Flexible, dual-form nicotine replacement therapy or varenicline in comparison with nicotine patch for smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This study was registered with PROSPERO (# CRD42022321838).

Evidence-Based Guideline for the Treatment of Smoking Cessation Provided by the National Health Insurance Service in Korea

Although major countries, such as South Korea, have developed and disseminated national smoking cessation guidelines, these efforts have been limited to developing individual societies or specialized institution-based recommendations. Therefore, evidence-based clinical guidelines are essential for developing smoking cessation interventions and promoting effective smoking cessation treatments. This guideline targets frontline clinical practitioners involved in a smoking cessation treatment support program implemented in 2015 with the support of the National Health Insurance Service. The Guideline Development Group of 10 multidisciplinary smoking cessation experts employed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT approach to review recent domestic and international research and guidelines and to determine evidence levels using the GRADE methodology. The guideline panel formulated six strong recommendations and one conditional recommendation regarding pharmacotherapy choices among general and special populations (mental disorders and chronic obstructive lung disease [COPD]). Strong recommendations favor varenicline rather than a nicotine patch or bupropion, using varenicline even if they are not ready to quit, using extended pharmacotherapy (>12 weeks) rather than standard treatment (8-12 weeks), or using pharmacotherapy for individuals with mental disorders or COPD. The conditional recommendation suggests combining varenicline with a nicotine patch instead of using varenicline alone. Aligned with the Korean Society of Medicine's clinical guideline development process, this is South Korea's first domestic smoking cessation treatment guideline that follows standardized guidelines. Primarily focusing on pharmacotherapy, it can serve as a foundation for comprehensive future smoking cessation clinical guidelines, encompassing broader treatment topics beyond medications.

Current Pharmacotherapies for Smoking Cessation and Promising Emerging Drugs

OBJECTIVE

Pharmacotherapy is commonly used during quit attempts and has shown an increase in the likelihood of achieving abstinence. However, with established pharmacotherapies, abstinence rates following a quit attempt remain low, and relapse is common. This review aims to investigate the efficacy and harm profiles of current and emerging pharmacotherapies.

METHODS

Literature review of current and emerging pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation and tobacco use disorder.

RESULTS

Emerging pharmacotherapies include new formulations of existing therapies, drug repurposing and some new treatments. New treatments are welcome and may incorporate different mechanisms of action or different safety and tolerability profiles compared to existing treatments. However, emerging pharmacotherapies have yet to demonstrate greater efficacy compared to existing treatments. The emergence of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) or 'vaping' is a feature of the current debate around tobacco use disorder. ENDS appear to facilitate switching but not quitting and are controversial as a harm minimisation strategy.

LIMITATIONS

Studies included a broad range of therapies and trial designs that should be compared with their differences taken into consideration.

CONCLUSION

Strategies to successfully quit smoking vary between individuals and may extend beyond pharmacotherapy and involve complex psychosocial factors and pathways.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Varenicline and related interventions on smoking cessation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Based on randomized controlled trials, a network meta-analysis was conducted to compare treatment effects across varenicline and related smoking interventions.

METHODS

English databases were screened for randomized controlled trials reporting the effect of varenicline as treatment for smoking. The risk of bias in included trials was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook tool. Stata 15.1 software was used to perform network meta-analysis, and the GRADE approach was used to assess the evidence credibility on the tobacco treatment effects of different interventions.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies involving 26,130 smokers were included in the network meta-analysis. Varenicline and 11 other interventions were reported, yielding 66 pairs of comparisons. Network meta-analysis showed that varenicline monotherapy or its combination with other interventions were superior in achieving smoking cessation compared to bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy, counselling, and placebo. Furthermore, compared to the varenicline, evident abstinence superiority was found in varenicline + bupropion (odds ratio = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [1.02, 2.18]). Finally, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value indicated that varenicline + bupropion has the highest probability to become the best intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline monotherapy increased the odds of smoking cessation further than bupropion monotherapy, nicotine replacement therapy, counselling, and placebo, while varenicline combined with other interventions may even achieve a better abstinence effect. More credible evidence has been reported indicating that the combination of varenicline and bupropion is a superior treatment for smoking.

