Adapting smoking cessation treatment according to initial response to precessation nicotine patch

Smoking Cessation After Initial Treatment Failure With Varenicline or Nicotine Replacement: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Most people who smoke do not quit on their initial attempt.

Objective

To determine the best subsequent strategy for nonabstinence following initial treatment with varenicline or combined nicotine replacement therapy (CNRT).

Design, Setting, and Participants

Using a double-blind, placebo-controlled, sequential multiple assignment randomized trial, 490 volunteers were randomized to receive 6 weeks of varenicline or CNRT. After 6 weeks, nonabstainers were rerandomized to continue, switch, or increase medication dosage for 6 additional weeks. The study was conducted from June 2015 through October 2019 in a Texas tobacco treatment clinic.

Interventions

The initial treatment was 2 mg/d of varenicline or the combined replacement therapy of a 21-mg patch plus 2-mg lozenge. The rerandomized participants either continued with their initial therapies, switched between varenicline and CNRT, or increased dosages either to 3-mg or more of varenicline or to a 42-mg patch and lozenges. All received weekly brief counseling.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence at the end of treatment at 12 weeks.

Results

The 490 randomized participants (210 female [43%], 287 non-Hispanic White [58%], mean age, 48.1 years) smoked an average of 20 cigarettes per day. After the first phase, 54 participants in the CNRT group were abstinent and continued their therapy; of the 191 who were not abstinent, 151 were rerandomized, and the 40 who did not return for rerandomization were assigned to continue their initial CNRT condition in phase 2. The end-of-treatment abstinence rate for the 191 phase 1 nonabstainers was 8% (95% credible interval [CrI], 6% to 10%) for the 90 (47%) who continued at the dosage condition, 14% (CrI, 10% to 18%) for the 50 (33%) who increased their dosage, and 14% (95% CrI, 10% to 18%) for the 51 (34%) who switched to varenicline (absolute risk difference [RD], 6%; 95% CrI, 6% to 11%) with more than 99% posterior probability that either strategy conferred benefit over continuing the initial dosage. After the first phase, 88 participants in the varenicline group were abstinent and continued their therapy; of the 157 who were not abstinent, 122 were rerandomized and 35 who did not return for rerandomization were assigned to continue with the varenicline condition. The end-of-treatment abstinence rate for the 157 phase 1 nonabstainers was 20% (95% CrI, 16% to 26%) for the 39 (32%) who increased their varenicline dosage, 0 (95% CrI, 0 to 0) for the 41 (34%) who switched CNRT, and 3% (95% CrI, 1% to 4%) for the 77 (49%) who were assigned to the continued varenicline condition (absolute RD, -3%; 95% CrI, -4% to -1%) with more than 99% posterior probability that continuing varenicline at the initial dosage was worse than switching to a higher dosage. Furthermore, increasing the varenicline dosage had an absolute RD of 18% (95% CrI, 13% to 24%) and a more than 99% posterior probability of conferring benefit. The secondary outcome of continuous abstinence at 6 months indicated that only increased dosages of the CNRT and varenicline provided benefit over continuation of the initial treatment dosages.

Conclusions and Relevance

For individuals who smoked but did not achieve abstinence after treatment with varenicline, increasing the dosage enhanced abstinence vs continuing, whereas for nonabstainers initially treated with CNRT, a dosage increase or switch to varenicline enhanced abstinence and may be viable rescue strategies.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02271919.

Adaptive Smoking Cessation Using Precessation Varenicline or Nicotine Patch: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Adaptive pharmacotherapy, ie, starting a medication regimen and then modifying that regimen based on patient response, is common in many medical domains but is not common in smoking cessation. Recently, studies have found that adaptive treatment using precessation nicotine patches is efficacious for smoking cessation; however, adaptive treatment using precessation varenicline and adaptive treatment in clinical practice settings have not been fully assessed.

Objective

To determine whether adaptive pharmacotherapy leads to higher smoking abstinence rates than standard pharmacotherapy in a clinical practice setting.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This double-blinded stratified placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial compared adaptive treatment with standard treatment for smoking cessation. The study was conducted at a university health system in Durham, North Carolina, from February 2018 to May 2020 and was stopped early due to COVID-19. Data were analyzed as intent-to-treat from May 24, 2021, to February 27, 2022.

Interventions

Participants were allowed to choose varenicline or nicotine patches and were then randomized to adaptive or nonadaptive (standard) treatment. Participants started on their chosen medication (adaptive) or placebo (standard) 4 weeks before their target quit day. Two weeks later, participants were assessed for treatment response. Adaptive participants who did not decrease daily cigarettes smoked by at least 50% (nonresponders) received bupropion in addition to their chosen medication. Participants in the adaptative treatment group who did decrease daily cigarettes smoked by at least 50% (responders) and participants in the standard treatment group received additional placebo bupropion. Participants in the standard treatment group received varenicline starting 1 week before the target quit date or nicotine patches starting on the target quit day. All participants received brief behavioral support.

Main Outcome and Measures

The main outcome was biochemically verified 30-day continuous smoking abstinence 12 weeks after their target quit smoking day. Other measures included demographic characteristics, smoking history, and repeated smoking assessments.

Results

Of the planned 300 participants, a total of 188 participants (mean [SD] age, 49.1 [12.5] years; 102 [54%] female) were enrolled before the trial was stopped because of the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 127 participants chose to use varenicline, including 64 randomized to adaptive treatment and 63 randomized to standard treatment, and 61 participants chose to use nicotine patches, including 31 randomized to adaptive treatment and 30 randomized to standard treatment. At baseline, participants smoked a mean (SD) of 15.4 (7.3) cigarettes per day. At 12 weeks after the target quit day, biochemically verified 30-day continuous smoking abstinence was observed in 23 of 95 participants (24%) in the adaptive treatment group and 8 of 93 participants (9%) in the standard treatment (odds ratio [OR], 3.38; 95% CI, 1.43-7.99; P = .004); among participants who used varenicline, 30-day continuous abstinence was 18 participants (28%) in the adaptive treatment group, and 5 participants (8%) in the standard treatment group (OR, 4.54; 95% CI, 1.57-13.15); among participants who used nicotine patches, 30-day continuous abstinence was 5 participants (16%) in the adaptive treatment group and 3 participants (10%) in the standard treatment group (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 0.38-7.99). Sleep problems were more common for participants in the varenicline adaptive treatment group than in the varenicline standard treatment group (rate ratio, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.18-2.58; P = .03).

