Effect on adherence to nicotine replacement therapy of informing smokers their dose is determined by their genotype: a randomised controlled trial

The effect of nicotine dependence and withdrawal symptoms on use of nicotine replacement therapy: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial in primary care

INTRODUCTION

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is effective for smoking cessation, but the optimal method of using NRT to maximize benefit is unclear. We examined whether nicotine dependence was associated with consumption of NRT, whether this was mediated by withdrawal symptoms, and the impact of these factors on cessation, in a population advised to use as much NRT as needed.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of data from an open label, parallel group randomized controlled trial. Participants (n = 539) attended a smoking cessation clinic in primary care and remained engaged with treatment for at least one week following a quit attempt. Baseline dependence was measured by the Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence (FTCD), with tobacco exposure assessed via an exhaled carbon monoxide test. At one week after quit day, mean daily consumption of NRT was measured for all participants; withdrawal (Mood and Physical Symptoms Scale (MPSS)) was also assessed in the subsample who reported being completely abstinent to that point (n = 279). Abstinence was biochemically assessed at four weeks for all participants as the principal smoking cessation outcome.

RESULTS

Each point higher on the FTCD was associated with 0.83 mg/day more NRT consumption, controlling for tobacco exposure. This relationship was diminished when withdrawal was controlled for, and withdrawal was associated with NRT consumption, with each point higher on the MPSS associated with a 0.12 mg/day increase. Increased consumption of NRT directly predicted subsequent smoking cessation.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher dependence appears to lead to greater withdrawal, which appears to drive greater use of NRT. This effect may partly offset lower abstinence rates in people with higher dependence. Advice to use sufficient NRT to suppress withdrawal may increase abstinence rates.

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.

Interventions to increase adherence to medications for tobacco dependence

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological treatments for tobacco dependence, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), have been shown to be safe and effective interventions for smoking cessation. Higher levels of adherence to these medications increase the likelihood of sustained smoking cessation, but many smokers use them at a lower dose and for less time than is optimal. It is important to determine the effectiveness of interventions designed specifically to increase medication adherence. Such interventions may address motivation to use medication, such as influencing beliefs about the value of taking medications, or provide support to overcome problems with maintaining adherence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions aiming to increase adherence to medications for smoking cessation on medication adherence and smoking abstinence compared with a control group typically receiving standard care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, and clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to the 3 September 2018. We also conducted forward and backward citation searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised studies in which adults using active pharmacological treatment for smoking cessation were allocated to an intervention arm where there was a principal focus on increasing adherence to medications for tobacco dependence, or a control arm providing standard care. Dependent on setting, standard care may have comprised minimal support or varying degrees of behavioural support. Included studies used a measure that allowed assessment of the degree of medication adherence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data for included studies and assessed risk of bias. For continuous outcome measures, we calculated effect sizes as standardised mean differences (SMDs). For dichotomous outcome measures, we calculated effect sizes as risk ratios (RRs). In meta-analyses for adherence outcomes, we combined dichotomous and continuous data using the generic inverse variance method and reported pooled effect sizes as SMDs; for abstinence outcomes, we reported and pooled dichotomous outcomes. We obtained pooled effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. We conducted subgroup analyses to assess whether the primary focus of the adherence treatment ('practicalities' versus 'perceptions' versus both), the delivery approach (participant versus clinician-centred) or the medication type were associated with effectiveness.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two new studies, giving a total of 10 studies, involving 3655 participants. The medication adherence interventions studied were all provided in addition to standard behavioural support.They typically provided further information on the rationale for, and emphasised the importance of, adherence to medication or supported the development of strategies to overcome problems with maintaining adherence (or both). Seven studies targeted adherence to NRT, two to bupropion and one to varenicline. Most studies were judged to be at high or unclear risk of bias, with four of these studies judged at high risk of attrition or detection bias. Only one study was judged to be at low risk of bias.Meta-analysis of all 10 included studies (12 comparisons) provided moderate-certainty evidence that adherence interventions led to small improvements in adherence (i.e. the mean amount of medication consumed; SMD 0.10, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.18; I² = 6%; n = 3655), limited by risk of bias. Subgroup analyses for the primary outcome identified no significant subgroup effects, with effect sizes for subgroups imprecisely estimated. However, there was a very weak indication that interventions focused on the 'practicalities' of adhering to treatment (i.e. capabilities, resources, levels of support or skills) may be effective (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.38; I² = 39%; n = 1752), whereas interventions focused on treatment 'perceptions' (i.e. beliefs, cognitions, concerns and preferences; SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.24; I² = 0%; n = 839) or on both (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.16; I² = 0%; n = 1064), may not be effective. Participant-centred interventions may be effective (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.23; I² = 20%; n = 2791), whereas those that are clinician-centred may not (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.23; I² = 0%; n = 864).Five studies assessed short-term smoking abstinence (five comparisons), while an overlapping set of five studies (seven comparisons) assessed long-term smoking abstinence of six months or more. Meta-analyses resulted in low-certainty evidence that adherence interventions may slightly increase short-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.21; I² = 0%; n = 1795) and long-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.40; I² = 48%; n = 3593). In both cases, the evidence was limited by risk of bias and imprecision, with CIs encompassing minimal harm as well as moderate benefit, and a high likelihood that further evidence will change the estimate of the effect. There was no evidence that interventions to increase adherence to medication led to any adverse events. Studies did not report on factors plausibly associated with increases in adherence, such as self-efficacy, understanding of and attitudes toward treatment, and motivation and intentions to quit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people who are stopping smoking and receiving behavioural support, there is moderate-certainty evidence that enhanced behavioural support focusing on adherence to smoking cessation medications can modestly improve adherence. There is only low-certainty evidence that this may slightly improve the likelihood of cessation in the shorter or longer-term. Interventions to increase adherence can aim to address the practicalities of taking medication, change perceptions about medication, such as reasons to take it or concerns about doing so, or both. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to confirm which approach is more effective. There is no evidence on whether such interventions are effective for people who are stopping smoking without standard behavioural support.

