A comparison of the efficacy of varenicline and bupropion and an evaluation of the effect of the medications in the context of the smoking cessation programme

Evaluation of (S)-T1 and (S)-T2 ligands targeting α3β4 nAChR as potential nicotine addiction pharmacotherapy

OBJECTIVES

Substance use disorders (SUDs) represent a significant global health concern, demanding the development of effective pharmacological treatments. To address this, an investigation was conducted to examine the anti-addictive properties of two compounds, (S)-T1 and (S)-T2, which specifically target the α3β4 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR).

METHODS

The effects of (S)-T1 and (S)-T2 on nicotine-induced conditioned place preference (CPP), locomotor activity and dopamine levels in particular brain regions associated to addiction were investigated and compared in male C57BL/6N mice.

RESULTS

The results demonstrate that neither (S)-T1 nor (S)-T2 induced place conditioning or conditioned place aversion (CPA), suggesting the absence of rewarding or aversive effects. Both compounds significantly attenuated nicotine-induced CPP, with (S)-T1 exhibiting a dose-dependent effect. Furthermore, the co-administration of (S)-T2 (10 mg/kg) with nicotine markedly reduced locomotor activity compared to nicotine treatment alone. Additionally, dopamine analysis revealed that nicotine increased dopamine levels in the nucleus accumbens (NAc) and dorsal striatum, whereas the co-administration of (S)-T1 (1, 3, and 10 mg/kg) and (S)-T2 (10 mg/kg) significantly decreased dopamine levels in these brain regions. No significant effects were observed in the prefrontal cortex (PFC).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that (S)-T1 and (S)-T2 hold promise for treating nicotine addiction by attenuating nicotine-induced CPP and modulating dopamine release in key reward-related brain regions. Further research is needed to gain insights into the underlying mechanisms behind their anti-addictive effects and substantiate their potential for treating nicotine addiction.

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.

Varenicline but not cotinine increased the value of a visual stimulus reinforcer in rats: No evidence for synergy of the two compounds

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death worldwide, with <7 % of smoking cessation attempts being met with success. Nicotine, the main addictive agent in cigarettes, enhances the reinforcing value of other environmental rewards. Under some circumstances, this reward enhancement maintains nicotine consumption. Varenicline (i.e., cessation aid Chantix™) also has reward-enhancement effects via nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonism (nAChRs) - albeit less robust than nicotine. Cotinine is the major metabolite of nicotine. Recent studies suggest that cotinine is a positive allosteric modulator (PAM) and/or a weak agonist at nAChRs. Thus, cotinine may enhance the behavioral effects of nAChR compounds such as varenicline and/or exert some behavioral effects alone. We used 20 (10M, 10F) Sprague-Dawley rats to assess reward-enhancement within-subjects by examining responding maintained by a reinforcing visual stimulus on a Variable Ratio 2 schedule of reinforcement. To assess the reward-enhancing effects of cotinine, rats received one injection of cotinine (saline, 0.1, 0.3, 1.0, 3.0, 6.0 mg/kg) before each 1 h session. To assess cotinine and varenicline interactions, rats received an injection of cotinine (saline, 0.1, 1.0, or 6.0 mg/kg) and of varenicline (saline, 0.1, 0.3, 1.0, or 3.0 mg/kg) before the session. While we replicated prior work identifying reward-enhancement by 0.1, 0.3, and 1.0 mg/kg varenicline, cotinine alone did not produce reward-enhancement nor augment the reward-enhancing effects of varenicline. Future studies may consider examining the reward-enhancing effects of cotinine with other reinforcers or co-administered with other smoking cessation aids such as bupropion.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

Background

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

Objectives

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

Search methods

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

Selection criteria

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

Data collection and analysis

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

Main results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authors' conclusions

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

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

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

Key messages

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

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

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

What are 'nicotine receptor partial agonists'?

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

What did we want to find out?

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

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

· how many people had unwanted effects.

What did we do?

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

What did we find?

We found 75 studies that compared NRPAs with:

· placebo or no medicine;

· nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches or gum;

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

· another NRPA;

· e‐cigarettes.

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

Main results

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

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

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

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

What are the limitations of the evidence?

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

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

How up to date is the evidence?

The evidence is up to date to 29 April 2022.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

The effect of Varenicline and Bupropion on smoking cessation: A network meta-analysis of 20 randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to investigate the effect of varenicline (VAR), bupropion (BUP), and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) on smoking cessation.

METHODS

Eight databases were searched in May 2021, and only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using varenicline, bupropion, or NRT (single or combined) for smoking cessation were included. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook tool. Stata 15.1 software was used to perform NMA, and the quality of the evidence was evaluated using Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA).

