Efficacy of a nicotine mouth spray in smoking cessation: a randomised, double-blind trial

Effect of nicotine mouth spray on urges to vape: A randomized, placebo-controlled, pharmacodynamic clinical trial in exclusive e-cigarette users

AIMS

To determine whether nicotine mouth spray provides rapid and prolonged relief of urges to vape and measure the steady-state plasma nicotine levels during vaping and ad libitum mouth spray usage in e-cigarette users.

DESIGN

Randomized, parallel group, double-blind trial.

SETTING

Single site at Hammersmith Medicines Research Ltd (HMR), London, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

216 (25.9% females, average age 27.6 ± 7.63 [standard deviation, SD]) exclusive vapers who used their e-cigarette within 30 minutes of waking up and had vaped about 2 years on average.

INTERVENTIONS

Two sprays of 1 mg nicotine mouth spray (Nicorette QuickMist Freshmint, n = 109), or placebo (identical in appearance and presentation, n = 107).

MEASUREMENTS

Urge to vape was rated on a 100 mm visual analogue scale before and repeatedly for 2 hours after administration. The primary outcome measured average change from baseline in urges to vape ratings during the first hour.

FINDINGS

Nicotine mouth spray achieved statistically significantly greater reductions in urges to vape than placebo from the first assessment point at 30 seconds to 1 hour, when the estimated mean treatment difference was 11.90 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.86-16.95, P < 0.001). The integrated urge to vape over 11 hours ad libitum usage showed a statistically significant benefit compared with placebo (2.00 [0.88 SD] vs 2.51 [0.84 SD], P < 0.001). Mean steady-state plasma nicotine concentrations were lower after nicotine mouth spray usage compared with vaping (6.22 [4.70 SD] ng/ml vs 9.91 [7.59 SD] ng/ml, respectively). Adverse events were more commonly reported in the nicotine mouth spray group and were mostly mild.

CONCLUSIONS

Among regular e-cigarette users, nicotine mouth spray provided statistically significant and fast relief of urges to vape one hour after dosing. Nicotine mouth spray showed statistically significant reductions in urges to vape as soon as 30 seconds and up to 2 hours after dosing compared with placebo, and nicotine mouth spray was well-tolerated and safe.

Assessing the feasibility and acceptability of a diabetes-specific nurse-led multicomponent smoking cessation intervention in diabetes education: study protocol for an open-label pragmatic randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Smoking cessation is an essential, but often overlooked aspect of diabetes management. Despite the need for tailored smoking cessation support for individuals with diabetes, evidence of effective interventions for this cohort is limited. Additionally, individuals with diabetes do not easily adopt such interventions, resulting in low uptake and abstinence rates. This protocol describes a study that aims to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a unique smoking cessation intervention, based on the best evidence, theory and the needs of individuals with diabetes, among patients and service providers, the diabetes nurse educators.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an open-label pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Between 80 and 100 individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who smoke will be recruited from the diabetes outpatients at the main acute public hospital in Malta, starting in August 2023. Participants will be randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to the intervention or control arm for 12 weeks. The experimental intervention will consist of three to four smoking cessation behavioural support sessions based on the 5As (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist and Arrange) algorithm, and a 6-week supply of nicotine replacement therapy. The control intervention will consist of an active referral to the Maltese National Health Service's one-to-one smoking cessation support service, which is based on motivational interviewing. The primary feasibility and acceptability outcomes include the recruitment and participation rates, resources used, problems identified by the nurses, the nurses' perceived challenges and facilitators to implementation and the nurses' and patients' acceptability of the study intervention. Data analyses will be descriptive, with quantitative feasibility and acceptability outcomes reported with 95% confidence intervals.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee, University of Malta. The study results will be disseminated through conference presentations and a publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05920096.

The efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological monotherapies and e-cigarette on smoking cessation: a systemic review and network meta-analysis

Background and aims

Several pharmacological interventions, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline, and bupropion, have been approved for clinical use of smoking cessation. E-cigarettes (EC) are increasingly explored by many RCTs for their potentiality in smoking cessation. In addition, some RCTs are attempting to explore new drugs for smoking cessation, such as cytisine. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to investigate how these drugs and e-cigarettes compare regarding their efficacy and acceptability.

Materials and methods

This systematic review and NMA searched all clinical studies on smoking cessation using pharmacological monotherapies or e-cigarettes published from January 2011 to May 2022 using MEDLINE, COCHRANE Library, and PsychINFO databases. NRTs were divided into transdermal (TDN) and oronasal nicotine (ONN) by administrative routes, thus 7 network nodes were set up for direct and indirect comparison. Two different indicators measured the efficacy: prevalent and continuous smoking abstinence. The drop-out rates measured the acceptability.

Results

The final 40 clinical studies included in this study comprised 77 study cohorts and 25,889 participants. Varenicline is more effective intervention to assist in smoking cessation during 16-32 weeks follow-up, and is very likely to prompt dropout. Cytisine shows more effectiveness in continuous smoking cessation but may also lead to dropout. E-cigarettes and oronasal nicotine are more effective than no treatment in encouraging prevalent abstinence, but least likely to prompt dropout. Finally, transdermal nicotine delivery is more effective than no treatment in continuous abstinence, with neither significant effect on prevalent abstinence nor dropout rate.

Conclusion

This review suggested and agreed that Varenicline, Cytisine and transdermal nicotine delivery, as smoking cessation intervention, have advantages and disadvantages. However, we had to have reservations about e-cigarettes as a way to quit smoking in adolescents.