Nicotine preloading for smoking cessation: the Preloading RCT

BACKGROUND

Nicotine preloading means using nicotine replacement therapy prior to a quit date while smoking normally. The aim is to reduce the drive to smoke, thereby reducing cravings for smoking after quit day, which are the main cause of early relapse. A prior systematic review showed inconclusive and heterogeneous evidence that preloading was effective and little evidence of the mechanism of action, with no cost-effectiveness data.

OBJECTIVES

To assess (1) the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of nicotine preloading in a routine NHS setting relative to usual care, (2) the mechanisms of the action of preloading and (3) the cost-effectiveness of preloading.

DESIGN

Open-label randomised controlled trial with examination of mediation and a cost-effectiveness analysis.

SETTING

NHS smoking cessation clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

People seeking help to stop smoking.

INTERVENTIONS

Nicotine preloading comprised wearing a 21 mg/24 hour nicotine patch for 4 weeks prior to quit date. In addition, minimal behavioural support was provided to explain the intervention rationale and to support adherence. In the comparator group, participants received equivalent behavioural support. Randomisation was stratified by centre and concealed from investigators.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was 6-month prolonged abstinence assessed using the Russell Standard. The secondary outcomes were 4-week and 12-month abstinence. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed from baseline to 1 week after quit day. In a planned analysis, we adjusted for the use of varenicline (Champix^®; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA) as post-cessation medication. Cost-effectiveness analysis took a health-service perspective. The within-trial analysis assessed health-service costs during the 13 months of trial enrolment relative to the previous 6 months comparing trial arms. The base case was based on multiple imputation for missing cost data. We modelled long-term health outcomes of smoking-related diseases using the European-study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco (EQUIPT) model.

RESULTS

In total, 1792 people were eligible and were enrolled in the study, with 893 randomised to the control group and 899 randomised to the intervention group. In the intervention group, 49 (5.5%) people discontinued preloading prematurely and most others used it daily. The primary outcome, biochemically validated 6-month abstinence, was achieved by 157 (17.5%) people in the intervention group and 129 (14.4%) people in the control group, a difference of 3.02 percentage points [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to 6.41 percentage points; odds ratio (OR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.62; p = 0.081]. Adjusted for use of post-quit day varenicline, the OR was 1.34 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.73; p = 0.028). Secondary abstinence outcomes were similar. The OR for the occurrence of serious AEs was 1.12 (95% CI 0.42 to 3.03). Moderate-severity nausea occurred in an additional 4% of the preloading group compared with the control group. There was evidence that reduced urges to smoke and reduced smoke inhalation mediated the effect of preloading on abstinence. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at the 6-month follow-up for preloading relative to control was £710 (95% CI -£13,674 to £23,205), but preloading was dominant at 12 months and in the long term, with an 80% probability that it is cost saving.

LIMITATIONS

The open-label design could partially account for the mediation results. Outcome assessment could not be blinded but was biochemically verified.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of nicotine-patch preloading for 4 weeks prior to attempting to stop smoking can increase the proportion of people who stop successfully, but its benefit is undermined because it reduces the use of varenicline after preloading. If this latter effect could be overcome, then nicotine preloading appears to improve health and reduce health-service costs in the long term. Future work should determine how to ensure that people using nicotine preloading opt to use varenicline as cessation medication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33031001.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers with feedback on the current or potential future biomedical effects of smoking using, for example, measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer or other diseases.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was to determine the efficacy of providing smokers with feedback on their exhaled CO measurement, spirometry results, atherosclerotic plaque imaging, and genetic susceptibility to smoking-related diseases in helping them to quit smoking.