Addressing Smoking in Musculoskeletal Specialty Care

➤

Physicians who advise patients to quit smoking substantially improve cessation rates, but cessation counseling is currently underperformed.

➤

Counseling, pharmacotherapy, and additional interventions can improve the chance of successful smoking cessation. Most patients require multiple attempts at quitting to be successful.

➤

A list of referral contacts and resources should be developed and routinely offered to these patients. The national Quitline (1-800-QUIT-NOW) provides free access to trained counselors and "quit coaches" for each state program in the United States.

➤

Government and private insurance plans in the United States are required (in most cases) to cover the cost of 2 quitting attempts per year including counseling referrals and medications.

➤

Several biopsychosocial factors that affect orthopaedic outcomes (weight, anxiety, depression, etc.) are also relevant to smoking cessation; management of these factors is thus potentially aggregately advantageous.

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.

Efficacy of Combining Varenicline and Naltrexone for Smoking Cessation and Drinking Reduction: A Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

Pharmacological treatments that can concomitantly address cigarette smoking and heavy drinking stand to improve health care delivery for these highly prevalent co-occurring conditions. This superiority trial compared the combination of varenicline and naltrexone against varenicline alone for smoking cessation and drinking reduction among heavy-drinking smokers.

METHODS

This was a phase 2 randomized double-blind clinical trial. Participants (N=165) who were daily smokers and drank heavily received either 2 mg/day of varenicline plus 50 mg/day of naltrexone or 2 mg/day of varenicline plus matched placebo pills for 12 weeks. Primary outcomes were 7-day point prevalence of nicotine abstinence (bioverified by a breath CO reading ≤5 ppm) at the 26-week follow-up and number of drinks per drinking day during the 12-week treatment phase.

RESULTS

Smoking abstinence at week 26 was significantly higher in the varenicline plus placebo condition than in the varenicline plus naltrexone condition (N=37 [45.1%] compared with N=22 [26.5%]). For drinks per drinking day, there was a medication effect favoring the combination of varenicline and naltrexone over varenicline alone across the 12-week treatment phase, although it did not meet the significance threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that smoking cessation and drinking reduction can be concomitantly targeted with pharmacotherapy and that while varenicline alone may be sufficient as a smoking cessation aid in heavy-drinking smokers, the combination of varenicline and naltrexone may confer benefits with regard to drinking outcomes, particularly during the 12-week period of active medication treatment.

Effectiveness of Varenicline Versus Combination Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Smoking Cessation: One-Year Outcomes in a Smoking Cessation Clinic in Taiwan

INTRODUCTION

Varenicline and combination nicotine replacement treatment (cNRT) have been recommended as the most effective pharmacotherapies, with equal abstinence rate for smoking cessation in a network meta-analysis of randomized trials, but data from real-world long-term follow-up studies are rare. This study aimed to compare the 12-month sustained abstinence rates of smokers using varenicline versus cNRT in their quit attempt.

METHODS

A total of 3569 smokers were recruited via the Department of Family Medicine outpatient department at Kaohsiung Veteran General Hospital between June 2013 and March 2019. Participants received counseling from a physician and chose either varenicline (N = 2870) or cNRT (N = 699) for smoking cessation. Both varenicline and cNRT users could receive a free 8-week supply and eight clinic visits over 90 days. Participants were followed-up by telephone at 12, 24, and 52 weeks from first visit. The primary outcome measure of the study was self-reported sustained abstinence up to 52 weeks.

RESULTS

Varenicline users had a significantly higher sustained abstinence rate at weeks 12-52, adjusted for baseline variables (15.2% vs 10.3%, p = .001; adjusted odds ratio = 1.47, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-2.05). Other significant predictors of 52 weeks sustained abstinence were being male, having a higher income, attending more clinical visits, and have lower nicotine dependence.

CONCLUSION

Varenicline appears to have higher sustained abstinence rates to 52 weeks compared with cNRT, in a smoking cessation clinic where smokers can choose their medication option.

IMPLICATIONS

Network meta-analysis of randomized trials suggests that varenicline and cNRT are similarly effective for smoking cessation. This study shows that 1-year sustained abstinence rates were significantly higher among smokers using varenicline, compared with smokers using cNRT, when used as part of a structured smoking cessation program. These findings are highly relevant to policy makers and service providers to help determine provision of smoking cessation treatment.