Comparison between cytisine and Nicotine Replacement Therapy in smoking cessation among inpatient psychiatric patients

Introduction: Smoking is more common among people with mental disorders and is associated with adverse effects. Some compounds, including nicotine and cytisine, have been used in many individuals to increase success in smoking cessation. In this study, the effect of cytisine on the smoking status of patients hospitalized in the psychiatry department was investigated.Method: Forty-seven patients, hospitalized in the psychiatry ward, motivated to quit smoking, participated in this open-label randomized trial. Thirty patients used nicotine gums 2 mg (Nicolife®) for eight weeks, and the remaining took cytisine pills (Tabex®) according to the manufacturer's instructions for 25 days. All patients were followed up for six months. The primary outcome was smoking cessation, measured by the mood and physical symptoms scale (MPSS), the AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C), confirmatory factor analyses, and reliability of the modified cigarette evaluation questionnaire at the end of the 1st week and at 1st, 2nd and 6th months after quit day.Findings: Only two out of 30 patients (6.66%) in the group taking Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) could quit smoking entirely (no cigarettes after six months). In contrast, three out of 17 patients (17.64%) managed to do so in the cytisine group. The number of cigarettes smoked by the patients in both groups decreased, but the reduction was significant in the cytisine group.Conclusion: Cytisine is an effective and suitable agent for smoking cessation in patients with psychological problems, with fewer adverse effects and more success rate compared to NRT.

Study title: A systematic review of RCTs to examine the risk of adverse cardiovascular events with nicotine use

Associations between cigarette smoking and increased risk of cardiovascular disease are well established. However, it is unclear whether the association is mediated by exposure to nicotine and/or to other constituents in cigarette smoke. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs) was to identify any potential associations between exposure to nicotine and the risk of clinically diagnosed adverse cardiovascular events in adult current users and nonusers of tobacco products. Among 1,996 results, 42 studies, comparing nicotine and non-nicotine groups, were included and were both qualitatively and quantitatively synthesized across the outcomes of arrhythmia, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death. The majority of studies evaluating nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death reported no events that occurred in either the nicotine or non-nicotine control groups. Among the studies that reported events, rates of adverse events were similarly low between both groups. Consistent with findings from previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, pooled data showed that rates for arrhythmia, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death were not significantly different between nicotine and non-nicotine groups. The overall quality of the body of evidence for each of the four outcomes of interest was graded as "moderate," limited only by the imprecision of results. The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that, with moderate certainty, there are no significant associations between the use of nicotine and the risk of clinically diagnosed adverse cardiovascular events-specifically, arrhythmia, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death.

A randomised, open-label, cross-over clinical study to evaluate the pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety and tolerability profiles of tobacco-free oral nicotine pouches relative to cigarettes

RATIONALE

Tobacco harm reduction (THR) involves encouraging adult smokers who would otherwise continue to smoke to transition to less harmful forms of nicotine delivery. These products must offer adult smokers reduced exposure to chemicals associated with tobacco combustion, satisfactory blood plasma nicotine levels and serve as an acceptable alternative. The most recent THR innovation is tobacco-free oral nicotine pouches.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety and tolerability profiles of two nicotine pouch variants (ZoneX #2 (5.8 mg nicotine/pouch); ZoneX #3 (10.1 mg nicotine/pouch)) with cigarette to assess the pouches' THR potential.

METHODS

This was a controlled use, randomised, open-label, cross-over clinical study with 24 healthy adult traditional tobacco users. Pharmacokinetic (plasma nicotine levels; up to 8 h post-use), pharmacodynamic (urge to smoke, product liking; up to 4 h post-use) and short-term safety and tolerability profiles were assessed.

RESULTS

Distinct nicotine pouch pharmacokinetic profiles indicated nicotine absorption via the oral mucosa. Plasma nicotine levels were lower, and time to peak slower, for the nicotine pouches compared to cigarette (Cmax cigarette: 11.6 ng/ml vs. #2: 5.2 ng/ml, p < 0.0001; #3: 7.9 ng/ml, p < 0.0003) (Tmax cigarette: 8.6 min vs. #2: 26 min; #3: 22 min). All products effectively reduced subjects' urge to smoke and presented favourable product liking scores; nicotine pouches were also well tolerated following short-term use (no serious adverse events).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the assessed ZoneX nicotine pouches may offer an acceptable alternative for adult smokers to achieve satisfactory levels of nicotine delivery and, based on the pharmacokinetic parameters and under the study conditions, likely have a lower abuse liability and addictive potential for current adult smokers compared to continued cigarette smoking.

CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER

NCT04891406 (clinicaltrials.gov).

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.

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials and network meta-analysis of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation

AIM

E-cigarettes, or nicotine vaping products, are potential smoking cessation aids that provide both nicotine and behavioural substitution for combustible cigarette smoking. This review aims to compare the effectiveness of nicotine e-cigarettes for smoking cessation with licensed nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) and nicotine-free based control conditions by using network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science and PsycINFO for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that allocated individuals to use nicotine e-cigarettes, compared to those that used licensed NRT (e.g., nicotine patches, nicotine gums, etc), or a nicotine-free control condition such as receiving placebo (nicotine-free) e-cigarettes or usual care. We only included studies of healthy individuals who smoked. Furthermore, we identified the latest Cochrane review on NRT and searched NRT trials that were published in similar periods as the e-cigarette trials we identified. NMA was conducted to compare the effect of e-cigarettes on cessation relative to NRT and control condition. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials Version 2 was used to access study bias.