SEARCH METHODS

For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in March 2018 and ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP in September 2018 for studies added since the last update in 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria for the review were: a randomised controlled trial design; participants being current smokers; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase smoking cessation rates; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; and an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed results as a risk ratio (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials using a variety of biomedical tests interventions; one trial included two interventions, for a total of 21 interventions. We included a total of 9262 participants, all of whom were adult smokers. All studies included both men and women adult smokers at different stages of change and motivation for smoking cessation. We judged all but three studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. We pooled trials in three categories according to the type of biofeedback provided: feedback on risk exposure (five studies); feedback on smoking-related disease risk (five studies); and feedback on smoking-related harm (11 studies). There was no evidence of increased cessation rates from feedback on risk exposure, consisting mainly of feedback on CO measurement, in five pooled trials (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.21; I2 = 0%; n = 2368). Feedback on smoking-related disease risk, including four studies testing feedback on genetic markers for cancer risk and one study with feedback on genetic markers for risk of Crohn's disease, did not show a benefit in smoking cessation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; I2 = 0%; n = 2064). Feedback on smoking-related harm, including nine studies testing spirometry with or without feedback on lung age and two studies on feedback on carotid ultrasound, also did not show a benefit (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.61; I2 = 34%; n = 3314). Only one study directly compared multiple forms of measurement with a single form of measurement, and did not detect a significant difference in effect between measurement of CO plus genetic susceptibility to lung cancer and measurement of CO only (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.56; n = 189).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence about the effects of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. The most promising results relate to spirometry and carotid ultrasound, where moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision and risk of bias, did not detect a statistically significant benefit, but confidence intervals very narrowly missed one, and the point estimate favoured the intervention. A sensitivity analysis removing those studies at high risk of bias did detect a benefit. Moderate-certainty evidence limited by risk of bias did not detect an effect of feedback on smoking exposure by CO monitoring. Low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, did not detect a benefit from feedback on smoking-related risk by genetic marker testing. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.

The ethics conundrum in Recall by Genotype (RbG) research: Perspectives from birth cohort participants

PURPOSE

Recall by genotype (RbG) research recruits on the basis of genetic variation. Increased use of this approach presents an ethical conundrum for cohort studies/biobanks: whether to inform individuals of their genetic information and deviate from standard practice of non-disclosure of results, or mask this information at the level of the individual participant. This paper examines the perspectives of research study participants on RbG research.

METHODS

Fifty-three semi-structured interviews were conducted with young adult participants of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). Topics included understandings of RbG research, expectations around recruitment and communication of research findings.

RESULTS

Participants uniformly expressed a deep trust and faith in ALSPAC and considered themselves part of the ALSPAC team. Such perspectives, alongside a limited knowledge of genetics and modest interest in reported research outcomes, meant few participants reported immediate concerns about being recruited by genotype.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the responsibility and duty of care on RbG researchers, and longitudinal studies more generally, and the importance of solidarity, reciprocity and co-production in study-participant relations. As such, we consider existing recommendations for conducting RbG research in longitudinal studies in light of our results and speak to recent changes in the approach used by ALSPAC.

From genes to treatments: a systematic review of the pharmacogenetics in smoking cessation

Smoking cessation treatment outcomes may be heavily influenced by genetic variations among smokers. Therefore, identifying specific variants that affect response to different pharmacotherapies is of major interest to the field. In the current study, we systematically review all studies published in or after the year 1990 which examined one or more gene-drug interactions for smoking cessation treatment. Out of 644 citations, 46 articles met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. We summarize evidence on several genetic polymorphisms (CHRNA5-A3-B4, CYP2A6, DBH, CHRNA4, COMT, DRD2, DRD4 and CYP2B6) and their potential moderating pharamacotherarpy effects on patient cessation efficacy rates. These findings are promising and call for further research to demonstrate the effectiveness of genetic testing in personalizing treatment decision-making and improving outcome.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Randomised controlled open label trial.

SETTING

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

PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTIONS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33031001.

Pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation: effects by subgroup defined by genetically informed biomarkers

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation therapies are not effective for all smokers, and researchers are interested in identifying those subgroups of individuals (e.g. based on genotype) who respond best to specific treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether quit rates vary by genetically informed biomarkers within pharmacotherapy treatment arms and as compared with placebo. To assess the effects of pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation in subgroups of smokers defined by genotype for identified genome-wide significant polymorphisms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialised register, clinical trial registries, and genetics databases for trials of pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation from inception until 16 August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited adult smokers and reported pharmacogenomic analyses from trials of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies versus controls. Eligible trials included those with data on a priori genome-wide significant (P < 5 × 10-8) single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), replicated non-SNPs, and/or the nicotine metabolite ratio (NMR), hereafter collectively described as biomarkers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was smoking abstinence at six months after treatment. The secondary outcome was abstinence at end of treatment (EOT). We conducted two types of meta-analyses- one in which we assessed smoking cessation of active treatment versus placebo within genotype groups, and another in which we compared smoking cessation across genotype groups within treatment arms. We carried out analyses separately in non-Hispanic whites (NHWs) and non-Hispanic blacks (NHBs). We assessed heterogeneity between genotype groups using T², I², and Cochrane Q statistics.