Conclusions and Relevance

This randomized clinical trial found that adaptive pharmacotherapy was efficacious for smoking cessation treatment in a practice setting.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02501265.

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.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

The pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied. However, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco: nicotine withdrawal can produce short-term low mood that antidepressants may relieve; and some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, harms, and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, most recently on 29 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people who smoked, comparing antidepressant medications with placebo or no pharmacological treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used differently. We excluded trials with fewer than six months of follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length for our analyses of harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months' follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Our secondary outcomes were harms and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropouts due to treatment. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 124 studies (48,832 participants) in this review, with 10 new studies added to this update version. Most studies recruited adults from the community or from smoking cessation clinics; four studies focused on adolescents (with participants between 12 and 21 years old). We judged 34 studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not change clinical interpretation of the results.  There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased smoking cessation rates when compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.49 to 1.72; I2 = 16%; 50 studies, 18,577 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that a combination of bupropion and varenicline may have resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I2 = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence to establish whether a combination of bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; I2 = 43%; 15 studies, 4117 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was moderate-certainty evidence that participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs than those taking placebo or no pharmacological treatment. However, results were imprecise and the CI also encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 23 studies, 10,958 participants). Results were also imprecise when comparing SAEs between people randomised to a combination of bupropion and NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.89; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 657 participants) and randomised to bupropion plus varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.42; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1268 participants). In both cases, we judged evidence to be of low certainty. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to AEs than placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.65; I2 = 2%; 25 studies, 12,346 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence that bupropion combined with NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 737 participants) or bupropion combined with varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.45; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1230 participants) had an impact on the number of dropouts due to treatment. In both cases, imprecision was substantial (we judged the evidence to be of low certainty for both comparisons). Bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.80; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7564 participants), and to combination NRT (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 720 participants). However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and single-form NRT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 7613 participants). We also found evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I2 = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), and some evidence that bupropion resulted in superior quit rates to nortriptyline (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants), although this result was subject to imprecision. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion may increase SAEs (moderate-certainty evidence when compared to placebo/no pharmacological treatment). There is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with people receiving placebo or no pharmacological treatment. Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo, although bupropion may be more effective. Evidence also suggests that bupropion may be as successful as single-form NRT in helping people to quit smoking, but less effective than combination NRT and varenicline. In most cases, a paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions regarding harms and tolerability. Further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over other licensed smoking cessation treatments; namely, NRT and varenicline. However, it is important that future studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation measure and report on harms and tolerability.

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 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.

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.

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

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

Assessment of Racial Differences in Pharmacotherapy Efficacy for Smoking Cessation: Secondary Analysis of the EAGLES Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Understanding Black vs White differences in pharmacotherapy efficacy and the underlying reasons is critically important to reducing tobacco-related health disparities.

OBJECTIVE

To compare pharmacotherapy efficacy and examine variables to explain Black vs White differences in smoking abstinence.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This study is a secondary analysis of the Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study (EAGLES) double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial, which took place at clinical trial centers, academic centers, and outpatient clinics in 29 states in the US. US Black and White smokers who smoked 10 or more cigarettes per day with and without psychiatric comorbidity were enrolled between November 2011 and January 2015. Data analysis was performed from July 2019 to January 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized (1:1:1:1) in a double-blind, triple-dummy, placebo- and active-controlled (nicotine patch) trial of varenicline and bupropion for 12 weeks with follow-up through week 24.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Biochemically verified continuous cigarette abstinence rate (CAR) from weeks 9 to 24. Baseline, postbaseline treatment, and safety characteristics were examined as variables to explain race differences in abstinence.

RESULTS

Of the 1065 Black smokers enrolled, 255 were randomized to receive varenicline, 259 received bupropion, 286 received nicotine replacement therapy (NRT [ie, nicotine patch]), and 265 received placebo. Among the 3044 White smokers enrolled, 778 were randomized to receive varenicline, 769 received bupropion, 738 received NRT, and 759 received placebo. Participants were predominantly female (614 Black [57.7%] and 1786 White [58.7%] women) and heavy smokers (mean [SD] cigarettes per day, 18.2 [7.9] for Black and 20.0 [7.5] for White smokers), with a mean (SD) age of 47.2 (11.2) years for Black and 46.5 (12.7) years for White participants. Treatment and race were associated with CAR for weeks 9 to 24. The CAR was 4.9% lower for Black vs White participants (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.41-0.69; P < .001); differences were found across all treatments. Pooling psychiatric and nonpsychiatric cohorts, varenicline (OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.90-3.63; P < .001), bupropion (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.25-2.46; P = .001), and NRT (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.07-2.16; P = .02) had greater efficacy than placebo for White participants. Only varenicline (OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.26-5.48; P = .01) had greater efficacy than placebo for Black participants. Baseline, postbaseline, and safety characteristics differed by race, but these variables did not eliminate the association of race with CAR. Black participants had 49% reduced odds of CAR for weeks 9 to 24 compared with White participants in the adjusted model (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39-0.66; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Black and White smokers achieved the highest rate of abstinence while taking varenicline, suggesting that it is the best first-line therapy for these groups. However, Black smokers were less responsive to all therapies, including placebo. Understanding variables (eg, socioeconomic or biological) beyond those may lead to improved treatment outcomes for Black smokers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01456936.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Whilst the pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco. Firstly, nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms and antidepressants may relieve these. Additionally, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the efficacy, safety and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Specialized Register, which includes reports of trials indexed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO, clinicaltrials.gov, the ICTRP, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in May 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited smokers, and compared antidepressant medications with placebo or no treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used in a different way. We excluded trials with less than six months follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length in safety analyses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months follow-up, expressed as a risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. Similarly, we presented incidence of safety and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropout due to drug, as RRs (95% CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 115 studies (33 new to this update) in this review; most recruited adult participants from the community or from smoking cessation clinics. We judged 28 of the studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk did not change clinical interpretation of the results. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased long-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.52 to 1.77; I² = 15%; 45 studies, 17,866 participants). There was insufficient evidence to establish whether participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs compared to those taking placebo. Results were imprecise and CIs encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I² = 0%; 21 studies, 10,625 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded one level due to imprecision). We found high-certainty evidence that use of bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to adverse events of the drug than placebo (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.56; I² = 19%; 25 studies, 12,340 participants). Participants randomized to bupropion were also more likely to report psychiatric AEs compared with those randomized to placebo (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.37; I² = 15%; 6 studies, 4439 participants). We also looked at the safety and efficacy of bupropion when combined with other non-antidepressant smoking cessation therapies. There was insufficient evidence to establish whether combination bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.51; I² = 52%; 12 studies, 3487 participants), or whether combination bupropion and varenicline resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I² = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). We judged the certainty of evidence to be low and moderate, respectively; in both cases due to imprecision, and also due to inconsistency in the former. Safety data were sparse for these comparisons, making it difficult to draw clear conclusions. A meta-analysis of six studies provided evidence that bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.79; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 6286 participants), whilst there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and NRT (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; I² = 18%; 10 studies, 8230 participants). We also found some evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I² = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), whilst there was insufficient evidence to determine whether bupropion or nortriptyline were more effective when compared with one another (RR 1.30 (favouring bupropion), 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants). There was no evidence that any of the other antidepressants tested (including St John's Wort, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)) had a beneficial effect on smoking cessation. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion also increases the number of adverse events, including psychiatric AEs, and there is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with placebo. However, there is no clear evidence to suggest whether people taking bupropion experience more or fewer SAEs than those taking placebo (moderate certainty). Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo. Evidence suggests that bupropion may be as successful as NRT and nortriptyline in helping people to quit smoking, but that it is less effective than varenicline. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the other antidepressants tested, such as SSRIs, aid smoking cessation, and when looking at safety and tolerance outcomes, in most cases, paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions. Due to the high-certainty evidence, further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over front-line smoking cessation aids already available. However, it is important that where studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation are carried out they measure and report safety and tolerability clearly.