A comparison of quit outcomes for men and women in a smoking cessation program offering personalized nicotine replacement therapy and counselling in primary care clinics

INTRODUCTION

Women may have greater difficulty achieving long-term abstinence following a quit attempt compared to men. We sought to determine whether there were differences in treatment characteristics or outcome between female and male primary care patients enrolled in a smoking cessation program providing personalized nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) with counselling support.

METHODS

The sample included 27,601 Ontarians (53% female, 47% male) who enrolled in the Smoking Treatment for Ontario Patients program between 2016 and 2018. Dose, type, and duration of NRT supplied was personalized to need. Thirty-day point prevalence tobacco smoking abstinence was self-reported via online or telephone survey at 6 months post-enrollment.

RESULTS

Both female and male participants received a median of 8 weeks of NRT. Types of NRT received were similar, with 80% of both female and male participants receiving patch and short-acting NRT. Total cumulative dose was somewhat higher for men (1373 mg vs. 1265 mg, p<0.001); but when calculated as dose per day, per cigarette smoked at baseline, dose was slightly higher among women (1.6 mg vs. 1.5 mg, p<0.001). Quit rates at 6 months were lower for women versus men (24% vs. 27%; AOR = 0.84 [95% CI = 0.78-0.90], p<0.001). There were no significant interactions between gender and dose, type or duration of NRT supplied.

CONCLUSIONS

Women were slightly less likely to quit than men, despite receiving similar treatment. There was no evidence that women benefitted more or less from variations in dose, type or duration of NRT supply.

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.

Nicotine Replacement Therapy and Healthy Lifestyle Psychoeducation for Smoking Reduction in Acute Psychiatric Inpatients: A Cluster-Randomized Parallel Study

BACKGROUND

Effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapies in acute psychiatric inpatient settings remains under-researched. The aim of this study was to compare effectiveness and acceptability of 3 different forms of nicotine replacement therapy in achieving smoking reduction among acute psychiatric inpatients.

METHODS

This cluster-randomized, parallel study compared effectiveness and acceptability of nicotine inhalers, nicotine gum, and nicotine patches for smoking reduction in the acute psychiatric inpatient setting. The primary outcome was the exhaled breath carbon monoxide (CO) level change from baseline at weeks 4 and 8. Secondary outcomes included changes in nicotine withdrawal symptoms and psychiatric symptom severity.

RESULTS

Three hundred ten inpatients on the acute care wards were randomly assigned to nicotine inhalers (n = 184), gum (n = 71), and patches (n = 55). Only the nicotine inhaler group showed statistically significant reduction in CO level from baseline at both weeks 4 and 8 (P < 0.001 and P = 0.032, respectively). The nicotine inhaler and the patch group showed significant decrease in nicotine withdrawal symptoms from baseline at both weeks 4 and 8. Meanwhile, the nicotine inhaler and the gum group showed significant decrease in psychiatric symptom severity from baseline at both weeks 4 and 8. Post hoc comparisons revealed that the inhaler group had a greater decrease in psychiatric symptom severity compared with the patch group.

CONCLUSIONS

Nicotine inhalers may be an effective choice for smoking reduction in acute psychiatric inpatient settings given its significant effects on CO level, withdrawal symptoms, and psychiatric symptom severity, particularly during the first 4 weeks of treatment.

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

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

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

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

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

Genetic Variant in CHRNA5 and Response to Varenicline and Combination Nicotine Replacement in a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

It is unclear if genetic variants affect smoking cessation treatment response. This study tested whether variants in the cholinergic receptor nicotinic alpha 5 subunit (CHRNA5) predict response to smoking cessation medication by directly comparing the two most effective smoking cessation pharmacotherapies. In this genotype-stratified randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (May 2015-August 2019 in St Louis, Missouri), smokers were randomized by genotype in blocks of six (1:1:1 ratio) to three conditions: 12 weeks of placebo (n = 273), combination nicotine patch and lozenge (combination nicotine replacement therapy, cNRT, n = 275), or varenicline (n = 274). All participants received counseling and were followed for 12 months. The primary end point was biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence at the end of treatment (EOT, week 12). Trial registration and eligibility criteria are on clinicaltrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/) (NCT02351167). We conducted the genetic analyses separately for 516 European ancestry (EA) smokers and 306 non-EA smokers (including 270 African American smokers). In African American smokers, there was a genotype-by-treatment interaction for EOT abstinence (χ²  = 10.7, degrees of freedom = 2. P = 0.0049): specifically, cNRT was more effective in smokers with rs16969968 GG genotype than was placebo, while varenicline was more effective in smokers of GA/AA genotypes. In EA ancestry smokers, there was no significant genotype-by-treatment interaction. In the whole sample, although both were effective at EOT, only varenicline, and not cNRT, was significantly effective relative to placebo at 6-month follow-up. Importantly, this study suggests that genetic information can further enhance smoking cessation treatment effectiveness.

Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of integrating smoking cessation into lung cancer screening: a microsimulation model

BACKGROUND

Low-dose computed tomography (CT) screening can reduce lung cancer mortality in people at high risk; adding a smoking cessation intervention to screening could further improve screening program outcomes. This study aimed to assess the impact of adding a smoking cessation intervention to lung cancer screening on clinical outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

Using the OncoSim-Lung mathematical microsimulation model, we compared the projected lifetime impact of a smoking cessation intervention (nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and 12 wk of counselling) in the context of annual low-dose CT screening for lung cancer in people at high risk to lung cancer screening without a cessation intervention in Canada. The simulated population consisted of Canadians born in 1940-1974; lung cancer screening was offered to eligible people in 2020. In the base-case scenario, we assumed that the intervention would be offered to smokers up to 10 times; each intervention would achieve a 2.5% permanent quit rate. Sensitivity analyses varied key model inputs. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with a lifetime horizon from the health system's perspective, discounted at 1.5% per year. Costs are in 2019 Canadian dollars.

RESULTS

Offering a smoking cessation intervention in the context of lung cancer screening could lead to an additional 13% of smokers quitting smoking. It could potentially prevent 12 more lung cancers and save 200 more life-years for every 1000 smokers screened, at a cost of $22 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The results were most sensitive to quit rate. The intervention would cost over $50 000 per QALY gained with a permanent quit rate of less than 1.25% per attempt.

INTERPRETATION

Adding a smoking cessation intervention to lung cancer screening is likely cost-effective. To optimize the benefits of lung cancer screening, health care providers should encourage participants who still smoke to quit smoking.

Extended Nicotine Patch Treatment Among Smokers With and Without Comorbid Psychopathology

INTRODUCTION

Individuals with psychiatric conditions smoke at higher rates than the general population and may need more intensive treatment to quit. We examined whether or not extended treatment with nicotine patch, combined with behavior counseling, would disproportionally benefit smokers with versus without a lifetime psychiatric condition.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of data from an effectiveness trial of treatment with 12 counseling sessions (48 weeks) and 21-mg nicotine patch (8, 24, or 52 weeks) among 525 adult daily smokers. A structured clinical interview assessed past and current psychiatric disorders (major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse and/or dependence, and substance abuse and/or dependence), as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition). Abstinence was bioverified at week 52. Logistic regression evaluated the effect of the psychiatric status × treatment duration interaction on abstinence at week 52, covarying for sociodemographics, baseline psychological symptoms, and treatment adherence.

RESULTS

At baseline, 115 (21.9%) participants were diagnosed with one or more psychiatric conditions. The psychiatric status × treatment duration interaction was significant for week 52 abstinence (p = .027). Abstinence rates between smokers with versus without a psychiatric condition in the 24-week treatment arm (9.3% vs. 31.5% abstinent) significantly differed from the 8-week treatment arm (18.8% vs. 22.3%), p = .017. Abstinence rates for smokers with (22.5%) versus without a psychiatric condition (19.7%) in the 52-week treatment arm did not differ from those in the 8-week arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted smoking cessation treatment, rather than extending treatment duration, may be especially warranted to optimize treatment for smokers with comorbid mood, anxiety, and substance use disorders.

IMPLICATIONS

Individuals with psychiatric conditions smoke at higher rates and have greater difficulty quitting compared to those in the general population, but little is known about how to best optimize treatment for this high tobacco burden population. The present study found that cessation response to extended duration treatment with the transdermal nicotine patch did not differ for smokers with versus without comorbid anxiety, mood, and substance use disorders in a large-scale clinical effectiveness trial. Development of targeted behavioral treatments may be required to optimize abstinence outcomes for this high-risk population, rather than simply extending the duration of pharmacotherapy treatments.

Pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation in schizophrenia: a systematic review

Introduction: Rates of tobacco smoking are high in people with schizophrenia with greater difficulty of quitting smoking compared to the general population, which also relate to the increased cardiovascular and cancer risks in this co-occurring disorder. Therefore, effective smoking cessation pharmacotherapies addressing tobacco co-morbidity are imperative.Areas covered: In this review, the authors performed an extensive systematic electronic literature review examining the efficacy and safety of first-line pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation, including varenicline, sustained-release bupropion, and nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) using continuous abstinence rates over 10-12-week periods in smokers with schizophrenia. Twelve trials reporting smoking cessation outcomes using interventions in schizophrenia were included and risk ratio (RR) was used.Expert opinion: Our findings support the efficacy and safety of first-line pharmacotherapies for the treatment of tobacco use disorder in smokers with schizophrenia. Further research on the long-term effectiveness and safety of these agents in community samples is warranted. Smoking cessation pharmacotherapies may warrant the consideration of the emerging use of electronic nicotine delivery systems while neuromodulation techniques also offer promise.

Non-inferiority trial comparing cigarette consumption, adoption rates, acceptability, tolerability, and tobacco harm reduction potential in smokers switching to Heated Tobacco Products or electronic cigarettes: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Despite the introduction of tobacco control measures, smoking remains highly prevalent in most EU countries. In Italy, one in four adults were still regular smokers in 2017. Increasing use of combustion-free delivering nicotine technologies for cigarette substitution may accelerate the current downward trends in smoking prevalence. Whether Heated Tobacco Products (HTPs) are more effective tobacco smoking substitutes that may potentially facilitate adoption and full conversion compared to e-cigarettes (ECs) is not known.

We have designed a prospective study to compare changes in cigarette consumption and adoption rates among smokers randomized to either HTPs or ECs. Product acceptability, tolerability, and their tobacco harm reduction potential will be also compared.

Methods

220 healthy smokers, not motivated to quit, will be randomized into a 12-weeks single-center, open label, non-inferiority trial comparing study outcomes from HTPs vs. ECs use. The primary outcome will be biochemically verified self-reported continuous abstinence at 12-weeks from the previous visit. Secondary outcomes will include: smoking reduction from baseline, adoption rates and product acceptability, tolerability, changes in step test values and in the level of selected biomarkers of exposure in exhaled breath (i.e. eCO) and in spot urine samples. A follow-up visit will be also included at 24-weeks to review product usage and smoking behavior under naturalistic condition of use.

Recruitment of participants started in May 2019 and enrolment is expected to be completed in November 2019.

Discussion

This will be the first study directly comparing Heated Tobacco Products with Electronic Cigarettes in term of reduction in cigarette consumption, adoption rates, product acceptability, tolerability, and tobacco harm reduction potential. This knowledge can contribute to a better understanding of the potential role of this new technology in the evolving nicotine consumer market.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03569748.

Registered June 25, 2018.

https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/prs/app/action/LoginUser?ts=1&cx=-jg9qo4.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Optimized Smoking Treatment Delivered in Primary Care

Background

The effectiveness of smoking cessation treatment is limited in real-world use, perhaps because we have not selected the components of such treatments optimally nor have treatments typically been developed for and evaluated in real-world clinical settings.

Purpose

To validate an optimized smoking cessation treatment package that comprises intervention components identified as effective in factorial screening experiments conducted as per the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST).

Methods

Adult smokers motivated to quit were recruited from primary care clinics (N = 623). Participants were randomized to receive either recommended usual care (R-UC; 10 min of in-person counseling, 8 weeks of nicotine patch, and referral to quitline services) or abstinence-optimized treatment (A-OT; 3 weeks of prequit mini-lozenges, 26 weeks of nicotine patch + mini-lozenges, three in-person and eight phone counseling sessions, and 7-11 automated calls to prompt medication use). The key outcomes were self-reported and biochemically confirmed (carbon monoxide, CO <6 ppm) 7-day point-prevalence abstinence.