FINDINGS

Twenty RCTs involving 16,702 smokers were included. The risk of bias results showed that 10 RCTs were rated as high, three were low, and seven were unclear. A total of 21 pairs were compared based on seven interventions. The NMA showed that, compared to the placebo (PLA), the other six interventions had significant efficacy in smoking cessation, where VAR + BUP showed the best effect of all treatments (odds ratio (OR) = 6.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) [3.47, 10.66]). Moreover, VAR + BUP was superior to VAR + NRT (OR = 1.66, 95% CI [1.07, 2.59]) and the three monotherapies (VAR, BUP, and NRT). In the monotherapies, the results of pairwise comparisons of VAR, BUP, and NRT did not show significant differences. Finally, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value indicated that VAR + BUP had the greatest probability of becoming the best intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of VAR, BUP, and NRT alone increased the odds of smoking abstinence better than the placebo, combined interventions were superior to monotherapy, and VAR combined with other interventions had a better smoking cessation effect.

Novel Putative Positive Modulators of α4β2 nAChRs Potentiate Nicotine Reward-Related Behavior

The popular tobacco and e-cigarette chemical flavorant (-)-menthol acts as a nonselective, noncompetitive antagonist of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs), and contributes to multiple physiological effects that exacerbates nicotine addiction-related behavior. Menthol is classically known as a TRPM8 agonist; therefore, some have postulated that TRPM8 antagonists may be potential candidates for novel nicotine cessation pharmacotherapies. Here, we examine a novel class of TRPM8 antagonists for their ability to alter nicotine reward-related behavior in a mouse model of conditioned place preference. We found that these novel ligands enhanced nicotine reward-related behavior in a mouse model of conditioned place preference. To gain an understanding of the potential mechanism, we examined these ligands on mouse α4β2 nAChRs transiently transfected into neuroblastoma-2a cells. Using calcium flux assays, we determined that these ligands act as positive modulators (PMs) on α4β2 nAChRs. Due to α4β2 nAChRs' important role in nicotine dependence, as well as various neurological disorders including Parkinson's disease, the identification of these ligands as α4β2 nAChR PMs is an important finding, and they may serve as novel molecular tools for future nAChR-related investigations.

α-Conotoxin TxID and [S9K]TxID, α3β4 nAChR Antagonists, Attenuate Expression and Reinstatement of Nicotine-Induced Conditioned Place Preference in Mice

Tobacco smoking has become a prominent health problem faced around the world. The α3β4 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) is strongly associated with nicotine reward and withdrawal symptom. α-Conotoxin TxID, cloned from Conus textile, is a strong α3β4 nAChR antagonist, which has weak inhibition activity of α6/α3β4 nAChR. Meanwhile, its analogue [S9K]TxID only inhibits α3β4 nAChR (IC₅₀ = 6.9 nM), and has no inhibitory activity to other nAChRs. The present experiment investigates the effect of α3β4 nAChR antagonists (TxID and [S9K]TxID) on the expression and reinstatement of nicotine-induced conditioned place preference (CPP) and explores the behaviors of acute nicotine in mice. The animal experimental results showed that TxID and [S9K] TxID could inhibit the expression and reinstatement of CPP, respectively. Moreover, both had no effect in acute nicotine experiment and the locomotor activity in mice. Therefore, these findings reveal that the α3β4 nAChR may be a potential target for anti-nicotine addiction treatment. [S9K]TxID, α3β4 nAChR antagonist, exhibit a superior effect for anti-nicotine addiction, which is promising to develop a novel smoking cessation drug.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Treatment adherence and short-term outcomes of smoking cessation outpatient clinic patients

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies have shown that adherence to treatment is fundamental to success in smoking cessation. However, smoking cessation medication regimens are limited significantly by the struggle to adhere to them. This study was conducted to evaluate the factors associated with treatment adherence and quitting success in a group of patients that applied to our smoking cessation outpatient clinic (SCC).

METHODS

Patients that applied to SCC between April 2015 and December 2016 who were evaluated, found suitable for smoking cessation interventions and started pharmacological treatment were included in this study. Only those who could be reached by phone three months after their first application became participants. Those who had used the prescribed treatment for at least 30 days were grouped as treatment-adherent.

RESULTS

In total, data for 346 patients were evaluated. Mean (±SD) age was 44.3±13.9 years; most of them were male (63%), primary school graduated (36.1%), self-employed (43.7%), and had no comorbid diseases (71%). Bupropion was started in 52% of the patients, that rate was 35.8% for varenicline and 12.1% for a combination of the nicotine patch and gum. Mean days for treatment use was 20.9±18.5; 59% of the patients were non-adherent to their treatment and 51.7% had only one control visit number. Adverse reactions due to treatment were recorded in 25% of participants, and at their third month 37.9% of them had quit smoking. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, increase in control visit number, absence of adverse reaction, and varenicline use, were each associated with higher treatment adherence (p<0.001) and only being in the treatment-adherent group was associated with quit success (OR=3.01, 95% CI: 1.88–4.81, p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that most patients did not use their prescribed SC treatments adequately; a main factor that affects quit success is treatment adherence. There is a need for closer monitoring and follow-up to ensure adequate use of treatment of patients.