MAIN RESULTS

Analyses included 18 trials including 9017 participants, of whom 6924 were NHW and 2093 NHB participants. Data were available for the following biomarkers: nine SNPs (rs1051730 (CHRNA3); rs16969968, rs588765, and rs2036527 (CHRNA5); rs3733829 and rs7937 (in EGLN2, near CYP2A6); rs1329650 and rs1028936 (LOC100188947); and rs215605 (PDE1C)), two variable number tandem repeats (VNTRs; DRD4 and SLC6A4), and the NMR. Included data produced a total of 40 active versus placebo comparisons, 16 active versus active comparisons, and 64 between-genotype comparisons within treatment arms.For those meta-analyses showing statistically significant heterogeneity between genotype groups, we found the quality of evidence (GRADE) to be generally moderate. We downgraded quality most often because of imprecision or risk of bias due to potential selection bias in genotyping trial participants. Comparisons of relative treatment effects by genotypeFor six-month abstinence, we found statistically significant heterogeneity between genotypes (rs16969968) for nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) versus placebo at six months for NHB participants (P = 0.03; n = 2 trials), but not for other biomarkers or treatment comparisons. Six-month abstinence was increased in the active NRT group as compared to placebo among participants with a GG genotype (risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 2.03), but not in the combined group of participants with a GA or AA genotype (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.26; ratio of risk ratios (RRR) GG vs GA or AA of 3.51, 95% CI 1.19 to 10.3). Comparisons of treatment effects between genotype groups within pharmacotherapy randomisation armsFor those receiving active NRT, treatment was more effective in achieving six-month abstinence among individuals with a slow NMR than among those with a normal NMR among NHW and NHB combined participants (normal NMR vs slow NMR: RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.78; n = 2 trials). We found no such differences in treatment effects between genotypes at six months for any of the other biomarkers among individuals who received pharmacotherapy or placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not identify widespread differential treatment effects of pharmacotherapy based on genotype. Some genotype groups within certain ethnic groups may benefit more from NRT or may benefit less from the combination of bupropion with NRT. The reader should interpret these results with caution because none of the statistically significant meta-analyses included more than two trials per genotype comparison, many confidence intervals were wide, and the quality of this evidence (GRADE) was generally moderate. Although we found evidence of superior NRT efficacy for NMR slow versus normal metabolisers, because of the lack of heterogeneity between NMR groups, we cannot conclude that NRT is more effective for slow metabolisers. Access to additional data from multiple trials is needed, particularly for comparisons of different pharmacotherapies.

"I don't believe it." Acceptance and skepticism of genetic health information among African-American and White smokers

RATIONALE

Effective translation of genomics research into practice depends on public acceptance of genomics-related health information.

OBJECTIVE

To explore how smokers come to accept or reject information about the relationship between genetics and nicotine addiction.

METHODS

Thirteen focus groups (N = 84) were stratified by education (seven < Bachelor's degree, six ≥ Bachelor's degree) and race (eight black, five white). Participants viewed a 1-min video describing the discovery of a genetic variant associated with increased risk of nicotine addiction and lung cancer. Next, they provided their opinions about the information. Two coders analyzed the data using grounded theory.

RESULTS

Pre-video knowledge about why people smoke cigarettes and what genetic risk means informed beliefs about the relationship between genes and addiction. These beliefs were not always consistent with biomedical explanations, but formed the context through which participants processed the video's information. This, in turn, led to information acceptance or skepticism. Participants explained their reactions in terms of the scientific merits of the research and used their existing knowledge and beliefs to explain their acceptance of or skepticism about the information.

CONCLUSION

Laypeople hold complex understandings of genetics and addiction. However, when lay and biomedical explanations diverge, genetics-related health information may be rejected.

Converging findings from linkage and association analyses on susceptibility genes for smoking and other addictions

Experimental approaches to genetic studies of complex traits evolve with technological advances. How do discoveries using different approaches advance our knowledge of the genetic architecture underlying complex diseases/traits? Do most of the findings of newer techniques, such as genome-wide association study (GWAS), provide more information than older ones, for example, genome-wide linkage study? In this review, we address these issues by developing a nicotine dependence (ND) genetic susceptibility map based on the results obtained by the approaches commonly used in recent years, namely, genome-wide linkage, candidate gene association, GWAS and targeted sequencing. Converging and diverging results from these empirical approaches have elucidated a preliminary genetic architecture of this intractable psychiatric disorder and yielded new hypotheses on ND etiology. The insights we obtained by putting together results from diverse approaches can be applied to other complex diseases/traits. In sum, developing a genetic susceptibility map and keeping it updated are effective ways to keep track of what we know about a disease/trait and what the next steps may be with new approaches.

Primary Care Providers' Interest in Using a Genetic Test to Guide Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment

BACKGROUND

Efforts to identify genetic moderators of pharmacotherapy response have generated interest in clinical applications of pharmacogenetic tests in alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment. To date, no research on providers' interest in using pharmacogenetic tests in the context of AUD treatment has been reported. We conducted qualitative interviews with primary care providers from 5 clinics in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) to assess their interest in using a hypothetical genetic test to inform treatment of AUD with pharmacotherapy.

METHODS

Key contacts were used to recruit 24 providers from 5 primary care clinics associated with a single large VA medical facility. Participants completed 30-minute in-person semi-structured interviews focused on barriers and facilitators to provision of pharmacotherapy for AUD. Interviews included a hypothetical scenario regarding the availability of a genetic test to inform AUD pharmacotherapy provision and/or selection. Provider responses to the hypothetical scenario were recorded, transcribed and analyzed qualitatively using inductive content analysis. Data were independently coded by three investigators, and themes were identified via consensus.