Smoking cessation interventions for potential use in the lung cancer screening setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Current guidelines recommend delivery of smoking cessation interventions with lung cancer screening (LCS). Unfortunately, there are limited data to guide clinicians and policy-makers in choosing cessation interventions in this setting. Several trials are underway to fill this evidence gap, but results are not expected for several years.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature on the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions among populations eligible for LCS. We searched PubMed, Medline, and PsycINFO for randomized controlled trials of smoking cessation interventions published from 2010-2017. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they sampled individuals likely to be eligible for LCS based on age and smoking history, had sample sizes >100, follow-up of 6- or 12-months, and were based in North America, Western Europe, Australia, or New Zealand.

RESULTS

Three investigators independently screened 3,813 abstracts and identified 332 for full-text review. Of these, 85 trials were included and grouped into categories based on the primary intervention: electronic/web-based, in-person counseling, pharmacotherapy, and telephone counseling. At 6-month follow-up, electronic/web-based (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% CI 1.03-1.25), in-person counseling (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.25-1.70), and pharmacotherapy (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33-1.77) interventions significantly increased the odds of abstinence. Telephone counseling increased the odds but did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.98-1.50). At 12-months, in-person counseling (OR 1.28 95% CI 1.10-1.50) and pharmacotherapy (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17-1.84) remained efficacious, although the decrement in efficacy was of similar magnitude across all intervention categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Several categories of cessation interventions are promising for implementation in the LCS setting.

Patient-Informed Treatment Development of Behavioral Smoking Cessation for People With Schizophrenia

The objective of this study was to use qualitative methodology to tailor and refine an existing smoking cessation intervention for the population of people who use cigarettes and are diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or psychotic disorder. Successive cohort design methodology was used to iteratively modify the treatment in response to qualitative participant, therapist, and consultant feedback on the intervention. Qualitative methodology for participant feedback included analysis of semistructured interviews with participants, visualization of app utilization data, and stakeholder feedback from study therapists and consultants. Using the successive cohort design, a tailored multicomponent mobile health smoking cessation intervention was developed. The intervention included mobile contingency management (i.e., financial compensation for confirmed abstinence from smoking), pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation, cognitive-behavioral counseling sessions, and the Stay Quit app for relapse prevention. Two cohorts (N = 13) were completed in the study; after each cohort, the treatment protocol was revised. The intervention is described, as well as the qualitative findings from each cohort and subsequent changes made to the intervention based upon patient and provider feedback. Metrics of patient engagement included treatment adherence (40% in Cohort 1 and 63% in Cohort 2). Both participants and therapists reported that the intervention was helpful. Over one third of participants self-reported abstinence at posttreatment. Since qualitative methodology is often underutilized in mental health treatment development, this study demonstrates the utility of the successive cohort design for treatment development of behavior change interventions for at-risk, vulnerable populations.

Statistical design and analysis in trials of proportionate interventions: a systematic review

Background

In proportionate or adaptive interventions, the dose or intensity can be adjusted based on individual need at predefined decision stages during the delivery of the intervention. The development of such interventions may require an evaluation of the effectiveness of the individual stages in addition to the whole intervention. However, evaluating individual stages of an intervention has various challenges, particularly the statistical design and analysis. This review aimed to identify the use of trials of proportionate interventions and how they are being designed and analysed in current practice.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science and PsycINFO for articles published between 2010 and 2015 inclusive. We considered trials of proportionate interventions in all fields of research. For each trial, its aims, design and analysis were extracted. The data synthesis was conducted using summary statistics and a narrative format.

Results

Our review identified 44 proportionate intervention trials, comprising 28 trial results, 13 protocols and three secondary analyses. These were mostly described as stepped care (n=37) and mainly focussed on mental health research (n=30). The other studies were aimed at finding an optimal adaptive treatment strategy (n=7) in a variety of therapeutic areas. Further terminology used included adaptive intervention, staged intervention, sequentially multiple assignment trial or a two-phase design. The median number of decision stages in the interventions was two and only one study explicitly evaluated the effect of the individual stages.

Conclusions

Trials of proportionate staged interventions are being used predominantly within the mental health field. However, few studies consider the different stages of the interventions, either at the design or the analysis phase, and how they may interact with one another. There is a need for further guidance on the design, analyses and reporting across trials of proportionate interventions.