How does reimbursement status affect smoking cessation interventions? A real-life experience from the Eastern Black Sea region of Turkey

INTRODUCTION

In the last decade, outpatient smoking cessation clinics (SCCs) in Turkey have been extended countrywide. Initially, only counseling was covered under health insurance. In 2011 and 2015, free varenicline and bupropion preparations were distributed to SCCs, periodically. In the current study we aimed to compare outcomes between the free and paid medication periods.

METHODS

Patients applied to the local SCC in a secondary health care unit between June 2014 and June 2017. They were evaluated for SC interventions and had phone visits after their third month; these records were included in the study. Patients were grouped and evaluated according to medication’s reimbursement status: free medication period (FP) and paid medication period (PMP).

RESULTS

In total, 733 patients applied to the SCC, 77.7% of them had applied during the FP. Analyses were made involving 417 patients who had records of third-month phone visit. Mean age of the patients was 44.0±13.7 years with the majority of patients (65%) being male. Sociodemographic characteristics of patients in both groups were not statistically different, while the percentage of patients with comorbid diseases was lower in the FP group (p<0.05). Treatment choices were different— the bupropion-prescribed group’s rate was similar in both periods (53.5% in PMP vs 52.0% in FP), however varenicline was mostly prescribed in the FP (35.8% vs 14.1%) while nicotine replacement therapy was mostly prescribed in the PMP (32.4% vs 12.1%) (p<0.05). Patients who used the advised treatment for at least 30 days (treatment adherent) and the rate of quitters at the third month were higher in FP (p<0.05) from univariate analysis, however these differences were not statistically significant when a multivariate analysis was performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that the free medication period increased the quit attempts but the increased in treatment adherence and quit success of the participating smokers was not obvious.

Multimodal treatment for smoking cessation with varenicline in alcoholic, methadone-maintained, and psychotic patients: A one-year follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Numerous studies have evaluated the efficacy and safety of varenicline for smoking cessation in smokers in the general population and, to a lesser extent, among the psychiatric population. However, few studies have evaluated varenicline in patients with other addictions. The present study was conducted to assess outcomes of a multimodal treatment for smoking cessation intervention with varenicline in a sample of alcohol and substance use disorders and patients with psychotic disorders.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter study. The patient sample comprised alcoholics in remission, methadone-maintained patients, and patients with psychotic disorders, all of whom wanted to stop smoking. All participants received multimodal treatment for smoking cessation therapy (psychological therapy plus varenicline). Smoking abstinence and changes in the psychopathological state of patients were assessed at predefined time points during a 12-month follow-up. The probability of tobacco abstinence after one year of treatment was computed using Kaplan-Meier life tables.

RESULTS

The probability of abstinence at one year was 0.225 (95% CI: 0.1430-0.319). By group, the probabilities were as follows: patients with psychotic disorders 0.254 (95% CI: 0.118-0.415); alcoholics 0.237 (95% CI: 0.098-0.409); and methadone-maintained patients 0.177 (95% CI: 0.065-0.335). Patients with previous quit attempts had a higher probability of achieving abstinence at one year (p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study support the use of multimodal treatment with varenicline in patients with alcohol addiction in remission, patients on methadone maintenance, and patients with stable psychotic disorders. Previous smoking cessation attempts were predictive of smoking cessation success in these patients.

Discovery and development of varenicline for smoking cessation

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco use causes one premature death every six seconds. Current smoking cessation aids include nicotine replacement therapies, bupropion, and varenicline. Although more than 70% of smokers express a desire to quit, fewer than 3% remain abstinent for more than one year, highlighting a critical need for more efficacious smoking cessation treatments. Areas covered: The authors discuss the rationale, preclinical and clinical development of varenicline for smoking cessation. They cover the development of varenicline as a partial agonist at α4β2 receptors, the primary neural substrate for nicotine reward. Then, they discuss evidence from preclinical studies indicating varenicline's efficacy in blocking nicotine reward, followed by clinical trials demonstrating safety and efficacy in sustaining abstinence in smokers. Finally, they cover post-market surveillance, including caution in heavy machine operators, putative cardiovascular risk, and the repealed warning for adverse neuropsychiatric events. Expert opinion: Varenicline development was based on strong theoretical rationale and preclinical evidence. Clinical studies indicate that varenicline is safe and more effective in sustaining abstinence than placebo, bupropion or nicotine replacement therapies. However, given that continuous abstinence rates across studies remain low (18 ~ 30% with varenicline; 4 ~ 10% with placebo), novel and more effective medications targeting other nicotinic or glutamate receptors for smoking cessation are required.