RESULTS

Participants were generally interested in a genetic test to aid in AUD treatment planning. Five common themes were identified, including: perceived benefits of a pharmacogenetic test (e.g., aiding with therapeutic choice, positively impacting patient motivation for and engagement with AUD treatment), perceived drawbacks (e.g., limiting potential benefits of pharmacotherapy by reducing the target population for its receipt, adverse impacts of "negative" results), caveats to clinical utility (e.g., utility would depend on prognostic accuracy and/or medication characteristics), uncertainty as to whether such a test would impact clinical decision-making, and pragmatic barriers to use (costs and other resources, such as laboratory facilities).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care providers in this study generally believed a genetic test to aid in AUD treatment planning would be useful, due to its potential to hone treatment choice as well as to influence patient motivation and adherence to treatment. However, providers acknowledged that a test's utility would depend on the strength of its prognostic characteristics, its other benefits relative to standard care, and lack of pragmatic barriers.

Is the intention-behaviour gap greater amongst the more deprived? A meta-analysis of five studies on physical activity, diet, and medication adherence in smoking cessation

Objectives

Unhealthy behaviour is more common amongst the deprived, thereby contributing to health inequalities. The evidence that the gap between intention and behaviour is greater amongst the more deprived is limited and inconsistent. We tested this hypothesis using objective and self‐report measures of three behaviours, both individual‐ and area‐level indices of socio‐economic status, and pooling data from five studies.

Design

Secondary data analysis.

Methods

Multiple linear regressions and meta‐analyses of data on physical activity, diet, and medication adherence in smoking cessation from 2,511 participants.

Results

Across five studies, we found no evidence for an interaction between deprivation and intention in predicting objective or self‐report measures of behaviour. Using objectively measured behaviour and area‐level deprivation, meta‐analyses suggested that the gap between self‐efficacy and behaviour was greater amongst the more deprived (B = .17 [95% CI = 0.02, 0.31]).

Conclusions

We find no compelling evidence to support the hypothesis that the intention–behaviour gap is greater amongst the more deprived.

The association of rs1051730 genotype on adherence to and consumption of prescribed nicotine replacement therapy dose during a smoking cessation attempt

INTRODUCTION

While nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is an effective pharmacological smoking cessation treatment, its efficacy is influenced by adherence to and consumption of the prescribed dose. The genetic variant rs1051730 in the nicotinic receptor gene cluster CHRNA5-A3-B4 influences smoking quantity. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of rs1051730 genotype on adherence to and consumption of NRT prescription following a smoking cessation attempt.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of data from a pharmacogenetic smoking cessation trial. Participants (n = 448) were prescribed a daily dose of NRT for four weeks post quit attempt, and monitored during weekly clinic visits. Outcome measures were NRT prescription adherence rate (%) and average daily NRT consumption (mg) at 7- and 28-days after the quit attempt.

RESULTS

An association between rs1051730 genotype and both outcome measures was observed at 7-days after the quit date. Each copy of the minor allele corresponded to a 2.9% decrease in adherence to prescribed NRT dose (P = 0.044), and a 1.0mg decrease in daily NRT consumption (P = 0.026). Adjusting for number of cigarettes smoked during this period only slightly attenuated these associations. There was no clear statistical evidence of an association between genotype and adherence or consumption at 28-days.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to evaluate the impact of rs1051730 genotype on consumption of and adherence to NRT prescription during a smoking cessation attempt. We observed an association between this variant and both outcome measures at 7-days; however, this was only moderate. These findings require replication in an independent sample.

