many. However, majority of quit attempts are unsuccessful. One way to potentially improve success rates is to evaluate new combinations of existing smoking cessation therapies that may work synergistically to decrease the intensity of withdrawal symptoms and cravings.

AIMS

To evaluate the feasibility, efficacy and safety of the combination of varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) lozenges versus varenicline alone in assisting hospitalised smokers to quit.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Adults with a history of smoking ≥10 cigarettes per day on average in the 4 weeks prior to their hospitalisation will be recruited. Participants will be randomly assigned to either the intervention group and will receive varenicline and NRT lozenges, or the control group and will receive varenicline and placebo lozenges. All participants will be actively referred to behavioural support from telephone Quitline. Participants are followed up at 1 and 3 weeks and 3, 6 and 12 months from the start of treatment. The primary outcome is carbon monoxide validated prolonged abstinence from 2 weeks to 6 months after treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes include self-reported and biochemically validated prolonged and point prevalence abstinence at 3, 6 and 12 months, self-reported adverse events, withdrawal symptoms and cravings, adherence to treatment, Quitline sessions attended and others. According to the Russell Standard, all randomised participants will be accounted for in the primary intention-to-treat analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial will be conducted in compliance with the protocol, the principles of Good Clinical Practice, the National Health and Medical Research Council National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (updated 2015) and the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2018). Approval will be sought from the Human Ethics Committees of all the participating hospitals and the university. Written informed consent will be obtained from each participant at the time of recruitment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001792213).

Reducing Tobacco-Related Disability in Chronic Smokers

Tobacco consumption (predominantly cigarettes) is the leading preventable cause of mortality worldwide. Although the major focus of strategies to reduce mortality from tobacco must include prevention of future generations from initially gaining access, some smokers are unwilling or unable to quit. Can the higher risk chronic smoker be identified and can their risk be reduced? The risk of adverse events in cigarette smokers is influenced by the intensity and duration of cigarette smoking or secondhand exposure, associated conventional risk factors, environmental stressors, and certain genetic variants and epigenetic modifiers. Recent data suggest that inflammatory markers such as high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs CRP) and targeted imaging can identify some smokers at higher risk. As smoking is prothrombotic, aspirin initiation and expanded statin use might reduce cardiovascular risk in those who do not presently meet criteria for these therapies, but further study is required. Thus, although advocacy for smoking cessation should always be the primary approach, increased efforts are needed to identify and potentially treat those who are unable or unwilling to quit.

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.

Two-year efficacy of varenicline tartrate and counselling for inpatient smoking cessation (STOP study): A randomized controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Varenicline tartrate is superior for smoking cessation to other tobacco cessation therapies by 52 weeks, in the outpatient setting. We aimed to evaluate the long-term (104 week) efficacy following a standard course of inpatient-initiated varenicline tartrate plus Quitline-counselling compared to Quitline-counselling alone.

METHODS

Adult patients (n = 392, 20-75 years) admitted with a smoking-related illnesses to one of three hospitals, were randomised to receive either 12-weeks of varenicline tartrate (titrated from 0.5mg daily to 1mg twice-daily) plus Quitline-counselling, (n = 196) or Quitline-counselling alone, (n = 196), with continuous abstinence from smoking assessed at 104 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 1959 potential participants were screened for eligibility between August 2008 and December 2011. The proportion of participants who remained continuously abstinent (intention-to-treat) at 104 weeks were significantly greater in the varenicline tartrate plus counselling arm (29.2% n = 56) compared to counselling alone (18.8% n = 36; p = 0.02; odds ratio 1.78; 95%CI 1.10 to 2.86, p = 0.02). Twenty-two deaths occurred during the 104 week study (n = 10 for varenicline tartrate plus counselling and n = 12 for Quitline-counselling alone). All of these participants had known or developed underlying co-morbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to examine the efficacy and safety of varenicline tartrate over 104 weeks within any setting. Varenicline tartrate plus Quitline-counselling was found to be an effective opportunistic treatment when initiated for inpatient smokers who had been admitted with tobacco-related disease.