RESULTS

For the e-cigarette trials, our initial search identified 4,717 studies and we included 7 trials for NMA after removal of duplicates, record screening and assessment of eligibility (Total N = 5,674). For NRT trials, our initial search identified 1,014 studies and we included 9 trials that satisfied our inclusion criteria (Total N = 6,080). Results from NMA indicated that participants assigned to use nicotine e-cigarettes were more likely to remain abstinent from smoking than those in the control condition (pooled Risk Ratio (RR) = 2.08, 97.5% CI = [1.39, 3.15]) and those who were assigned to use NRT (pooled RR = 1.49, 97.5% CI = [1.04, 2.14]. There was a moderate heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 42%). Most of the e-cigarette trials has moderate or high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Smokers assigned to use nicotine e-cigarettes were more likely to remain abstinent from smoking than those assigned to use licensed NRT, and both were more effective than usual care or placebo conditions. More high quality studies are required to ascertain the effect of e-cigarette on smoking cessation due to risk of bias in the included studies.

Effectiveness and Safety Profile of Alternative Tobacco and Nicotine Products for Smoking Reduction and Cessation: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Alternative tobacco and nicotine products such as electronic cigarettes (EC), smokeless tobacco, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) are currently being assessed as options in tobacco harm reduction due to their potential role in smoking reduction and smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVE

To provide the current evidence on the effectiveness and safety of various alternative tobacco and nicotine products for smoking reduction and cessation.

METHODS

A systematic review using databases from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library was conducted up to December 2020 to identify eligible experimental and observational studies assessing the use of alternative tobacco and nicotine products on smoking reduction and smoking cessation and the safety of these products. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) and ROBINS-I tools were used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Results were described through a narrative synthesis of the evidence.

RESULTS

From 1955 retrieved references, 44 studies (31 randomized controlled trials/RCTs and 13 prospective cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Twenty-nine studies were assessing EC, one study evaluated heat-not-burn (HNB) product, five studies were focused on snus, and nine studies assessed NRT in the form of nicotine patch, gum, etc. The overall results suggested that alternative tobacco and nicotine products in the form of EC, snus, and NRT can moderately reduce daily cigarette consumption and has potential to assist smoking cessation attempts, with fewer adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggested that alternative tobacco and nicotine products have a potential role in assisting smoking reduction and cessation, highlighting their role in the tobacco harm reduction approach. Further studies should focus on investigating long-term outcomes, safety, and effectiveness of alternative tobacco and nicotine products to better inform smoking reduction/cessation policy.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020205830.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of a Nicotine Mouth Spray for Smoking Cessation: A Randomized, Multicenter, Controlled Study in a Naturalistic Setting

BACKGROUND

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) has been demonstrated to be an effective pharmacological treatment for smoking cessation, and most types of NRT have been approved as over-the-counter (OTC) medications. In an effort to create a fast-acting, flexible, and discreet NRT, a nicotine mouth spray (NMS) has been developed. This study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of NMS in a naturalistic setting in the United States.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 26-week study in 1198 smokers motivated to quit. The study was designed to resemble an OTC environment, and thus included limited intervention, limited motivational screening, and no behavioral support. The primary efficacy endpoint was carbon monoxide-verified, self-reported continuous abstinence from smoking from week 2 until week 6. The safety of NMS was assessed by measuring vital signs, visual mouth inspection, and collection of subject-reported adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

The percentage of subjects with carbon monoxide-verified continuous abstinence from week 2 to week 6 was statistically significantly greater in the NMS group compared with the placebo group (5.0% vs. 2.5%, p = .021). Statistically significant treatment effects for the NMS were maintained throughout the 26-week period. The study medications were generally well tolerated. The severity of AEs was similar for both treatment groups, and most AEs were of mild or moderate severity.

CONCLUSIONS

These study results demonstrate that the NMS is an effective and safe smoking cessation option for smokers motivated to quit, even in a naturalistic setting and without behavioral support.

IMPLICATIONS

This study demonstrated the safety, efficacy, and acceptability of an NMS in an OTC environment with no behavioral counseling or support. It provides an additional option for smokers motivated to quit.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT02355665).

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.

Staying Quit After Release (SQuARe) trial protocol: a randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent intervention to maintain smoking abstinence after release from smoke-free prisons in Victoria, Australia

INTRODUCTION

Smoke-free policies have been introduced in prisons internationally. However, high rates of relapse to smoking after release from prison indicate that these policies typically result in short-term smoking cessation only. These high rates of relapse, combined with a lack of investment in relapse prevention, highlight a missed opportunity to improve the health of a population who smoke tobacco at two to six times the rate of the general population. This paper describes the rationale and design of a randomised controlled trial, testing the effectiveness of a caseworker-delivered intervention promoting smoking cessation among former smokers released from smoke-free prisons in Victoria, Australia.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The multicomponent, brief intervention consists of behavioural counselling, provision of nicotine spray and referral to Quitline and primary care to promote use of government-subsidised smoking cessation pharmacotherapy. The intervention is embedded in routine service delivery and is administered at three time points: one prerelease and two postrelease from prison. Control group participants will receive usual care. Smoking abstinence will be assessed at 1 and 3 months postrelease, and confirmed with carbon monoxide breath testing. Linkage of participant records to survey and routinely collected administrative data will provide further information on postrelease use of health services and prescribed medication.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been obtained from the Corrections Victoria Research Committee, the Victorian Department of Justice Human Research Ethics Committee, the Department of Human Services External Request Evaluation Committee and the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee. Results will be submitted to major international health-focused journals. In case of success, findings will assist policymakers to implement urgently needed interventions promoting the maintenance of prison-initiated smoking abstinence after release, to reduce the health disparities experienced by this marginalised population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12618000072213; Pre-results.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

[Interventions for smoking cessation in 2018]

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

Nicotine replacement therapy versus control for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Diminishing benefit of smoking cessation medications during the first year: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although smoking cessation medications have shown effectiveness in increasing abstinence in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is unclear to what extent benefits persist over time. This paper assesses whether the benefits of smoking cessation medications decline over the first year.