Trial registration

Prospero, CRD42016033781. Registered on 2 February 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3206-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effect of Long-term Nicotine Replacement Therapy vs Standard Smoking Cessation for Smokers With Chronic Lung Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have particular difficulty quitting. Long-term nicotine replacement therapy (LT-NRT) might offer a strategy for reducing harm from cigarettes and provide a pathway for later cessation.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of LT-NRT vs standard smoking cessation (SSC) on exposure to cigarette smoke, harm related to smoking, and cessation among smokers with COPD.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This unblinded, randomized clinical trial recruited smokers who self-reported a diagnosis of COPD at any level of readiness to quit from May 23, 2014, through November 30, 2015. The 12-month follow-up was completed December 6, 2016. Patients were recruited at a clinical research unit of an academic medical center. Analysis was based on intention to treat and performed from March 8 through November 30, 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

Standard smoking cessation treatment included 10 weeks of NRT and 4 follow-up counseling sessions for those willing to make a quit attempt. Long-term NRT included 12 months of NRT and 6 follow-up counseling sessions regardless of initial willingness to quit. Overall, 198 patients were randomized to SSC, and 197 were included in the primary analysis; 200 patients were randomized to LT-NRT, and 197 were included in the primary analysis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was 7-day abstinence verified by carbon monoxide (CO) levels at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included cigarettes smoked per day (CPD), exposure to CO, urinary excretion of 4-methylnitrosamino-1-3-pyridyl-1-butanol (NNAL) (a smoking-related carcinogen), and adverse events.

RESULTS

Among 398 patients who were randomized (59.8% female; mean [SD] age, 56.0 [9.3] years), the mean (SD) CPD was 23.1 (12.3). Twelve-month follow-up was completed by 373 participants (93.7%), and 394 (99.0%) were included in the primary analysis. At 12 months, CO-verified abstinence occurred in 23 of 197 participants (11.7%) in the SSC arm and 24 of 197 (12.2%) in the LT-NRT arm (risk difference, 0.5%; 95% CI, -5.9% to 6.9%). Continuing smokers in the SSC and LT-NRT arms had similar, significantly reduced harms caused by smoking, including cigarette consumption by 12.4 and 14.5 CPD, respectively, exhaled CO level by 5.5 and 7.8 ppm, respectively, and mean urinary NNAL excretion by 21.7% and 23.0%, respectively. In multivariate analyses, continuing smokers with greater adherence to NRT experienced less reduction in NNAL exposure. The frequency of major adverse cardiac events was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Similar rates of cessation and similar reductions in exposure to tobacco smoke resulted with LT-NRT and SSC. Among continuing smokers, ongoing use of NRT was not associated with reductions in smoke exposure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02148445.

Effects on abstinence of nicotine patch treatment before quitting smoking: parallel, two arm, pragmatic randomised trial

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effectiveness of a nicotine patch worn for four weeks before a quit attempt.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled open label trial.

SETTING

Primary care and smoking cessation clinics in England, 2012-15.

PARTICIPANTS

1792 adults who were daily smokers with tobacco dependence. 899 were allocated to the preloading arm and 893 to the control arm.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised 1:1, using concealed randomly permuted blocks stratified by centre, to either standard smoking cessation pharmacotherapy and behavioural support or the same treatment supplemented by four weeks of 21 mg nicotine patch use before quitting: "preloading."

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was biochemically confirmed prolonged abstinence at six months. Secondary outcomes were prolonged abstinence at four weeks and 12 months.

RESULTS

Biochemically validated abstinence at six months was achieved by 157/899 (17.5%) participants in the preloading arm and 129/893 (14.4%) in the control arm: difference 3.0% (95% confidence interval -0.4% to 6.4%), odds ratio 1.25 (95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.62), P=0.08 in the primary analysis. There was an imbalance between arms in the frequency of varenicline use as post-cessation treatment, and planned adjustment for this gave an odds ratio for the effect of preloading of 1.34 (95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.73), P=0.03: difference 3.8% (0.4% to 7.2%). At four weeks, the difference in prolonged abstinence unadjusted for varenicline use was odds ratio 1.21 (1.00 to 1.48), difference 4.3% (0.0% to 8.7%), P=0.05, and adjusted for varenicline use was 1.32 (1.08 to 1.62) P=0.007. At 12 months the odds ratio was 1.28 (0.97 to 1.69), difference 2.7% (-0.4% to 5.8%), P=0.09 unadjusted for varenicline use and after adjustment was 1.36 (1.02 to 1.80) P=0.04. 5.9% of participants discontinued preloading owing to intolerance. Gastrointestinal symptoms-chiefly nausea-occurred in 4.0% (2.2% to 5.9%) more people in the preloading arm than control arm. Eight serious adverse events occurred in the preloading arm and eight in the control arm (odds ratio 0.99, 0.36 to 2.75).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence was insufficient to confidently show that nicotine preloading increases subsequent smoking abstinence. The beneficial effect seems to have been masked by a concurrent reduction in the use of varenicline in people using nicotine preloading, and future studies should explore ways to mitigate this unintended effect.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33031001.

The effectiveness and safety of combining varenicline with nicotine e-cigarettes for smoking cessation in people with mental illnesses and addictions: study protocol for a randomised-controlled trial

Background

Smoking rates are higher in New Zealand (NZ) adults with mental illnesses and alcohol and other drug (AOD) addictions, compared to the overall population. Quit attempts using “gold standard” smoking cessation treatments often fail in people with these conditions, so more flexible treatment regimens that adapt to a person’s responsiveness to treatment are worth investigating. The STATUS trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of combining varenicline with nicotine e-cigarettes for smoking cessation among varenicline non-responders in treatment for mental health illnesses and/or AOD addictions.

Methods

This is a pragmatic two-arm, open-label, randomised trial. Participants will be daily smokers using mental health and/or addiction services in Auckland, aged ≥18 years, motivated to quit smoking, and eligible to access varenicline through the NZ special authority process. After 2 weeks of using varenicline plus behavioural support, participants who have not reduced their daily smoking by ≥50% will be randomised (1:1) to either 10 weeks of continued varenicline use or 10 weeks of varenicline plus an 18 mg/mL nicotine e-cigarette. All participants will receive weekly withdrawal-orientated behavioural support calls for 6 weeks post-randomisation. The primary outcome is self-reported biochemically-verified (exhaled carbon monoxide) continuous abstinence at 24 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes, measured at six, 12 and 24 weeks post-randomisation include: self-reported continuous abstinence, 7-day point prevalence abstinence, smoking reduction, time to relapse, cross-over, use of other smoking cessation support, serious adverse events, treatment adherence, compliance, acceptability, dual use, continuation of treatment use, mental illness symptoms and AOD use, health-related quality of life, and cost-analysis. A sample size of 338 will confer 80% power (p = 0.05) to detect a 15% absolute difference between the varenicline alone and varenicline plus e-cigarette groups.

Discussion

People with mental illness and/or AOD addictions are just as motivated as others to quit smoking, but are less likely to succeed. Adapting smoking cessation medication after a lack of responsiveness in the first 2 weeks of initial treatment in this priority population by adding a nicotine e-cigarette may be one way to increase long-term quit rates.