Smoking-cessation pharmacotherapy for patients with stroke and TIA: Systematic review

Data regarding the efficacy and safety of smoking-cessation pharmacotherapy after stroke are lacking. We systematically reviewed data on this topic by searching Medline, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov to identify randomized clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies that assessed the efficacy and safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline, and bupropion in patients with stroke and TIA. We included studies that reported rates of smoking cessation, worsening or recurrent cerebrovascular disease, seizures, or neuropsychiatric events. We identified 2 RCTs and 6 observational studies; 3 included ischemic stroke and TIA, 2 subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), and 3 did not specify. Four studies assessed efficacy; cessation rates ranged from 33% to 66% with pharmacological therapy combined with behavioral interventions versus 15% to 46% without, but no individual study demonstrated a statistically significant benefit. Safety data for varenicline and buopropion in ischemic stroke were scarce. Patients with SAH who received NRT had more seizures (9% vs 2%; P = 0.024) and delirium (19% vs 7%; P = 0.006) in one study, but less frequent vasospasm in 3 studies. In conclusion, combined with behavioral interventions, smoking-cessation therapies resulted in numerically higher cessation rates. Limited safety data may prompt caution regarding seizures and delirium in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage.

An Acute Care Contingency Management Program for the Treatment of Stimulant Use Disorder: A Case Report

BACKGROUND

Illicit stimulants such as crystal methamphetamine and cocaine are a rising cause of morbidity and mortality in North America. Unfortunately, there are few evidence-based approaches for the management of stimulant use disorder. Contingency management programs are currently the best evidenced treatment strategy, designed to reward behavior change and offer competing reinforcers toward the goal of reducing substance use, but these programs are often difficult to access. Given that it is well understood that hospitalization presents a valuable opportunity for the initiation of treatment for a variety of substance use disorders, the adaptation of contingency management programs to an acute medicine inpatient setting is a potentially viable option to improve care, and to increase access to effective treatment for stimulant use disorders.

CASE SUMMARY

We present a case outlining the clinical care of a complex medical patient admitted with osteomyelitis, whose course in hospital changed significantly upon enrollment in a pilot contingency management program in an urban hospital in Canada.

DISCUSSION

This case illustrates how effective treatment programs can be adapted as needed for use in novel settings, especially where current options are inaccessible, inadequate, or ineffective.

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2020 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

BACKGROUND

The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports on the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors, including core health behaviors (smoking, physical activity, diet, and weight) and health factors (cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose control) that contribute to cardiovascular health. The Statistical Update presents the latest data on a range of major clinical heart and circulatory disease conditions (including stroke, congenital heart disease, rhythm disorders, subclinical atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, heart failure, valvular disease, venous disease, and peripheral artery disease) and the associated outcomes (including quality of care, procedures, and economic costs).

METHODS

The American Heart Association, through its Statistics Committee, continuously monitors and evaluates sources of data on heart disease and stroke in the United States to provide the most current information available in the annual Statistical Update. The 2020 Statistical Update is the product of a full year's worth of effort by dedicated volunteer clinicians and scientists, committed government professionals, and American Heart Association staff members. This year's edition includes data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, metrics to assess and monitor healthy diets, an enhanced focus on social determinants of health, a focus on the global burden of cardiovascular disease, and further evidence-based approaches to changing behaviors, implementation strategies, and implications of the American Heart Association's 2020 Impact Goals.

RESULTS

Each of the 26 chapters in the Statistical Update focuses on a different topic related to heart disease and stroke statistics.

CONCLUSIONS

The Statistical Update represents a critical resource for the lay public, policy makers, media professionals, clinicians, healthcare administrators, researchers, health advocates, and others seeking the best available data on these factors and conditions.

Short-Term Safety of Nicotine Replacement in Smokers Hospitalized With Coronary Heart Disease

Background

Little is known about the safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in smokers hospitalized with coronary heart disease.