METHODS

We selected studies from three systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Collaboration. RCTs of first-line smoking cessation medications, with 6- and 12-month follow-up, were eligible for inclusion. Meta-analysis was used to synthesize information on sustained abstinence (SA) at 6 versus 12 months and 3 versus 6 months, using the risk difference (RD) ('net benefit') between intervention and control group quit rates, the relative risk (RR) and the odds ratio (OR).

RESULTS

Sixty-one studies (27 647 participants) were included. Fewer than 40% of intervention group participants were sustained abstinent at 3 months (bupropion: 37.1%; nicotine replacement therapy (NRT): 34.8%; varenicline: 39.3%); approximately a quarter were sustained abstinent at 6 months (bupropion: 25.9%; NRT: 26.6%; varenicline: 25.4%), and approximately a fifth were sustained abstinent at 12 months (bupropion: 19.9%; NRT: 19.8%%; varenicline: 18.7%). There was only a small decline in RR (3 months: 1.95 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.74-2.18, P < 0.0001]; 6 months: 1.87 (95% CI = 1.67-2.08 P < 0.0001); 12 months: 1.75 (95% CI = 1.56-1.95, P < 0.0001) between intervention and control groups over time, but a substantial decline in net benefit [3 months: RD = 17.3% (14.5-20.1%); 6 months: RD = 11.8% (10.0-13.7%); 12 months: RD = 8.2% (6.8-9.6%)]. The decline in net benefit was statistically significant between 3 and 6 [RD = 4.95% (95% CI = 3.49-6.41%), P < 0.0001] and 6 and 12 months [RD = 3.00% (95% CI = 2.36%-3.64%), P < 0.0001)] for medications combined and individual medications.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of smokers who use smoking cessation medications who benefit from doing so decreases during the course of the first year, but a net benefit still remains at 12 months.

Schizophrenia and Nicotine Dependence: What Psychopharmacological Treatment Options are Available for the Duo Perturbationes?

Nicotine dependence has progressively become a foremost community health interest in both the developed and developing nations due to the economic burden and health-related problems. Smoking was significantly higher among patients with schizophrenia in comparison to the general population. Nicotine dependence is not only associated with public stress, but among patients with schizophrenia, smoking brings major challenges to the management. Nicotine may diminish the therapeutic efficacy of the bioavailability of the psychopharmacological agents in-vivo. These duo perturbations, i.e. two clinical conditions co-existed may prevent psychotic symptoms remission among patients suffering from schizophrenia who smoke at the same time. The aim of this review was to highlight the role of pharmacological treatment options and strategies for patients with nicotine dependence in schizophrenia with emphasis on the underlying neurobiological process. The role of nicotine replacement therapy, i.e. norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibition (NDRI) e.g. bupropion and selective partial agonist of α4β2 and full α7-nicotinic acetylcholine receptor e.g. varenicline was deliberated. An ideal choice of drug targets for patients with schizophrenia with nicotine dependence is pivotal to foster a better therapeutic alliance.

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

CONTEXT

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

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

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

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A randomised, parallel group study to evaluate the safety profile of an electronic vapour product over 12 weeks

A randomised, parallel group clinical study was performed to evaluate the safety profile of an e-vapour product (EVP; 2.0% nicotine) in smokers of conventional cigarettes (CCs) switching to use the EVP for 12 weeks. During the study, no clinically significant product-related findings were observed in terms of vital signs, electrocardiogram, lung function tests and standard clinical laboratory parameters. Adverse events (AEs) reported by EVP subjects were more frequent during the first week after switching to the EVP. The frequency of AEs reduced thereafter and out of a total of 1515 reported AEs, 495 were judged as being related to nicotine withdrawal symptoms. The most frequently stated AEs were headache, sore throat, desire to smoke and cough reported by 47.4, 27.8, 27.5 and 17.0% of subjects, respectively. Only 6% of AEs were judged as probably or definitely related to the EVP. Additional observations in EVP subjects included a decrease in the level of urine nicotine equivalents by up to 33.8%, and decreases in the level of three biomarkers of exposure to toxicants known to be present in CC smoke (benzene, acrolein and 4-[methylnitrosamino]-1-[3-pyridyl]-1-butanone). The decrease in nicotine equivalents coincided with an increase in nicotine withdrawal symptoms, measured by a questionnaire, which subsided after two weeks. The data presented here shows the potential EVPs may offer smokers looking for an alternative to CCs.

[Efficacy and security of electronic cigarette for tobacco harm reduction: Systematic review and meta-analysis]

CONTEXT

Smoking is the first cause of preventable death in France and in the world. Without help, it was shown that 80 % of smokers who try to quit smoking relapse after one month with a low long-term success rate. Smoking reduction can concern smokers who did not want to quit or failed in their attempt to weaning. The final aim is to increase attractiveness of drug therapies by developing new products, such as electronic cigarettes, that can compete cigarette without reproducing its harmful effects.

OBJECTIVE

Assess the capacity of electronic cigarettes to reduce or stop tobacco use among regular smokers.

DATA SOURCES

Consultations MEDLINE and COCHRANE databases.

KEYWORDS

e-cigarette; electronic cigarettes; ENDD (electronic nicotine delivery system); ENDS (electronic nicotine delivery device); vaping were used.

TRIAL SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the electronic cigarette with nicotine versus placebo device.

RESULTS

Two randomized controlled trials were included in the quantitative analysis. The nicotine electronic cigarette users have tobacco consumption significantly decreased compared to the placebo group (RR: 1.30, 95 % CI [1.02 to 1.66]) at 6 months. Smoking cessation rate at 3 months was greater with the electronic cigarette contains nicotine (RR: 2.55, 95 % CI [1.31 to 4.98]).