Interventions to increase adherence to medications for tobacco dependence

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological treatments for tobacco dependence, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), have been shown to be safe and effective interventions for smoking cessation. Higher levels of adherence to these medications increase the likelihood of sustained smoking cessation, but many smokers use them at a lower dose and for less time than is optimal. It is therefore important to determine the effectiveness of interventions designed specifically to increase medication adherence. Such interventions may include further educating individuals about the value of taking medications and providing additional support to overcome problems with maintaining adherence.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of interventions to increase adherence to medications for smoking cessation, such as NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline and varenicline (and combination regimens). This was considered in comparison to a control group, typically representing standard care. Secondary objectives were to i) assess which intervention approaches are most effective; ii) determine the impact of interventions on potential precursors of adherence, such as understanding of the treatment and efficacy perceptions; and iii) evaluate key outcomes influenced by prior adherence, principally smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases using keywords and medical subject headings: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID SP) (1946 to July Week 3 2014), EMBASE (OVID SP) (1980 to Week 29 2014), and PsycINFO (OVID SP) (1806 to July Week 4 2014). The Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register was searched on 9th July 2014. We conducted forward and backward citation searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised studies in which participants using active pharmacological treatment for smoking cessation are allocated to an intervention arm or a control arm. Eligible participants were adult (18+) smokers. Eligible interventions comprised any intervention that differed from standard care, and where the intervention content had a clear principal focus on increasing adherence to medications for tobacco dependence. Acceptable comparison groups were those that provided standard care, which depending on setting may comprise minimal support or varying degrees of behavioural support. Included studies used a measure of adherence behaviour that allowed some assessment of the degree of adherence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors searched for studies and independently extracted data for included studies. Risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook guidance. For continuous outcome measures, we report effect sizes as standardised mean differences (SMDs). For dichotomous outcome measures, we report effect sizes as relative risks (RRs). We obtained pooled effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the fixed effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search strategy retrieved 3165 unique references and we identified 31 studies as potentially eligible for inclusion. Of these, 23 studies were excluded at full-text screening stage or identified as studies awaiting classification subject to further information. We included eight studies involving 3336 randomised participants. The interventions were all additional to standard behavioural support and typically provided further information on the rationale for, and emphasised the importance of, adherence to medication, and supported the development of strategies to overcome problems with maintaining adherence.Five studies reported on whether or not participants achieved a specified satisfactory level of adherence to medication. There was evidence that adherence interventions led to modest improvements in adherence, with a relative risk (RR) of 1.14 (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.28, P = 0.02, n = 1630). Four studies reported continuous measures of adherence to medication. Although the standardised mean difference (SMD) favoured adherence interventions, the effect was small and not statistically significant (SMD 0.07, 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.17, n = 1529). Applying the GRADE system, the quality of evidence for these results was assessed as moderate and low, respectively.There was evidence that adherence interventions led to modest improvements in rates of cessation. The relative risk for achieving abstinence was similar to that for improved adherence. It was not significant in meta-analysis of four studies providing short-term abstinence: RR = 1.07 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.21, n = 1755), but there was statistically significant evidence of improved abstinence at six months or more from a different set of four studies: RR = 1.16 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.34, P = 0.03, n = 3049). Applying the GRADE system, the quality of evidence for these results was assessed as low for both.As interventions were similar in nature and the number of studies was low, it was not possible to investigate whether different types of intervention approaches were more effective than others. Relevant outcomes other than adherence or cessation were not reported.There was no evidence that interventions to increase adherence to medication led to any adverse events. All included studies were assessed as at high or unclear risk of bias. This was often due to a lack of clarity in reporting - meaning assessments were unclear - rather than clear evidence of failing to sufficiently safeguard against the risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence that interventions that devote special attention to improving adherence to smoking cessation medication through providing information and facilitating problem-solving can improve adherence, though the evidence for this is not strong and is limited in both quality and quantity. There is some evidence that such interventions improve the chances of achieving abstinence but again the evidence for this is relatively weak.

Smokers' beliefs about the tobacco control potential of "a gene for smoking": a focus group study

Background

Several genetic variations associated with nicotine dependence and lung cancer exist. Translating this knowledge into tobacco control policy relies on smokers’ perceptions of the implications of the research. This study explored smokers’ beliefs about the tobacco control uses for research examining genomics, smoking, and addiction.

Method

Smokers (N = 85) participated in one of thirteen focus groups and one interview, stratified by race (eight black, six white) and education (seven < Bachelor’s degree, seven ≥ Bachelor’s degree). Data were analyzed by two independent coders using standard analysis and validation techniques.

Results

Nearly all groups suggested using genetic information for youth-oriented tobacco prevention education. Beliefs about the effectiveness of such actions varied. Many participants believed that providing smokers personalized genetic testing results or informing them about the existence of a gene would not motivate people to quit. All smokers emphasized the need for improved smoking cessation treatment options. Using genomics research to develop gene therapies and personalized drug treatments were also mentioned, yet perceptions of such treatments were mixed. Whereas some participants viewed the possibility positively, others expressed concern about cost and access. Participants who were skeptical of the effectiveness of using genetic information for tobacco control noted that the harms of tobacco use are widely known and genetic information does not add much of a deterrent.

Conclusion

Participants generated several possible tobacco control uses for genomics research findings. Our findings suggest that tobacco control experts should consult with smokers prior to implementing tobacco control measures. The potential public health benefits of genetics and genomics research related to tobacco use cannot be realized until communication strategies that are most likely to encourage and support tobacco avoidance decisions, and minimize mistrust and backlash, are identified.

Pharmacogenetic approaches in the treatment of alcohol use disorders: addressing clinical utility and implementation thresholds

Despite advances in characterizing genetic influences on addiction liability and treatment response, clinical applications of these efforts have been slow to evolve. Although challenges to clinical translation remain, stakeholders already face decisions about evidentiary thresholds for the uptake of pharmacogenetic tests in practice. There is optimism about potential pharmacogenetic applications for the treatment of alcohol use disorders, with particular interest in the OPRM1 A118G polymorphism as a moderator of naltrexone response. Findings from human and animal studies suggest preliminary evidence for the clinical validity of this association; on this basis, arguments for clinical implementation can be made in accordance with existing frameworks for the uptake of genomic applications. However, generating evidence-based guidelines requires evaluating the clinical utility of pharmacogenetic tests. This goal will remain challenging, largely due to minimal data to inform clinical utility estimates. The pace of genomic discovery highlights the need for clinical utility and implementation research to inform future translation efforts. Near-term implementation of promising pharmacogenetic tests can help expedite this goal, generating an evidence base to enable efficient translation as additional gene-drug associations are discovered.