Trial Registration

Australian NZ Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12616001355460 (29 September 2016).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-5351-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Combination Varenicline/Bupropion Treatment Benefits Highly Dependent Smokers in an Adaptive Smoking Cessation Paradigm

Introduction

This study replicated and extended results of a previous trial, which found that combination varenicline/bupropion treatment increased smoking abstinence in smokers who were male, highly dependent, and who did not respond to prequit nicotine patch treatment with a >50% reduction in expired-air carbon monoxide in the first week.

Methods

One hundred and twenty-two male nicotine patch nonresponders and 52 responders were identified. Smokers in each group were randomized to receive 12 weeks of varenicline plus bupropion treatment versus varenicline plus placebo. The primary outcome was continuous smoking abstinence at weeks 8–11 after the target quit date.

Results

For smokers with a high level of dependence, judged by having a baseline Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) score ≥ 6 and cigarette consumption ≥ 20/d, combination varenicline/bupropion treatment increased the abstinence rate relative to varenicline alone: 71.0% versus 43.8% (odds ratio = 3.14; 95% confidence interval = 1.11–8.92, p [one tailed] = .016). In contrast, less dependent smokers did not show a benefit of combination treatment relative to varenicline (abstinence rates of 32.1% vs. 45.6%, respectively); there was a significant interaction of treatment and dependence level. Patch nonresponders tended to benefit the most from combination treatment, which was well tolerated overall.

Conclusions

Combination varenicline/bupropion treatment proved significantly more efficacious than varenicline alone among highly dependent male smokers. These results, together with prior studies, support an adaptive treatment paradigm that assigns smoking cessation treatment according to baseline smoker characteristics and initial response to nicotine patch treatment.

Implications

This study replicated, in a prospective manner, an important and surprising retrospective finding from a previous clinical trial, which showed that a specific subpopulation of smokers benefited substantially from receiving a combination treatment of varenicline plus bupropion, relative to varenicline plus placebo. Specifically, male smokers having high baseline nicotine dependence (FTND score ≥ 6 and cigarette consumption ≥ 20/d), showed a marked increase in smoking abstinence rate on combination pharmacotherapy. The present study likewise found an enhancement in end-of-treatment abstinence rate in this subgroup, from 43.8% to 71.0%. The adaptive treatment paradigm, which classifies smokers based on initial dependence level and response to prequit nicotine patch treatment, may be used to identify target populations of smokers whose success can be enhanced by intervening with combination pharmacotherapy before the quit-smoking date.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01806779.

The effect of varenicline and nicotine patch on smoking rate and satisfaction with smoking: an examination of the mechanism of action of two pre-quit pharmacotherapies

OBJECTIVES

In recent years, there has been growing research interest in using nicotine replacement medications to aid smoking reduction prior to a quit attempt. Gaining a better understanding of how treatments influence smoking reduction may allow for better tailoring of treatments and, ultimately, better cessation outcomes. The objective of the current study was to test the effects of the pre-quit use of varenicline and nicotine patch on smoking rate and satisfaction with smoking.

METHODS

All participants were required to attend up to five study visit sections. Participants (n = 213) who were interested in quitting were randomised (open-label) to receive either pre-quit patch or varenicline (both treatments started 2 weeks prior to an assigned quit day, followed by 10 weeks post-quit) or standard patch (10 weeks starting from an assigned quit day). Participants used modified smartphones to monitor their smoking in real time for 4 weeks.

RESULTS

Participants in the two pre-quit treatment groups reported significant reductions in both their satisfaction with smoking (p < 0.001) and smoking rate (p < 0.001) from baseline to the end of pre-quit period; participants in the standard patch group did not. The observed reduction of smoking rate was associated with the satisfaction with smoking (p < 0.01), although the mediation effect of satisfaction was small.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-quit treatment caused reductions in satisfaction with smoking and smoking rate. Satisfaction was associated with changes in smoking rate, but the relationship was weak. As such, monitoring reductions in satisfaction do not appear to be a viable method of evaluating responsiveness to treatment.

What a difference a day makes: differences in initial abstinence response during a smoking cessation attempt

AIMS

To (1) identify distinct classes of smokers based on quit day withdrawal symptoms and (2) explore the relations between withdrawal classes and demographics, tobacco dependence, treatment and smoking outcomes.

DESIGN

Secondary data analysis of participants (n = 1504) in a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled multi-site smoking cessation trial who provided ecological momentary assessments of withdrawal symptoms on their quit day. Participants received smoking cessation counseling and were randomized to receive placebo or one of five active pharmacotherapies.

SETTING

Research offices in Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult smokers (n = 1236; 58% female, 86% white), recruited from the community via advertisements, who abstained on their quit day.

MEASUREMENTS

Demographics and tobacco dependence were assessed at baseline and participants carried palmtop computers to record withdrawal symptoms (craving, negative affect, difficulty concentrating, hunger and anhedonia) on their quit day. Point-prevalence abstinence and latency to relapse were assessed at 8 weeks and 6 months post-quit.

FINDINGS

Latent class analysis identified four withdrawal classes [Akaike information criterion (AIC) = 70.09]: Moderate withdrawal (64% of sample), high craving-anhedonia (8% of sample), affective withdrawal (13% of sample) and hunger (15% of sample). The high craving-anhedonia class reported significantly higher dependence (P < 0.01), were less likely to have received combination nicotine replacement, reported lower week 8 abstinence rates and relapsed sooner than those in the moderate withdrawal class (P < 0.05). The affective withdrawal class reported higher levels of baseline negative affect and life-time psychopathology (P < 0.05) and relapsed more quickly than the moderate withdrawal class (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

While the majority of smokers report typical levels of withdrawal symptoms on their quit day, more than one-third report extreme craving or extreme negative affective or extreme hunger responses to initial abstinence. These distinct quit-day withdrawal symptom patterns are related to baseline characteristics, treatment and cessation success.

Reduction of nicotine self-administration by chronic nicotine infusion with H1 histamine blockade in female rats

RATIONALE

Chronic nicotine infusion via transdermal patches has been widely shown to assist with smoking cessation. In particular, transdermal nicotine treatment prior to quitting smoking helps reduce ad libitum smoking and aids cessation Rose et al. (Nicotine Tob Res 11:1067-75, 2009). However, despite this success, the majority of smokers who use transdermal nicotine fail to permanently quit smoking. Additional treatments are needed. Tobacco addiction does not just depend on nicotinic receptor systems; a variety of neural systems are involved, including dopamine, norepinepherine, serotonin, and histamine.