LIMITS

The small number of RCTs included does not allow definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes, especially in the medium to long term.

CONCLUSION

The use of electronic cigarette with nicotine decreases tobacco consumption among regular smokers. Further studies are needed to specify electronic cigarettes safety profile and its ability to cause a reduction in consumption and a long-term cessation in smokers.

The safety of treatments for tobacco use disorder

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco continues to be a leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality in the world. First-line pharmacotherapies for the treatment of tobacco use disorder include nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion sustained-release (SR), and varenicline. We provide an overview of current evidence on the safety of first-line pharmacotherapies for the treatment of tobacco use disorder.

AREAS COVERED

Randomized clinical trials published in English up to July 2015 were identified and reviewed through searches of PUBMED using the terms nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion SR, varenicline, smoking, and tobacco cessation.

EXPERT OPINION

Nicotine replacement has few contraindications and side effects and can be recommended to almost all tobacco users. Bupropion SR should be used with caution in patients with bipolar disorder or liver or kidney disease, and alternative treatments should be considered for patients with a history of seizures or who are at risk for seizures. The only contraindication for varenicline is an allergy to the medication, and nausea is the most common side effect. Varenicline can be used safely in patients with cardiovascular disease. Varenicline can be used in patients with stable psychiatric disease and safety can be ensured through close clinical monitoring.

Disease Progression and Changes in Physical Activity in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

RATIONALE

Little is known about the role of physical activity in the course of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

OBJECTIVES

To assess changes in physical activity in COPD in relation to severity stages and changes in other disease components, and to evaluate the longitudinal association between sustained physical inactivity and disease progression.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, we measured physical activity (multisensory armband), airflow obstruction (FEV1), health status (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire), exercise capacity (6-min-walk distance [6MWD]), muscle mass (fat-free mass [FFM]), and systemic inflammation (fibrinogen and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein) over a 3-year period in 137 patients with COPD and 26 with chronic bronchitis (normal spirometry).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Independent of baseline disease severity, steps per day, total daily energy expenditure, and (daily) physical activity level (PAL) decreased by 393, 76 kcal, and 0.04 per year, respectively. The decline in PAL was significantly associated with a decline in FEV1 and an increase in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score. Changes in 6MWD, FFM, and inflammatory markers were not associated with changes in PAL. Independent of FEV1, sustained physical inactivity (i.e., PAL(T0andT1)  < 1.40) was related to a greater decline in 6MWD and FFM compared with that in patients with some level of activity (i.e., PAL(T0and/orT1) ≥ 1.40; difference, 17 m/yr and 0.87 kg/yr, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Over time, physical activity substantially decreases across all severity stages of COPD, and this decline is paralleled by a worsening of lung function and health status. Sustained physical inactivity is associated with a progression of exercise intolerance and muscle depletion.

The effect of Varenicline on smoking cessation in a group of young asthma patients

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use causes long-term morbidity and mortality. In patients with asthma, the frequency of smokers is high; however, asthmatic smokers experience more pronounced symptoms, accelerated loss of lung function and treatment resistance. Varenicline is an effective drug in smoking cessation, when investigated in COPD patients and general populations. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of Varenicline on tobacco cessation in young asthmatics.

METHODS

In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial, 52 asthmatic current smokers (age 19-40) ≥ 10 cigarettes daily and ≥10 packyears (mean 15.6) were recruited to a 12 week treatment period with Varenicline or placebo (1:1) in parallel design. Evaluation of smoking status, asthma symptom score, general health quality score and methacholine challenge were performed at week 0, week 6, week 12 and week 24.

RESULTS

In the Varenicline group, at week 12, 69% of the patients quit smoking vs. 36% in the placebo group (p = 0.017, intended-to-treat analysis), but after 24 weeks, a high relapse rate was present (quit rates 19% vs. 16%, NS). After 6 weeks of treatment, significant improvements in airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) in the Varenicline group was found (from 88% to 58%, p = 0.016), whereas no change was observed in the placebo group. Symptom score and general health quality improved in both the Varenicline and the placebo group.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that Varenicline can be used with a high probability of success with tobacco cessation in young smokers with asthma, but relapse rate after end of treatment is high. Quitting smoking can improve asthma control.

The effects of beliefs regarding drug assignment in experimental and field studies of nicotine delivery devices: a review

The placebo effect of a psychoactive drug can be defined as the effect of expecting the drug in the absence of its pharmacological actions. As nicotine is widely believed to be the primary factor driving cigarette smoking, smokers are likely to expect nicotine to alleviate craving and withdrawal. The present review examines the extent to which any observed effects of nicotine, and especially its craving- and withdrawal-reducing effects, can be attributed to placebo. We begin by reviewing studies that examined the placebo effects of nicotine in the laboratory and follow with a review of potential placebo effects that are typically not controlled in placebo-controlled studies of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). In laboratory studies, nicotine instructions decrease tobacco smoking, craving and/or withdrawal, while nicotine-specific effects have not been consistently reported. In field trials of NRT, there is a general failure to assess smokers' beliefs regarding their drug assignment. This omission makes it difficult to unequivocally attribute findings of placebo-controlled NRT studies to the physiological effects of nicotine. In sum, our review indicates that the placebo effects of nicotine, and specifically nicotine content expectations, may account for many of the benefits associated with nicotine delivery devices in both laboratory and field studies.