Results

A-OT participants had significantly higher self-reported abstinence rates than R-UC participants at 4, 8, 16, and 26 weeks (ORs: 1.91-3.05; p <. 001). The biochemically confirmed 26-week abstinence rates were lower than the self-reported 26-week rates, but revealed a similar treatment effect size (OR = 2.94, p < .001). There was no moderation of treatment effects on 26-week abstinence by demographic, psychiatric, or nicotine dependence variables. A-OT had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for 26-week CO-confirmed abstinence of $7,800.

Conclusions

A smoking cessation treatment that is optimized via MOST development meaningfully enhances cessation rates beyond R-UC smoking treatment in smokers seen in primary care.

Clinical Trial Registration

NCT02301403.

A bidirectional path analysis model of smoking cessation self-efficacy and concurrent smoking status: impact on abstinence outcomes

Self-efficacy is routinely associated with abstinence in the addictions literature, and is a major component relapse-prevention models. The magnitude of this relationship has been brought into question following equivocal results in studies controlling for concurrent smoking status. The aim of our study was to clarify the relationship between cessation self-efficacy, smoking status, and cessation outcomes in a cohort of treatment-seeking smokers. Smokers participating in the FLEX trial, a randomized trial investigating the efficacy of three pharmacologic treatments for smoking cessation, completed questionnaires assessing cessation self-efficacy at baseline and at weeks 1, 3, 5 and 10 post-target quit date; smoking status was verified using expired carbon monoxide. Structural models were fit in order to ascertain the relationship between cessation self-efficacy and concurrent smoking at each time-point, and to assess the association between cessation self-efficacy, smoking and seven-day point prevalence smoking status at week 10. A total of 737 treatment-seeking smokers participated. In our path model, self-efficacy and smoking status at all time points were associated with week 10 abstinence (except week 3 self-efficacy), after controlling these values' previous time-points. All direct pathways between cessation self-efficacy and smoking were also significant, supporting a bidirectional relationship. Our results support a bidirectional and reciprocal relationship between cessation self-efficacy and concurrent smoking behavior; participants with higher confidence were more likely to be smoke-free, and concurrent smoking status predicted levels of confidence over the ensuing weeks. Both measures were associated with week 10 abstinence. Our results indicate that while correlated, both cessation self-efficacy and current smoking behavior during a cessation attempt are important independent markers of ultimate cessation success.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Review of the role of cigarette smoking in diabetic foot

Diabetic foot ulceration has been a serious issue over the past decades in Asia, causing economic and social problems. Therefore, it is important to identify and reduce the risk factors of diabetic foot. Cigarette smoking has been reported to be associated with diabetes and its macrovascular complications, but the relationship between smoking and diabetic foot ulcers is still unclear. In the present review, we summarize the effects of cigarette smoking on diabetic foot ulcers with respect to peripheral neuropathy, vascular alterations and wound healing. One underlying mechanism of these impacts might be the smoking-induced oxidative stress inside the cells. At the end of this review, the current mainstream therapies for smoking cessation are also outlined. We believe that it is urgent for all diabetic patients to quit smoking so as to reduce their chances of developing foot ulcers and to improve the prognosis of diabetic foot ulcers.

Smoking and diabetes: dangerous liaisons and confusing relationships

The combined harmful effects of cigarette smoking and hyperglycemia can accelerate vascular damage in patients with diabetes who smoke, as is well known. Can smoking cause diabetes? What are the effects of smoking on macro and microvascular complications? Now growing evidence indicates that regular smokers are at risk of developing incident diabetes. Since the prevalence rates of smoking in patients with diabetes are relatively similar to those of the general population, it is essential to address the main modifiable risk factor of smoking to prevent the onset of diabetes and delay the development of its complications. Quitting smoking shows clear benefits in terms of reducing or slowing the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in people with diabetes. Does quitting smoking decrease the incidence of diabetes and its progression? What are the effects of quitting smoking on complications? The current evidence does not seem to unequivocally suggest a positive role for quitting in patients with diabetes. Quitting smoking has also been shown to have a negative impact on body weight, glycemic control and subsequent increased risk of new-onset diabetes. Moreover, its role on microvascular complications of the disease is unclear. What are the current smoking cessation treatments, and which ones are better for patients with diabetes? Stopping smoking may be of value for diabetes prevention and management of the disease and its macrovascular and microvascular complications. Unfortunately, achieving long-lasting abstinence is not easy and novel approaches for managing these patients are needed. This narrative review examines the evidence on the impact of smoking and smoking cessation in patients with diabetes and particularly in type 2 diabetes mellitus and its complications. In addition, management options and potential future directions will be discussed.