Impact of tobacco outlet density and proximity on smoking cessation: a longitudinal observational study in two English cities

A previous study conducted in the USA reported an association between residential proximity to a tobacco outlet and reduced likelihood of a quit attempt enduring beyond six months. We replicated this study in an English urban setting using data on 611 smokers motivated to quit, of whom 66 were biochemically validated as being quit at six months. Sustained quitting at six months was unrelated to residential proximity of a tobacco outlet. Future studies would be improved by the use of validated mappings of retail outlets, mapped in relation to multiple activity spaces, not just residence.

The promise of using personalized genomic information to promote behavior change: is the debate over, or just beginning?

Over recent years, significant debate has centered on whether and how communication of personalized genomic risk information can positively influence health behavior change. Several thoughtful commentaries have cautioned that efforts to incorporate genomic risk feedback to motivate health behavior change have had little success. As a field, we should consider the reasons for this limited success and be strategic in the next steps for this line of research. In this article, we consider several reasons that prior research that integrates personalized genomic information has had relative degrees of success in changing or maintaining health behaviors. We suggest ways forward and outline the possibilities presented by emerging technologies and novel approaches in translational genomic research.

Beliefs, experience, and interest in pharmacotherapy among smokers with HIV

OBJECTIVES

To examine beliefs, prior use, and interest in using pharmacotherapy among people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA).

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey of smokers in a midwestern HIV clinic.

RESULTS

The sample (N = 146) included 69% men, 82% African Americans, 45% were in precontemplation for quitting, and 46% were interested in using pharmacotherapy. Primary reasons for non-use included cost and a belief that they would be able to quit on their own. Physician assistance was the strongest correlate of prior use. Perceived benefits and self-efficacy were the strongest correlates of willingness to use pharmacotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Future interventions should address misconceptions, perceived benefits, and self-efficacy for using cessation aids. Physicians should offer pharmacotherapy to all smokers.

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

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

A systematic review of studies assessing the association between adherence to smoking cessation medication and treatment success

AIMS

Lack of adherence to smoking cessation medication regimens is assumed to play a significant role in limiting their effectiveness. This study aimed to assess evidence for this assumption.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted, supplemented by expert consultation, of papers reporting on randomized trials and observational studies examining the association between adherence to cessation medication and the success of quit attempts. To rule out reverse causality, only studies where adherence was assessed prior to relapse were included. Five studies met the inclusion criteria and results were extracted independently by two researchers. Heterogeneity between studies precluded a pooled analysis of the data.

RESULTS

Studies varied widely with regard to both the definition of adherence and outcome measures. The included studies only addressed adherence to nicotine replacement therapy. One study of lozenge use found that the amount of medication used between 1 and 2 weeks after the quit date predicted abstinence at 6 weeks [adjusted odds ratio (OR) for 'high' versus 'low' lozenge use 1.25; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.05-1.50; P < 0.02]. Similarly, one study found a significant impact of oral nicotine consumption during the first week on abstinence at 4 weeks (adjusted OR per additional mg/day = 1.05; CI = 1.01-1.10). Another study found that participants using nicotine replacement therapy for at least 5 weeks were significantly more likely to self-report continuous abstinence at 6 months. The remaining two studies failed to find a significant effect of treatment duration on outcome at 1 and 2 years but had very low power to detect such an effect.

CONCLUSIONS

There is modest evidence to support the assumption that lack of adherence to nicotine replacement therapy regimens undermines effectiveness in clinical studies.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2012

This paper is the thirty-fifth consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2012 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior (Section 2), and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia (Section 3); stress and social status (Section 4); tolerance and dependence (Section 5); learning and memory (Section 6); eating and drinking (Section 7); alcohol and drugs of abuse (Section 8); sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (Section 9); mental illness and mood (Section 10); seizures and neurologic disorders (Section 11); electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (Section 12); general activity and locomotion (Section 13); gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (Section 14); cardiovascular responses (Section 15); respiration and thermoregulation (Section 16); and immunological responses (Section 17).

Racial differences in attitudes toward personalized medicine

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Patient concerns regarding personalized medicine may limit its use. This study assesses racial differences in attitudes toward personalized medicine, evaluating variables that may influence these attitudes.

METHODS

A convenience sample of 190 adults (≥18 years) from an academic primary care practice was surveyed regarding awareness and acceptance of personalized medicine, plus concerns and benefits regarding its use. Logistic regressions predicting awareness, acceptance and concerns were performed, controlling for race, gender, marital status, education, children, internet use, and self-reported discrimination.