Combination rapid-acting nicotine mouth spray and nicotine patch therapy in smoking cessation

INTRODUCTION

Improved smoking cessation rates are urgently required if New Zealand is to reach its target of a smokefree nation by 2025, during which some 600,000 smokers will need to quit. Nicotine replacement therapy remains a core part of the pharmacological approach to smoking cessation. Oral nicotine solutions with rapid onset have recently become available. We have examined the effect of a nicotine spray and a nicotine patch on smoking cessation for 12 months.

METHODS

We enrolled potential participants-smokers wanting to quit aged 18-70 years, who smoked ≥9 cigarettes per day-with Fagerström Test of Nicotine Dependence score ≥3 in a double-blind trial in 3 trial sites. Smokers were randomized to a nicotine or placebo spray for 6 months, and all received nicotine patches daily for 5 months. They were followed at regular intervals for 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 1,423 subjects were randomized to nicotine oral spray (1mg of nicotine free base per spray) plus nicotine patch or a placebo spray and nicotine patch. The nicotine mouth spray plus nicotine patch showed significant improvements in prolonged abstinence for all measures to 6 months (7 consecutive days at each visit for 6 months: 15.5% vs. 10.6%; p = .006) for the combination versus placebo and nicotine patch. Thereafter, the differences were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of a nicotine mouth spray to a nicotine replacement patch in a population of smokers receiving a low level of behavioral support improved early quitting, but the effects were not sustained.

Symptoms of nicotine toxicity in subjects achieving high cotinine levels during nicotine replacement therapy

INTRODUCTION

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aids smoking reduction and cessation. Although NRT is effective and safe, some smokers may achieve high nicotine levels. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence and severity of nicotine-related adverse events in subjects with levels of cotinine, a metabolite of nicotine, that increased by >50% compared with baseline smoking in controlled clinical trials of NRT.

METHODS

Data from participants in randomized, double-blind, controlled trials of various formulations of NRT (Nicorette®), including patch, gum, oral inhaler, sublingual tablet, nasal spray, mouth spray, and combinations, were extracted from a clinical database. Eligible studies were performed between 1989 and 2010. In addition to baseline, at least 1 subsequent plasma or salivary cotinine concentration was measured, and adverse events were recorded simultaneously. Of 28 eligible studies, 24 were smoking cessation studies and 4 were smoking reduction studies.

RESULTS

Cotinine levels that increased by >50% above baseline were recorded during treatment in 746 of 7,120 subjects (10.5%). Nausea was reported in 16 subjects (0.2% of the total, upper 99% confidence limit [CL] 0.4%), vomiting in 2 subjects (0.0%, upper 99% CL 0.1%), palpitations in 5 subjects (0.1%, upper 99% CL 0.2%), dizziness in 11 subjects (0.2%; upper 99% CL 0.3%), and headache in 35 subjects (0.5%, upper 99% CL 0.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Typical symptoms indicating nicotine overdose together with high cotinine levels were rare during treatment with NRT. These findings support the safety of NRT for smoking cessation or reduction.

Emerging drugs for the treatment of tobacco dependence: 2014 update

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco dependence remains a global epidemic and the largest preventable cause of morbidity and mortality around the world. Smoking cessation has benefits at all ages but remains challenging for several reasons, among which are the complexities of nicotine addiction and limitations of available pharmacotherapies.

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes current and emerging pharmacotherapies for the treatment of tobacco dependence, including first- and second-line recommended agents. Medications with alternative primary indications that have been investigated as potential treatments for tobacco dependence are also discussed. Articles reviewed were obtained through searches of PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Pharmaprojects database.

EXPERT OPINION

Current evidence suggests that the two most effective pharmacotherapies to treat tobacco dependence are varenicline and combination nicotine replacement therapy. Alternative agents investigated demonstrate mixed rates of success in achieving long-term abstinence from smoking. No single pharmacotherapy will serve as a universally successful treatment given the complex underpinnings of tobacco dependence and individuality of smokers. The ultimate goal of tobacco research with respect to pharmacotherapeutic development continues to be providing clinicians with an armamentarium of drugs to choose from allowing for tailoring of treatment for smokers.

Clinical strategies to enhance the efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation: a review of the literature

A number of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies have led to increases in quitting and thus to significant benefits to public health. Among existing medications, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) has been available the longest, has the largest literature base in support, and is the only option for over-the-counter access. While the short-term efficacy of NRT is well documented in clinical trials, long-term abstinence rates associated with using NRT are modest, as most smokers will relapse. This literature review examines emerging clinical strategies to improve NRT efficacy. After an initial overview of NRT and its FDA-approved indications for use, we review randomized trials in which clinical delivery of NRT was manipulated and tested, in an attempt to enhance efficacy, through (1) duration of use (pre-quit and extended use), (2) amount of use (high-dose and combination NRT), (3) tailoring to specific smoker groups (genotype and phenotype), or (4) use of NRT for novel purposes (relapse prevention, temporary abstinence, cessation induction). Outcomes vary within and across topic area, and we highlight areas that offer stronger promise. Combination NRT likely represents the most promising strategy moving forward; other clinical strategies offer conflicting evidence but deserve further testing (pre-quit NRT or tailored treatment) or offer potential utility but are in need of further, direct tests. Some areas, though based on a limited set of studies, do not offer great promise (high-dose and extended treatment NRT). We conclude with a brief discussion of emergent NRT products (e.g., oral nicotine spray, among others), which may ultimately offer greater efficacy than current formulations. In order to further lower the prevalence of smoking, novel strategies designed to optimize NRT efficacy are needed.

Pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation: pharmacological principles and clinical practice

Strategies for assisting smoking cessation include behavioural counselling to enhance motivation and to support attempts to quit and pharmacological intervention to reduce nicotine reinforcement and withdrawal from nicotine. Three drugs are currently used as first line pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation, nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion and varenicline. Compared with placebo, the drug effect varies from 2.27 (95% CI 2.02, 2.55) for varenicline, 1.69 (95% CI 1.53, 1.85) for bupropion and 1.60 (95% CI 1.53, 1.68) for any form of nicotine replacement therapy. Despite some controversy regarding the safety of bupropion and varenicline, regulatory agencies consider these drugs as having a favourable benefit/risk profile. However, given the high rate of psychiatric comorbidity in dependent smokers, practitioners should closely monitor patients for neuropsychiatric symptoms. Second-line pharmacotherapies include nortriptyline and clonidine. This review also offers an overview of pipeline developments and issues related to smoking cessation in special populations such as persons with psychiatric comorbidity and pregnant and adolescent smokers.

Cardiovascular events associated with smoking cessation pharmacotherapies: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Stopping smoking is associated with many important improvements in health and quality of life. The use of cessation medications is recommended to increase the likelihood of quitting. However, there is historical and renewed concern that smoking cessation therapies may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease events associated within the quitting period. We aimed to examine whether the 3 licensed smoking cessation therapies-nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, and varenicline-were associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease events using a network meta-analysis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched 10 electronic databases, were in communication with authors of published randomized, clinical trials (RCTs), and accessed internal US Food and Drug Administration reports. We included any RCT of the 3 treatments that reported cardiovascular disease outcomes. Among 63 eligible RCTs involving 21 nicotine replacement therapy RCTs, 28 bupropion RCTs, and 18 varenicline RCTs, we found no increase in the risk of all cardiovascular disease events with bupropion (relative risk [RR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-1.73) or varenicline (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.79-2.23). There was an elevated risk associated with nicotine replacement therapy that was driven predominantly by less serious events (RR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.39-3.82). When we examined major adverse cardiovascular events, we found a protective effect with bupropion (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.21-0.85) and no clear evidence of harm with varenicline (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.66-2.66) or nicotine replacement therapy (RR, 1.95; 95% CI, 0.26-4.30).

CONCLUSION

Smoking cessation therapies do not appear to raise the risk of serious cardiovascular disease events.

Novel delivery systems for nicotine replacement therapy as an aid to smoking cessation and for harm reduction: rationale, and evidence for advantages over existing systems

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) has been used in the treatment of tobacco dependence for over three decades. Whilst the choice of NRT was limited early on, in the last ten years there has been substantial increase in the number of nicotine delivery devices that have become available. This article briefly summarises existing forms of NRT, evidence of their efficacy and use, and reviews the rationale for the development of novel products delivering nicotine via buccal, transdermal or pulmonary routes (including nicotine mouth spray, nicotine films, advanced nicotine inhalers and electronic cigarettes). It presents available evidence on the efficacy, tolerability and abuse potential of these products, with a focus on their advantages as well as disadvantages compared with established forms of NRT for use as an aid to both smoking cessation as well as harm reduction.

Pharmacotherapies and harm-reduction options for the treatment of tobacco dependence

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco dependence, a chronic relapsing condition, requires repeated interventions and multiple attempts to quit.

AREAS COVERED

Strategies for assisting smoking cessation include behavioural counselling and pharmacotherapy. Three drugs are currently used as first-line pharmacotherapy: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion and varenicline. Compared to placebo, the drug effect varies from RR = 2.27 for varenicline, to 1.69 for bupropion, and 1.60 for any form of NRT. Cytisine (similar to varenicline) has a RR = 3.98 compared to placebo (two trials). Second-line pharmacotherapies include nortriptyline and clonidine. This review also offers an overview of pipeline developments.

EXPERT OPINION

Effective medications exist, and clinicians should encourage and offer treatment to every smoker. However, most smokers try to quit by themselves, with only about 3% quitting successfully each year. Alternative interventions are needed. Harm reduction has not received much support to date. Safer alternative to tobacco smoking (smoke-free products, long-term use of cessation drugs, or electronic cigarettes) could save lives and reduce the burden of tobacco-related deaths and diseases. Despite some encouragement to develop a research agenda for e-cigarettes, particularly on the safety issues, too little attention has been brought to this area of research.

Pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation: an overview and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Smoking is the leading preventable cause of illness and premature death worldwide. Some medications have been proven to help people to quit, with three licensed for this purpose in Europe and the USA: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, and varenicline. Cytisine (a treatment pharmacologically similar to varenicline) is also licensed for use in Russia and some of the former socialist economy countries. Other therapies, including nortriptyline, have also been tested for effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

How do NRT, bupropion and varenicline compare with placebo and with each other in achieving long-term abstinence (six months or longer)? How do the remaining treatments compare with placebo in achieving long-term abstinence? How do the risks of adverse and serious adverse events (SAEs) compare between the treatments, and are there instances where the harms may outweigh the benefits?