Methods and Results

We examined the short‐term safety of NRT use among smokers hospitalized for coronary heart disease in a geographically and structurally diverse sample of US hospitals in the year 2014. We compared smokers who started NRT in the first 2 days of hospitalization with smokers without any exposure to NRT and adjusted for baseline differences through propensity score matching. Outcomes included inpatient mortality, hospital length of stay, and 1‐month readmission. From 270 hospitals, we included 27 459 smokers (mean age, 58 years; 69% men; 56.9% in intensive care unit), of whom 4885 (17.8%) received NRT (97.2% used the nicotine patch, at a median dose of 21 mg/d for 3 days). After propensity matching, covariates were well balanced within each patient group. Among patients with myocardial infarction, compared with patients who did not receive NRT, those who received NRT showed no difference in mortality (2.1% versus 2.3%; P=0.98), mean length of stay (4.4±3.5 versus 4.3±3.3 days; P=0.60), or 1‐month readmission (15.8% versus 14.6%; P=0.31). Results were similar for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass surgery.

Conclusions

Among smokers hospitalized for treatment of coronary heart disease, use of NRT was not associated with any differences in short‐term outcomes. Given the known beneficial effects of NRT in treating nicotine withdrawal, reducing cravings, and promoting smoking cessation after discharge, our findings suggest that NRT is a safe and reasonable treatment option.

Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: 2019 Update to the 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

Background and Purpose- The purpose of these guidelines is to provide an up-to-date comprehensive set of recommendations in a single document for clinicians caring for adult patients with acute arterial ischemic stroke. The intended audiences are prehospital care providers, physicians, allied health professionals, and hospital administrators. These guidelines supersede the 2013 Acute Ischemic Stroke (AIS) Guidelines and are an update of the 2018 AIS Guidelines. Methods- Members of the writing group were appointed by the American Heart Association (AHA) Stroke Council's Scientific Statements Oversight Committee, representing various areas of medical expertise. Members were not allowed to participate in discussions or to vote on topics relevant to their relations with industry. An update of the 2013 AIS Guidelines was originally published in January 2018. This guideline was approved by the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee and the AHA Executive Committee. In April 2018, a revision to these guidelines, deleting some recommendations, was published online by the AHA. The writing group was asked review the original document and revise if appropriate. In June 2018, the writing group submitted a document with minor changes and with inclusion of important newly published randomized controlled trials with >100 participants and clinical outcomes at least 90 days after AIS. The document was sent to 14 peer reviewers. The writing group evaluated the peer reviewers' comments and revised when appropriate. The current final document was approved by all members of the writing group except when relationships with industry precluded members from voting and by the governing bodies of the AHA. These guidelines use the American College of Cardiology/AHA 2015 Class of Recommendations and Level of Evidence and the new AHA guidelines format. Results- These guidelines detail prehospital care, urgent and emergency evaluation and treatment with intravenous and intra-arterial therapies, and in-hospital management, including secondary prevention measures that are appropriately instituted within the first 2 weeks. The guidelines support the overarching concept of stroke systems of care in both the prehospital and hospital settings. Conclusions- These guidelines provide general recommendations based on the currently available evidence to guide clinicians caring for adult patients with acute arterial ischemic stroke. In many instances, however, only limited data exist demonstrating the urgent need for continued research on treatment of acute ischemic stroke.

Smoking cessation after hospitalization for myocardial infarction or cardiac surgery: Assessing patient interest, confidence, and physician prescribing practices

Background

Prioritizing and managing multiple behavior changes following a cardiac hospitalization can be difficult, particularly among smokers who must also overcome a serious addiction.

Hypothesis

Hospitalized smokers will report a strong interest in smoking cessation (SC) but will receive little assistance from their physicians.

Methods

We asked current smokers hospitalized for an acute cardiac event to prioritize their health behavior priorities, and inquired about their attitude toward SC therapies. We also assessed SC cessation prescriptions provided by their physicians.

