The safety and efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy in the intensive care unit: a randomised controlled pilot study

Substance-Use Disorders in Critically Ill Patients: A Narrative Review

Substance-use disorders (SUDs) represent a major public health concern. The increased prevalence of SUDs within the general population has led to more patients with SUD being admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) for an SUD-related condition or with SUD as a relevant comorbidity. Multiprofessional providers of critical care should be familiar with these disorders and their impact on critical illness. Management of critically ill patients with SUDs is complicated by both acute exposures leading to intoxication, the associated withdrawal syndrome(s), and the physiologic changes associated with chronic use that can cause, predispose patients to, and worsen the severity of other medical conditions. This article reviews the epidemiology of substance use in critically ill patients, discusses the identification and treatment of common intoxication and withdrawal syndromes, and provides evidence-based recommendations for the management of patients exposed to chronic use.

Nicotine Replacement Therapy Does Not Reduce Headaches Following Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

A significant number of patients admitted for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) are active smokers and are at risk of developing nicotine withdrawal symptoms (e.g., cravings, irritability, insomnia, headaches, etc.). This study aimed to evaluate the use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) regarding headache severity and analgesics consumption.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted using prospectively collected data from 2014 to 2019 in the neurointensive care unit of the Hospices Civils in Lyon, France. We performed a propensity score matching analysis. The covariables used were age, sex, initial World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies score, Hijdra sum score, and factors associated with pain following aSAH (history of chronic pain, anxiety, or depression). Smokers received NRT through a transdermal device. The primary end point was headache control. Secondary end points were mean numerical pain rating scale score and analgesics consumption.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-five patients were included among 523 patients hospitalized for aSAH. Fifty-one patients underwent nicotine substitution and were matched to 51 unsubstituted patients. The headache control rate was not different between the two groups (43.1% vs. 31.4%, p = 0.736). The mean numeric pain rating scale score in the substituted group was 2.2 (1.1-3.5) and 2.4 (1.6-3.1) in the unsubstituted group (p = 0.533). The analgesics consumption (acetaminophen, tramadol, and morphine) was the same in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of NRT in the acute phase of aSAH does not seem to have an impact on the intensity of headaches or analgesics consumption.

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

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

Medicinal nicotine in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome, the new corticosteroid

The cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway (CAP) refers to the anti-inflammatory effects mediated by the parasympathetic nervous system. Existence of this pathway was first demonstrated when acetylcholinesterase inhibitors showed benefits in animal models of sepsis. CAP functions via the vagus nerve. The systemic anti-inflammatory effects of CAP converges on the α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor on splenic macrophages, leading to suppression of pro-inflammatory cytokines and simultaneous stimulation of anti-inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin 10. CAP offers a novel mechanism to mitigate inflammation. Electrical vagal nerve stimulation has shown benefits in patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis. Direct agonists like nicotine and GTS-1 have also demonstrated anti-inflammatory properties in models of sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome, as have acetylcholinesterase inhibitors like Galantamine and Physostigmine. Experience with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) induced acute respiratory distress syndrome indicates that immunomodulators have a protective role in patient outcomes. Dexamethasone is the only medication currently in use that has shown to improve clinical outcomes. This is likely due to the suppression of what is referred to as a cytokine storm, which is implicated in the lethality of viral pneumonia. Nicotine transdermal patch activates CAP and harvests its anti-inflammatory potential by means of an easily administered depot delivery mechanism. It could prove to be a promising, safe and inexpensive additional tool in the currently limited armamentarium at our disposal for management of COVID-19 induced acute hypoxic respiratory failure.

Nicotine patches in patients on mechanical ventilation for severe COVID-19: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial

Purpose

Epidemiologic studies have documented lower rates of active smokers compared to former or non-smokers in symptomatic patients affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We assessed the efficacy and safety of nicotine administered by a transdermal patch in critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Methods

In this multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 18 intensive care units in France, we randomly assigned adult patients (non-smokers, non-vapers or who had quit smoking/vaping for at least 12 months) with proven COVID-19 pneumonia receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for up to 72 h to receive transdermal patches containing either nicotine at a daily dose of 14 mg or placebo until 48 h following successful weaning from mechanical ventilation or for a maximum of 30 days, followed by 3-week dose tapering by 3.5 mg per week. Randomization was stratified by centre, non- or former smoker status and Sequential Organ Function Assessment score (< or ≥ 7). The primary outcome was day-28 mortality. Main prespecified secondary outcomes included 60-day mortality, time to successful extubation, days alive and free from mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, vasopressor support or organ failure at day 28.