OBJECTIVES

Given the involvement of a variety of neural systems in the circuits of addiction, combination therapy may offer improved efficacy for successful smoking cessation beyond single treatments alone. We have found that pyrilamine, an H1 histamine antagonist, significantly decreases nicotine self-administration in rats.

METHODS

The current study was conducted to confirm the effect of chronic nicotine infusion on ongoing nicotine self-administration and resumed access after enforced abstinence and to determine the interaction of chronic nicotine with an H1 antagonist treatment.

RESULTS

Chronic nicotine infusion via osmotic minipump (2.5 and 5 mg/kg/day for 28 days) significantly reduced nicotine self-administration in a dose-dependent manner. Chronic nicotine infusion also reduced the resumption of nicotine self-administration after enforced abstinence. Chronic pyrilamine infusion (25 mg/kg/day for 14 days) also significantly reduced nicotine self-administration.

CONCLUSION

The combination of chronic nicotine and pyrilamine reduced nicotine self-administration to a greater extent than treatment with either drug alone.

Does cigarette reduction while using nicotine replacement therapy prior to a quit attempt predict abstinence following quit date?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Previous studies have reported that people who use a smoking cessation medication while smoking and reduce cigarette consumption spontaneously are three times more likely to stop smoking after a quit date. The aim was to replicate this and assess whether it arises because of willed effortful reduction rather than unwilled reduced drive to smoke caused by medication.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a trial where participants were randomised to smoke as normal or reduce by 75% over 2 weeks prior to quit date, using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in both arms.

SETTING

Thirty-one UK primary care practices.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 517 adult smokers seeking quitting support in the carbon monoxide (CO) analyses and 421 in the cigarettes/day analyses.

MEASUREMENTS

Russell Standard abstinence was recorded 4 weeks after quit date. The randomized groups were combined and the association between reduction and abstinence examined. The second analysis assessed whether this association differed by whether smokers were, or were not, instructed to reduce.

FINDINGS

In all participants, there was no evidence that reducing cigarettes/day or CO by at least half compared with not reducing predicted abstinence at 4 weeks [risk ratio (RR) = 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.68-1.14 and RR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.00-1.44, respectively]. However, in smokers instructed to reduce, CO reduction was associated with 4-week abstinence (RR = 1.52; 95% CI = 1.16-2.00), but not among people advised not to reduce (RR = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.67-1.24).

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking reduction prior to a target quit date while on a smoking cessation medication may only predict subsequent abstinence when smokers are consciously attempting to reduce.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Varenicline-Induced Elevation of Dopamine in Smokers: A Preliminary [(11)C]-(+)-PHNO PET Study

Varenicline, a nicotinic partial agonist, is the most effective treatment for tobacco use disorder. However, its mechanism of action is still unclear and may involve stimulating dopaminergic transmission. Here we used PET imaging with [(11)C]-(+)-PHNO to explore for the first time the impact of varenicline on dopamine transmission in the D2-rich striatum and D3-rich extra-striatal regions and its relationship with craving, withdrawal and smoking. Eleven treatment-seeking smokers underwent two PET scans with [(11)C]-(+)-PHNO, each following 12-h overnight smoking abstinence both prior to receiving varenicline and following 10-11 days of varenicline treatment (ie, at steady-state drug levels). Subjective measures of craving and urges to smoke were also assessed on the days of the PET scans. Varenicline treatment significantly reduced [(11)C]-(+)-PHNO binding in the dorsal caudate (p=0.008) and reduced some craving measures. These findings provide the first evidence that varenicline is able to increase DA levels in the human brain, a factor that may contribute to its therapeutic efficacy.

Dextromethorphan interactions with histaminergic and serotonergic treatments to reduce nicotine self-administration in rats

Combining effective treatments with diverse mechanisms of action for smoking cessation may provide better therapy by targeting multiple points of control in the neural circuits underlying addiction. Previous research in a rat model has shown that dextromethorphan, which has α3β4 nicotinic and NMDA glutamatergic antagonist actions, significantly decreases nicotine self-administration. We have found in the rat model that the H1 histamine antagonist pyrilamine and the serotonin 5HT2C agonist lorcaserin also significantly reduce nicotine self-administration. The current studies were conducted to determine the interactive effects of dextromethorphan with pyrilamine and lorcaserin on nicotine self-administration in rats. Young adult female rats were fitted with jugular IV catheters and trained to self-administer a nicotine infusion dose of 0.03-mg/kg/infusion. In an initial dose-effect function study of dextromethorphan, we found a monotonic decrease in nicotine self-administration over a dose range of 1 to 30-mg/kg with the lowest effective dose of 3-mg/kg. Then, with two separate cohorts of rats, dextromethorphan (0, 3.3, and 10-mg/kg) interactions with pyrilamine (0, 4.43, and 13.3-mg/kg) were investigated as well as interactions with lorcaserin (0, 0.3125 and 0.625-mg/kg). In the pyrilamine-dextromethorphan interaction study, an acute dose of pyrilamine (13.3-mg/kg) as well as an acute dose of dextromethorphan caused a significant decrease in nicotine self-administration. There were mutually augmenting effects of these two drugs. The combination of dextromethorphan (10-mg/kg) and pyrilamine (13.3-mg/kg) significantly lowered nicotine self-administration relative to either 10-mg/kg of dextromethorphan alone (p<0.05) or 13.3-mg/kg of pyrilamine alone (p<0.0005). In the lorcaserin-dextromethorphan study, an acute dose of lorcaserin (0.312-mg/kg) as well as an acute dose of dextromethorphan (10-mg/kg) caused a significant decrease in nicotine self-administration replicating previous findings. Augmenting interactions were observed with dextromethorphan and pyrilamine as well as lorcaserin. These findings suggest that combination therapy may be more effective smoking cessation treatments than monotherapy.

Does Extended Pre Quit Bupropion Aid in Extinguishing Smoking Behavior?

INTRODUCTION

Understanding the mechanisms by which bupropion promotes smoking cessation may lead to more effective treatment. To the extent that reduced smoking reinforcement is one such mechanism, a longer duration of pre quit bupropion treatment should promote extinction of smoking behavior. We evaluated whether 4 weeks of pre quit bupropion (extended run-in) results in greater pre quit reductions in smoking rate and cotinine and, secondarily, greater short-term abstinence, than standard 1 week of pre quit bupropion (standard run-in).