METHODS

The overview is restricted to Cochrane reviews, all of which include randomised trials. Participants are usually adult smokers, but we exclude reviews of smoking cessation for pregnant women and in particular disease groups or specific settings. We cover nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants (bupropion and nortriptyline), nicotine receptor partial agonists (varenicline and cytisine), anxiolytics, selective type 1 cannabinoid receptor antagonists (rimonabant), clonidine, lobeline, dianicline, mecamylamine, Nicobrevin, opioid antagonists, nicotine vaccines, and silver acetate. Our outcome for benefit is continuous or prolonged abstinence at least six months from the start of treatment. Our outcome for harms is the incidence of serious adverse events associated with each of the treatments. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) in The Cochrane Library, for any reviews with 'smoking' in the title, abstract or keyword fields. The last search was conducted in November 2012. We assessed methodological quality using a revised version of the AMSTAR scale. For NRT, bupropion and varenicline we conducted network meta-analyses, comparing each with the others and with placebo for benefit, and varenicline and bupropion for risks of serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 12 treatment-specific reviews. The analyses covered 267 studies, involving 101,804 participants. Both NRT and bupropion were superior to placebo (odds ratios (OR) 1.84; 95% credible interval (CredI) 1.71 to 1.99, and 1.82; 95% CredI 1.60 to 2.06 respectively). Varenicline increased the odds of quitting compared with placebo (OR 2.88; 95% CredI 2.40 to 3.47). Head-to-head comparisons between bupropion and NRT showed equal efficacy (OR 0.99; 95% CredI 0.86 to 1.13). Varenicline was superior to single forms of NRT (OR 1.57; 95% CredI 1.29 to 1.91), and to bupropion (OR 1.59; 95% CredI 1.29 to 1.96). Varenicline was more effective than nicotine patch (OR 1.51; 95% CredI 1.22 to 1.87), than nicotine gum (OR 1.72; 95% CredI 1.38 to 2.13), and than 'other' NRT (inhaler, spray, tablets, lozenges; OR 1.42; 95% CredI 1.12 to 1.79), but was not more effective than combination NRT (OR 1.06; 95% CredI 0.75 to 1.48). Combination NRT also outperformed single formulations. The four categories of NRT performed similarly against each other, apart from 'other' NRT, which was marginally more effective than NRT gum (OR 1.21; 95% CredI 1.01 to 1.46). Cytisine (a nicotine receptor partial agonist) returned positive findings (risk ratio (RR) 3.98; 95% CI 2.01 to 7.87), without significant adverse events or SAEs. Across the 82 included and excluded bupropion trials, our estimate of six seizures in the bupropion arms versus none in the placebo arms was lower than the expected rate (1:1000), at about 1:1500. SAE meta-analysis of the bupropion studies demonstrated no excess of neuropsychiatric (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.31 to 2.50) or cardiovascular events (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.59). SAE meta-analysis of 14 varenicline trials found no difference between the varenicline and placebo arms (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.55), and subgroup analyses detected no significant excess of neuropsychiatric events (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.67), or of cardiac events (RR 1.26; 95% CI 0.62 to 2.56). Nortriptyline increased the chances of quitting (RR 2.03; 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78). Neither nortriptyline nor bupropion were shown to enhance the effect of NRT compared with NRT alone. Clonidine increased the chances of quitting (RR 1.63; 95% CI 1.22 to 2.18), but this was offset by a dose-dependent rise in adverse events. Mecamylamine in combination with NRT may increase the chances of quitting, but the current evidence is inconclusive. Other treatments failed to demonstrate a benefit compared with placebo. Nicotine vaccines are not yet licensed for use as an aid to smoking cessation or relapse prevention. Nicobrevin's UK license is now revoked, and the manufacturers of rimonabant, taranabant and dianicline are no longer supporting the development or testing of these treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

NRT, bupropion, varenicline and cytisine have been shown to improve the chances of quitting. Combination NRT and varenicline are equally effective as quitting aids. Nortriptyline also improves the chances of quitting. On current evidence, none of the treatments appear to have an incidence of adverse events that would mitigate their use. Further research is warranted into the safety of varenicline and into cytisine's potential as an effective and affordable treatment, but not into the efficacy and safety of NRT.

Smoking cessation and COPD

The mainstay in smoking cessation is counselling in combination with varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or bupropion SR. Varenicline and combination of two NRTs is equally effective, while varenicline alone is more effective than either NRT or bupropion SR. NRT is extremely safe but cardiovascular and psychiatric adverse events with varenicline have been reported. These treatments have also been shown to be effective in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A model study is the Lung Health Study from the USA. Findings from this study of 5,587 patients with mild COPD showed that repeated smoking cessation for a period of 5 yrs resulted in a quit rate of 37%. After 14.5 yrs the quitters had a higher lung function and a higher survival rate. A study with a new nicotine formulation, a mouth spray, showed high relative efficacy. As 5-10% of quitters use long-term NRT, we report the results of a study where varenicline compared with placebo increased the quit rate in long-term users of NRT. Smoking cessation is the most effective intervention in stopping the progression of COPD, as well as increasing survival and reducing morbidity. This is why smoking cessation should be the top priority in the treatment of COPD.

Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Effects of nicotine mouth spray on urges to smoke, a randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

A new nicotine mouth spray was shown to be an effective stop-smoking treatment. This study was set up to examine the speed with which it relieves urges to smoke, and how it compares with nicotine lozenge in this respect.

DESIGN

Randomised, cross-over trial that compared nicotine mouth spray 2 mg versus nicotine lozenge 2 or 4 mg.

SETTING

Clinical pharmacology research unit.

PARTICIPANTS

200 Volunteer smokers who smoked their first cigarette of the day within 30 min of waking.

INTERVENTIONS

Subjects abstained from smoking the night before the morning they attended the laboratory. Treatment was administered following 5 h of witnessed abstinence.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Urge to smoke was rated before and at 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, 25, 30, 45 min and 1, 1.5, and 2 h after treatment administration. The primary outcome concerned change during the first 1, 3 and 5 min after treatment administration.

RESULTS

Nicotine mouth spray achieved greater reductions in craving than either lozenge during the first 1, 3 and 5 min postadministration. After using mouth spray, half of the users experienced 50% reduction in craving within 3.40 min, while the same treatment effect was achieved within 9.92 and 9.20 min for the 2 and 4 mg lozenge, respectively. Adverse events with both mouth spray and lozenge were mostly mild. Hiccups, local irritation, nausea and dyspepsia were more frequent with spray than lozenge.

CONCLUSIONS

Nicotine mouth spray provides a faster relief of cravings than nicotine lozenge.