Results

Between November 6th 2020, and April 2nd 2021, 220 patients were randomized from 18 active recruiting centers. After excluding 2 patients who withdrew consent, 218 patients (152 [70%] men) were included in the analysis: 106 patients to the nicotine group and 112 to the placebo group. Day-28 mortality did not differ between the two groups (30 [28%] of 106 patients in the nicotine group vs 31 [28%] of 112 patients in the placebo group; odds ratio 1.03 [95% confidence interval, CI 0.57–1.87]; p = 0.46). The median number of day-28 ventilator-free days was 0 (IQR 0–14) in the nicotine group and 0 (0–13) in the placebo group (with a difference estimate between the medians of 0 [95% CI -3–7]). Adverse events likely related to nicotine were rare (3%) and similar between the two groups.

Conclusion

In patients having developed severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, transdermal nicotine did not significantly reduce day-28 mortality. There is no indication to use nicotine in this situation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-022-06721-1.

Nicotine Replacement Therapy for Smokers with Acute Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: An International Survey

INTRODUCTION

Smoking prevalence is twice as high among patients admitted to hospital because of the acute condition of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) as in the general population. Smoking cessation may improve the prognosis of aSAH, but nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) administered at the time of aSAH remains controversial because of potential adverse effects such as cerebral vasospasm. We investigated the international practice of NRT use for aSAH among neurosurgeons.

METHODS

The online SurveyMonkey software was used to administer a 15-question, 5-min online questionnaire. An invitation link was sent to those 1425 of 1988 members of the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies (EANS) who agreed to participate in surveys to assess treatment strategies for withdrawal of tobacco smoking during aSAH. Factors contributing to physicians' posture towards NRT were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 158 physicians from 50 nations participated in the survey (response rate 11.1%); 68.4% (108) were affiliated with university hospitals and 67.7% (107) practiced at high-volume neurovascular centers with at least 30 treated aSAH cases per year. Overall, 55.7% (88) of physicians offered NRT to smokers with aSAH, 22.1% (35) offered non-NRT support including non-nicotine medication and counselling, while the remaining 22.1% (35) did not actively support smoking cessation. When smoking was not possible, 42.4% (67) of physicians expected better clinical outcomes when prescribing NRT instead of nicotine deprivation, 36.1% (57) were uncertain, 13.9% (22) assumed unaffected outcomes, and 7.6% (12) assumed worse outcomes. Only 22.8% (36) physicians had access to a local smoking cessation team in their practice, of whom half expected better outcomes with NRT as compared to deprivation.

CONCLUSIONS

A small majority of the surveyed physicians of the EANS offered NRT to support smoking cessation in hospitalized patients with aSAH. However, less than half believed that NRT could positively impact clinical outcome as compared to deprivation. This survey demonstrated the lack of consensus regarding use of NRT for hospitalized smokers with aSAH.

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.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to prevent delirium in critically ill patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the effects of prevention interventions on delirium occurrence in critically ill adults.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Prospero, and WHO international clinical trial registry were searched from inception to April 8, 2021. Randomized controlled trials of pharmacological, sedation, non-pharmacological, and multi-component interventions enrolling adult critically ill patients were included. We performed conventional pairwise meta-analyses, NMA within Bayesian random effects modeling, and determined surface under the cumulative ranking curve values and mean rank. Reviewer pairs independently extracted data, assessed bias using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and evidence certainty with GRADE. The primary outcome was delirium occurrence; secondary outcomes were durations of delirium and mechanical ventilation, length of stay, mortality, and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Eighty trials met eligibility criteria: 67.5% pharmacological, 31.3% non-pharmacological and 1.2% mixed pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. For delirium occurrence, 11 pharmacological interventions (38 trials, N = 11,993) connected to the evidence network. Compared to placebo, only dexmedetomidine (21/22 alpha2 agonist trials were dexmedetomidine) probably reduces delirium occurrence (odds ratio (OR) 0.43, 95% Credible Interval (CrI) 0.21-0.85; moderate certainty). Compared to benzodiazepines, dexmedetomidine (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.08-0.51; low certainty), sedation interruption (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.06-0.69; very low certainty), opioid plus benzodiazepine (OR 0.27, 95% CrI 0.10-0.76; very low certainty), and protocolized sedation (OR 0.27, 95% CrI 0.09-0.80; very low certainty) may reduce delirium occurrence but the evidence is very uncertain. Dexmedetomidine probably reduces ICU length of stay compared to placebo (Ratio of Means (RoM) 0.78, CrI 0.64-0.95; moderate certainty) and compared to antipsychotics (RoM 0.76, CrI 0.61-0.98; low certainty). Sedative interruption, protocolized sedation and opioids may reduce hospital length of stay compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain. No intervention influenced mechanical ventilation duration, mortality, or arrhythmia. Single and multi-component non-pharmacological interventions did not connect to any evidence networks to allow for ranking and comparisons as planned; pairwise comparisons did not detect differences compared to standard care.