Results

Of the 105 patients approached, 81 (77%) completed the survey. Of these, 72.5% ranked SC as their greatest health change priority, surpassing all other behavior changes, including: taking medications, attending cardiac rehabilitation (CR), dieting, losing weight, and attending doctor appointments. Patients felt that SCM (44%), CR (41%), and starting exercise (35%) would increase their likelihood for SC. While most patients agreed that smoking was harmful, 16% strongly disagreed that smoking was related to their hospitalization. At discharge, medication was prescribed to ~32% of patients, with equal frequency among patients who reported interest and those who reported no interest in using medications.

Conclusion

The majority of hospitalized smokers with cardiac disease want to quit smoking, desire help in doing so, and overwhelmingly rate cessation as their highest health behavior priority, although some believe smoking is unrelated to their disease. The period following an acute cardiac event appears to be a time of great receptivity to SC interventions; however, rates of providing tailored, evidence‐based interventions are disappointingly low.

Current advances in research in treatment and recovery: Nicotine addiction

The health harms of combusted tobacco use are undeniable. With market and regulatory pressures to reduce the harms of nicotine delivery by combustion, the tobacco product landscape has diversified to include smokeless, heated, and electronic nicotine vaping products. Products of tobacco combustion are the main cause of smoking-induced disease, and nicotine addiction sustains tobacco use. An understanding of the biology and clinical features of nicotine addiction and the conditioning of behavior that occurs via stimuli paired with frequent nicotine dosing, as with a smoked cigarette, is important for informing pharmacologic and behavioral treatment targets. We review current advances in research on nicotine addiction treatment and recovery, with a focus on conventional combustible cigarette use. Our review covers evidence-based methods to treat smoking in adults and policy approaches to prevent nicotine product initiation in youth. In closing, we discuss emerging areas of evidence and consider new directions for advancing the field.

Effect of Intensive Personalized "5As+5Rs" Intervention on Smoking Cessation in Hospitalized Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients Not Ready to Quit Immediately: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction

The acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients who are not ready to quit smoking immediately have an extremely low rate of cessation. This study aims to investigate the efficacy of intensive personalized '5As+5Rs'intervention (IPANR intervention) on smoking cessation in this population.

Methods

A parallel-group randomized controlled trial was carried out, which compared IPANR intervention with routine 5Rs (control) at Fu Xing Hospital, Capital Medical University, Bei Jing, China. Three hundred and twenty hospitalized ACS smokers who were not ready to quit were randomly distributed to IPANR intervention group comprising three individual counseling during hospitalization and 15 intensive follow-up sessions (weekly during months 1, 2, 3, and monthly thereafter until month 6) or 5Rs group in a 1:1 fashion by 8 cardiologists who were blinded to the allocation sequence. Primary end point was carbon monoxide-confirmed continuous abstinence rate (CAR) through week 9 to week 12. Secondary outcome included abstinence rate at 24 weeks.

Results

Overall, 97.5% (312/320) participants completed the trial. An intention-to-treat analysis showed statistically significant advantage of IPANR compared with control group at 4 weeks CAR (27.5% vs. 17.5%, RR = 1.571, 95% CI = 1.032-2.392, p = 0.032, number needed to treat (NNT) = 10), and abstinence rate at 24 weeks (23.8% vs.15.0%, RR 1.583, 95% CI = 0.998-2.512, p = 0.048, NNT: 11.36). At 24 weeks, cigarettes smoked per day by the patients who failed to quit were significant lower in IPANR group than 5Rs group (13.21 ± 8.23 vs. 17.45 ± 10.71; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The IPANR initiated during hospitalization, is a feasible and effective approach for smoking cessation in ACS patients not ready to quit immediately.

Implications

Smoking has a major impact on acute stages of ACS for recurrent ischemic events and long-term outcomes. However, there are few evidence-based treatments for smokers who are not ready to quit. This study described a cessation intervention initiated during hospitalization and included 15 intensive follow-up aimed at enabling ACS smokers who were not ready to quit immediately to deliver adequate motivational and behavior change counseling. Given its effectiveness demonstrated in this prospective study, this intervention in hospitalized ACS smokers might have the potential to substantially improve the cessation rate of ACS patients who are not ready to quit smoking immediately.