METHODS

Adult smokers (n = 95; 48 females) were randomized to a standard run-in group (n = 48; 3-week placebo, then 1-week bupropion pre quit) or an extended run-in group (4-week pre quit bupropion; n = 47). Both groups received group behavioral counseling and 7 weeks of post quit bupropion. Smoking rate (and craving, withdrawal, and subjective effects) was collected daily during the pre quit period; biochemical data (cotinine and carbon monoxide) were collected at study visits.

RESULTS

During the pre quit period, the extended run-in group exhibited a greater decrease in smoking rate, compared to the standard run-in group, interaction p = .03. Cigarette craving and salivary cotinine followed a similar pattern, though the latter was evident only among women. Biochemically verified 4-week continuous abstinence rates were higher in the extended run-in group (53%) than the standard run-in group (31%), p = .033.

CONCLUSIONS

The extended use of bupropion prior to a quit attempt reduces smoking behavior during the pre quit period and improved short-term abstinence rates. The data are consistent with an extinction-of-reinforcement model and support further investigation of extended run-in bupropion therapy for smoking cessation.

Does the Magnitude of Reduction in Cigarettes Per Day Predict Smoking Cessation? A Qualitative Review

INTRODUCTION

Reduction in cigarettes per day (CPD) aided by nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) increases cessation in smokers; however, it is unclear whether this is due to use of NRT or reduction per se. If the latter, a greater magnitude of reduction in CPD should increase the odds of cessation.

METHODS

The authors searched PubMed, Cochrane, PsychINFO, http://clinicaltrials.gov and their personal libraries for studies on smoking reduction. Seven of the 76 (9%) identified intervention trials and four of 28 naturalistic studies (14%) reported on the magnitude of reduction in relation to the odds of cessation.

RESULTS

Five of the seven intervention trials and three of the four naturalistic observational (cohort) studies found that increased reduction in CPD was associated with increased cessation. The intervention trials that reported effect sizes found that every 1% decrease in CPD or carbon monoxide was associated with a 3% to 4% increase in the odds of cessation. The naturalistic studies found that ordinal (eg, quartile) increases in participants' magnitude of reduction in CPD were associated with 50% to 290% increases in the odds of cessation. All of the naturalistic studies and four of the intervention trials included covariates; however, reduction's association with cessation could still be due to its association with NRT use or motivation.

CONCLUSION

Although prospective prediction does not necessarily indicate causality, our findings suggest reduction in CPD is a mechanism of increased cessation in prior NRT-aided reduction studies.

Combining intensive practice nurse counselling or brief general practitioner advice with varenicline for smoking cessation in primary care: study protocol of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Combining behavioural support and pharmacotherapy is most effective for smoking cessation and recommended in clinical guidelines. Despite that smoking cessation assistance from the general practitioner can be effective, dissemination of clinical practice guidelines and efforts on upskilling has not lead to the routine provision of smoking cessation advice among general practitioners. Intensive counselling from the practice nurse could contribute to better smoking cessation rates in primary care. However, the effectiveness of intensive counselling from a practice nurse versus usual care from a general practitioner in combination with varenicline is still unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A pragmatic randomized controlled trial was conducted comparing: (a) intensive individual counselling delivered by a practice nurse and (b) brief advice delivered by a general practitioner; both groups received 12-weeks of open-label varenicline. A minimum of 272 adult daily smoking participants were recruited and treated in their routine primary care setting. The primary outcome was defined as prolonged abstinence from weeks 9 to 26, biochemically validated by exhaled carbon monoxide. Data was analysed blinded according to the intention-to-treat principle and participants with missing data on their smoking status at follow-up were counted as smokers. Secondary outcomes included: one-year prolonged abstinence, short-term incremental cost-effectiveness, medication adherence, and baseline predictors of successful smoking cessation.

DISCUSSION

This trial is the first to provide scientific evidence on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and potential mechanisms of action of intensive practice nurse counselling combined with varenicline under real-life conditions. This paper explains the methodology of the trial and discusses the pragmatic and/or explanatory design aspects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Register NTR3067.

Bupropion-varenicline interactions and nicotine self-administration behavior in rats

Varenicline and bupropion each have been shown to significantly improve cessation of tobacco addiction in humans. They act through different mechanisms and the question about the potential added efficacy with their combined used has arisen. Preclinical animal models of nicotine addiction can help with the evaluation of this combined approach and what dose combinations of varenicline and bupropion may be useful for enhancing tobacco cessation. In this study, we investigated the interacting dose-effect functions of varenicline and bupropion in a rat model of nicotine self-administration. Young adult female Sprague-Dawley rats were allowed to self-administer nicotine in 1-h sessions under an FR1 reinforcement schedule. Varenicline (0.3, 1. 3 mg/kg) and bupropion (8.33, 25, 75 mg/kg) were administered alone or together 15 min before each session. The vehicle saline was the control. Higher doses of each drug alone reduced nicotine self-administration compared to control with reductions of 62% and 75% with 3 mg/kg varenicline and 75 mg/kg bupropion respectively. Lower dose varenicline which does not by itself reduce nicotine self-administration, significantly augmented bupropion effects. The 0.3 mg/kg varenicline dose combined with the 25 and 75 mg/kg bupropion doses caused greater reductions of nicotine self-administration than either dose of bupropion given alone. However, higher dose varenicline did not have this effect. Lower dose bupropion did not augment varenicline effects. Only the high bupropion dose significantly enhanced the varenicline effect. Likewise, combining 1 mg/kg varenicline with 75 mg/kg bupropion reduced self-administration to a greater extent than either dose alone. These results demonstrate that combination therapy with varenicline and bupropion may be more beneficial than monotherapy with either drug alone.

Combination treatment with varenicline and bupropion in an adaptive smoking cessation paradigm

OBJECTIVE

The authors assessed the efficacy and safety of combination treatment with varenicline and sustained-release bupropion for smokers who, based on an assessment of initial smoking reduction prior to the quit date, were deemed unlikely to achieve abstinence using nicotine patch treatment.

METHOD

In a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group adaptive treatment trial, the authors identified 222 cigarette smokers who failed to show a reduction of more than 50% in smoking after 1 week of nicotine patch treatment. Smokers were randomly assigned to receive 12 weeks of varenicline plus bupropion or varenicline plus placebo. The primary outcome measure was continuous smoking abstinence at weeks 8-11 after the target quit date.