CONCLUSION

Compared to placebo and benzodiazepines, we found dexmedetomidine likely reduced the occurrence of delirium in critically ill adults. Compared to benzodiazepines, sedation-minimization strategies may also reduce delirium occurrence, but the evidence is uncertain.

Risk factors for inducing violence in patients with delirium

BACKGROUND

Violence in patients with delirium may occur suddenly and unpredictably in a fluctuating state of consciousness. Although various factors are involved, appropriate assessment and early response to factors related to violence in delirium are expected to prevent dangerous and distressing acts of violence against patients, their families and medical staff, and minimize the use of physical restraint and excessive drug sedation.

METHODS

Subjects were 601 delirium cases referred to the department of psychiatry over the course of 5 years at a general hospital. The demographic, clinical, and pharmacological variables of patients with violence (n = 189) were compared with those of patients without violence (n = 412). Logistic regression analysis was applied to determine whether any specific individual factors were associated with violence.

RESULTS

Current smoker status (p < .0005), older age (p < .0005), male gender (p = .004), and use of intensive care units (p = .043) were identified as factors associated with violence in patients with delirium.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening tools for violence in patients with delirium and adequate management may assist in better outcomes for patients and medical staff. Further research should evaluate the usefulness of nicotine replacement treatment for the prevention of violence during nicotine withdrawal, including whether it is safe for elderly inpatients with a high incidence of delirium in clinical practice.

Therapeutic options for agitation in the intensive care unit

Agitation is common in the intensive care unit (ICU). There are numerous contributing factors, including pain, underlying disease, withdrawal syndrome, delirium and some medication. Agitation can compromise patient safety through accidental removal of tubes and catheters, prolong the duration of stay in the ICU, and may be related to various complications. This review aims to analyse evidence-based medical literature to improve management of agitation and to consider pharmacological strategies. The non-pharmacological approach is considered to reduce the risk of agitation. Pharmacological treatment of agitated patients is detailed and is based on a judicious choice of neuroleptics, benzodiazepines and α2 agonists, and on whether a withdrawal syndrome is identified. Specific management of agitation in elderly patients, brain-injured patients and patients with sleep deprivation are also discussed. This review proposes a practical approach for managing agitation in the ICU.

Assessment of the sedative effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol treatment in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in the ICU and relationship between treatment and occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia and detection of pathogenic bacteria

The present study aimed to investigate the sedative effects of dexmedetomidine combined with propofol in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU), and to reveal the risk factors of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). A retrospective analysis of 322 patients who had been subject to mechanical ventilation in the ICU ward was performed. Subjects were divided into two groups: A group treated with dexmedetomidine and propofol (combined group) and a group treated with dexmedetomidine alone (monotherapy group). Clinical data, sedative effects, the number of VAP patients and the distribution of VAP pathogens were assessed. Multivariate analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to predict VAP. Significant differences in the sedative effects between the two groups were observed (P<0.001). The incidence of VAP was significantly higher in the monotherapy group compared with the combined group (P<0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that age, acute physiology chronic health evaluation score, consciousness, invasive operations, recovery time, extubation time and sedation regimen were independent risk factors for VAP in the ICU during mechanical ventilation. ROC curves indicated that the areas under the curve for age, acute physiology chronic health score, consciousness, invasive operations, recovery time, extubation time and sedation regimen were 0.934, 0.870, 0.632, 0.677, 0.865, 0.950 and 0.603, respectively. In summary, dexmedetomidine combined with propofol can shorten the recovery and extubation times of mechanical ventilation patients in the ICU. Different sedation schemes are also independent risk factors for VAP during mechanical ventilation in the ICU.