Nicotine metabolite ratio and smoking outcomes using nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline among smokers with and without psychiatric illness

INTRODUCTION

It has been suggested that the effectiveness of nicotine replacement smoking cessation pharmacotherapy may be enhanced by assessing rates of nicotine metabolism using the nicotine metabolite ratio - which reflects differences in the activity of the CYP2A6 hepatic enzyme - and titrating doses appropriately. To date, supporting evidence is equivocal, with little information regarding the assessment and effectiveness of the nicotine metabolite ratio among smokers with psychiatric conditions.

METHODS

The nicotine metabolite ratio of 499 smokers from the FLEX trial was determined using urine samples obtained at baseline. They were randomized to receive either: standard transdermal nicotine (nicotine replacement therapy); extended nicotine replacement therapy + adjunct nicotine agent; or varenicline. Primary cessation outcomes were seven-day point prevalence at 5, 10, 22, and 52 weeks post-target quit date, comparing across treatment and psychiatric status. Our principal analysis employed logistic regression (outcome: abstinence), using slow metabolizers as the reference category.

RESULTS

No differences were observed by nicotine metabolite ratio classification (slow, moderate, fast) with respect to any demographic or smoking-related variables. Nicotine metabolite ratio class did not predict smoking cessation in either the overall sample, or by treatment condition at any time-point (week 52 moderate metabolizers: odds ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval (0.68-2.63), p=0.394; fast metabolizers: odds ratio 1.04 (0.56-1.91), p=0. 906).

CONCLUSION

Our results did not find any associations between nicotine metabolite ratio and cessation outcomes among smokers using nicotine replacement therapy or varenicline with and without lifetime psychiatric conditions.

Smoking Cessation and Electronic Cigarettes in Community Mental Health Centers: Patient and Provider Perspectives

Little is known about patients' electronic cigarette use, interest in and use of smoking cessation treatments, and providers' attitude towards such treatment. We assessed patients (N = 231) and providers (45 psychiatrists, 97 case workers) in four Community Mental Health Centers. Interestingly, 50% of smokers reported interest in using electronic cigarettes to quit smoking, and 22% reported current use. While 82% of smokers reported wanting to quit or reduce smoking, 91% of psychiatrists and 84% of case workers reported that patients were not interested in quitting as the lead barrier, limiting the provision of cessation interventions. Providers' assumption of low patient interest in treatment may account for the low rate of smoking cessation treatment. In contrast, patients report interest and active use of electronic cigarettes to quit smoking. This study highlights the need for interventions targeting different phases of smoking cessation in these patients suffering disproportionately from tobacco dependence.

A Mixed Method Review of Tobacco Cessation for the Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation Clinician

PURPOSE

To systematically survey the literature, describe the current tobacco science, and perform a mixed method review of randomized control trials of tobacco research in the cardiopulmonary population.

METHODS

Mixed method review was conducted on major resource databases. Inclusion criteria were English language with a minimum follow-up of 6 months, published between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2016; adult smokers ≥18 years of age with cardiovascular and/or pulmonary disease; initiation of subject recruitment from hospital or community; tobacco cessation (TC) as the main aim of the study; biometric validation of smoking status; first-line TC medications; and nonpharmacological treatments.

RESULTS

The pooling of the 10 studies through forest plot analysis revealed the effect of tobacco continuous abstinence rates significant at 3, 6, and 12 months (total OR = 3.73; 95% CI, 2.58-5.38). Also, tobacco point prevalence rates of TC treatments demonstrated overall effects that were significant at the different end points (total OR = 2.63; 95% CI, 1.90-3.64). In both cases, the higher ORs were found in the 3 months end point. Most successful interventions consisted of a combination of pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapy (predominantly counseling).

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence continues to support the recommended first-line TC pharmacotherapy and nonpharmacological practices published in the 2008 national guidelines. Implications for cardiopulmonary rehabilitation clinicians are discussed.