RESULTS

Both treatments were well tolerated. Participants who received the combination treatment had a significantly higher abstinence rate than those who received varenicline plus placebo (39.8% compared with 25.9%; odds ratio=1.89; 95% CI=1.07, 3.35). Combination treatment had a significantly greater effect on abstinence rate in male smokers (odds ratio=4.26; 95% CI=1.73, 10.49) than in female smokers (odds ratio=0.94; 95% CI=0.43, 2.05). It also had a significantly greater effect in highly nicotine-dependent smokers (odds ratio=3.51, 95% CI=1.64, 7.51) than in smokers with lower levels of dependence (odds ratio=0.71, 95% CI=0.28, 1.80).

CONCLUSIONS

Among smokers who did not show a sufficient initial response to prequit nicotine patch treatment, combination treatment with varenicline and bupropion proved more efficacious than varenicline alone for male smokers and for smokers with a high degree of nicotine dependence.

An exploratory examination of the mechanisms through which pre-quit patch use aids smoking cessation

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Patches are traditionally started on the day a quit attempt begins. Recently, a number of studies have established that the patch's effectiveness is improved by starting the treatment before quitting [pre-quit patch (PQP) use]. In an exploratory study, we investigate a proposed mechanism through which PQP use might promote abstinence: that PQP reduces satisfaction with smoking (either directly or via craving), which in turn leads to reduction and that smoking reduction promotes abstinence.

METHODS

Fifty-seven interested quitters used handheld computers to monitor their smoking satisfaction, withdrawal and smoking in real time for 17 days, leading up to a quit attempt. All participants received 21 mg/24 h patches for 2 weeks before and for up to 10 weeks after quitting. Carbon dioxide (CO)-verified 28-day abstinence was assessed.

RESULTS

During PQP treatment, participants reported significant reductions in both the satisfaction gained from smoking (p < 0.001) and their daily cigarette consumption (p < 0.001). Craving did not decrease; however, there was an interaction between time and nicotine dependence; craving decreased only among low dependent participants. Multilevel structural equation modelling revealed a direct effect of satisfaction on smoking rate. Craving did not mediate this relationship. Smoking reduction during the PQP treatment phase was not significantly associated with abstinence.

CONCLUSIONS

The real-time data collection protocol utilised allowed for a fine-grained examination of smoking during PQP treatment. The results suggest that the reduction in daily cigarette smoking typically observed during PQP treatment is due to reductions in satisfaction with smoking. Unlike previous studies, however, smoking reduction was not significantly related to later abstinence, even though the odds ratio was comparably. Potential clinical implications of these findings are discussed.

"Meaningful use" provides a meaningful opportunity

A model is described for meeting the mandate that includes implementation of a comprehensive smoking (tobacco) cessation program for cancer patients as an alternative to the minimal intervention approach. The importance of an institution‐wide, automated system to identify and refer tobacco users to treatment is discussed within the context of implementing the meaningful use regulations for electronic health records.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

There are at least three reasons to believe antidepressants might help in smoking cessation. Firstly, nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms or precipitate a major depressive episode and antidepressants may relieve these. Secondly, nicotine may have antidepressant effects that maintain smoking, and antidepressants may substitute for this effect. Finally, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways (e.g. inhibiting monoamine oxidase) or receptors (e.g. blockade of nicotinic-cholinergic receptors) underlying nicotine addiction.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the effect and safety of antidepressant medications to aid long-term smoking cessation. The medications include bupropion; doxepin; fluoxetine; imipramine; lazabemide; moclobemide; nortriptyline; paroxetine; S-Adenosyl-L-Methionine (SAMe); selegiline; sertraline; St. John's wort; tryptophan; venlafaxine; and zimeledine.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register which includes reports of trials indexed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in July 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized trials comparing antidepressant medications to placebo or an alternative pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. We also included trials comparing different doses, using pharmacotherapy to prevent relapse or re-initiate smoking cessation or to help smokers reduce cigarette consumption. We excluded trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in patients smoking at baseline, expressed as a risk ratio (RR). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four new trials were identified since the 2009 update, bringing the total number of included trials to 90. There were 65 trials of bupropion and ten trials of nortriptyline, with the majority at low or unclear risk of bias. There was high quality evidence that, when used as the sole pharmacotherapy, bupropion significantly increased long-term cessation (44 trials, N = 13,728, risk ratio [RR] 1.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49 to 1.76). There was moderate quality evidence, limited by a relatively small number of trials and participants, that nortriptyline also significantly increased long-term cessation when used as the sole pharmacotherapy (six trials, N = 975, RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78). There is insufficient evidence that adding bupropion (12 trials, N = 3487, RR 1.9, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.51) or nortriptyline (4 trials, N = 1644, RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.55) to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) provides an additional long-term benefit. Based on a limited amount of data from direct comparisons, bupropion and nortriptyline appear to be equally effective and of similar efficacy to NRT (bupropion versus nortriptyline 3 trials, N = 417, RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; bupropion versus NRT 8 trials, N = 4096, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09; no direct comparisons between nortriptyline and NRT). Pooled results from four trials comparing bupropion to varenicline showed significantly lower quitting with bupropion than with varenicline (N = 1810, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.83). Meta-analyses did not detect a significant increase in the rate of serious adverse events amongst participants taking bupropion, though the confidence interval only narrowly missed statistical significance (33 trials, N = 9631, RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.69). There is a risk of about 1 in 1000 of seizures associated with bupropion use. Bupropion has been associated with suicide risk, but whether this is causal is unclear. Nortriptyline has the potential for serious side-effects, but none have been seen in the few small trials for smoking cessation.There was no evidence of a significant effect for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors on their own (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.22, N = 1594; 2 trials fluoxetine, 1 paroxetine, 1 sertraline) or as an adjunct to NRT (3 trials of fluoxetine, N = 466, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.82). Significant effects were also not detected for monoamine oxidase inhibitors (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.79, N = 827; 1 trial moclobemide, 5 selegiline), the atypical antidepressant venlafaxine (1 trial, N = 147, RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.32), the herbal therapy St John's wort (hypericum) (2 trials, N = 261, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.53), or the dietary supplement SAMe (1 trial, N = 120, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.07).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The antidepressants bupropion and nortriptyline aid long-term smoking cessation. Adverse events with either medication appear to rarely be serious or lead to stopping medication. Evidence suggests that the mode of action of bupropion and nortriptyline is independent of their antidepressant effect and that they are of similar efficacy to nicotine replacement. Evidence also suggests that bupropion is less effective than varenicline, but further research is needed to confirm this finding. Evidence suggests that neither selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (e.g. fluoxetine) nor monoamine oxidase inhibitors aid cessation.