RESULTS

The sample was 35% non-Hispanic white (NHW) and 34.7% male. More NHW participants expressed acceptance of personalized medicine than non-Hispanic black (NHB) participants (94.4 vs. 81.9%, p = 0.0190). More NHBs were concerned about the use of genes without consent (57.3 vs. 20.6%, p < 0.0001), sharing genetic information without consent (65.0 vs. 35.6%, p < 0.0001), discrimination based on genes (62.4 vs. 34.3%, p = 0.0002), and lack of access due to cost (75.0 vs. 48.0%, p = 0.0002). In logistic regressions, NHBs (OR = 7.46, 95% CI = 3.04-18.32) and those self-reporting discrimination (OR = 2.87, 95% CI = 1.22-6.78) had more concerns about the misuse of genes and costs associated with personalized medicine.

CONCLUSION

Racial differences exist in attitudes toward personalized medicine and may be influenced by self-reported discrimination. Further study to understand factors influencing the acceptance of personalized medicine could help encourage its use.

Biomarkers for smoking cessation

One way to enhance therapeutic development is through the identification and development of evaluative tools such as biomarkers. This review focuses on putative diagnostic, pharmacodynamic, and predictive biomarkers for smoking cessation. These types of biomarkers may be used to more accurately diagnose a disease, personalize treatment, identify novel targets for drug discovery, and enhance the efficiency of drug development. Promising biomarkers are presented across a range of approaches including metabolism, genetics, and neuroimaging. A preclinical viewpoint is also offered, as are analytical considerations and a regulatory perspective summarizing a pathway toward biomarker qualification.

Adherence to and consumption of nicotine replacement therapy and the relationship with abstinence within a smoking cessation trial in primary care

INTRODUCTION

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) medications have been shown to be effective in increasing smoking cessation rates. There is, however, a lack of good evidence describing how individuals in primary care use these medications and which factors are likely to affect this. The study objectives are to describe adherence and consumption, examine key factors that may determine use, and examine the relationship between consumption of NRT and abstinence from smoking.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial conducted in smoking cessation services in primary care. Adult smokers (n = 633) starting a quit attempt within smoking cessation clinics were followed for 6 months, with NRT use closely monitored for an initial treatment period of 4 weeks. The main outcomes were 4-week adherence to prescribed NRT, mean daily consumption of NRT over the 4-week period, and abstinence from smoking at 4 weeks.

RESULTS

Levels of adherence to prescribed NRT were high: more than 94% in participants who completed the treatment period. After controlling for possible confounders, prescribing higher doses of patch and oral NRT was associated with higher mean daily consumption of NRT. Using an inhalator to deliver oral NRT was associated with both higher adherence and higher consumption. The amount of NRT consumed predicted future abstinence when reverse causation was accounted for.

CONCLUSIONS

Most individuals within a clinical trial in primary care who persisted with a quit attempt adhered closely to their prescription. Prescribing higher doses of NRT led to higher consumption and higher consumption to higher abstinence.

Pharmacogenetic smoking cessation intervention in a health care setting: a pilot feasibility study

INTRODUCTION

There is increasing evidence that response to pharmacological treatment for nicotine dependence may be moderated by genetic polymorphisms. However, the feasibility, acceptability, and impact of genetically tailoring treatment in real-world clinical settings are unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a multiphased, mixed-methods feasibility study with current smokers to develop and evaluate a patient-centered, theoretically grounded personalized medicine treatment protocol. The initial research phase included formative work to develop intervention materials. The second phase included a randomized pilot trial to evaluate the intervention. Trial participants (n = 36) were genotyped for ANKK1 rs1800497 and were randomized to receive genetic feedback (GF) plus standard behavioral counseling (BC) for smoking cessation or BC without GF. All participants received genetically tailored pharmacotherapy (nicotine patch or bupropion).

RESULTS

The intervention was feasible to implement and was acceptable to participants based on satisfaction ratings and objective measures of participation. There was no evidence that the GF resulted in adverse psychological outcomes (e.g., depression, fatalism, reduced perceived control over quitting, differential motivation for quitting) based on quantitative or qualitative outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Study results suggest that it is feasible to offer treatment within a health care setting that includes genetically tailored pharmacotherapy and doing so had no apparent adverse psychological impacts. Further evaluation of pharmacogenetically tailored smoking cessation interventions appears warranted.

Change in anxiety following successful and unsuccessful attempts at smoking cessation: cohort study

BACKGROUND

Despite a lack of empirical evidence, many smokers and health professionals believe that tobacco smoking reduces anxiety, which may deter smoking cessation.

AIMS

The study aim was to assess whether successful smoking cessation or relapse to smoking after a quit attempt are associated with changes in anxiety.

METHOD

A total of 491 smokers attending National Health Service smoking cessation clinics in England were followed up 6 months after enrolment in a trial of pharmacogenetic tailoring of nicotine replacement therapy (ISRCTN14352545).

RESULTS

There was a points difference of 11.8 (95% CI 7.7-16.0) in anxiety score 6 months after cessation between people who relapsed to smoking and people who attained abstinence. This reflected a three-point increase in anxiety from baseline for participants who relapsed and a nine-point decrease for participants who abstained. The increase in anxiety in those who relapsed was largest for those with a current diagnosis of psychiatric disorder and whose main reason for smoking was to cope with stress. The decrease in anxiety on abstinence was larger for these groups also.

CONCLUSIONS

People who achieve abstinence experience a marked reduction in anxiety whereas those who fail to quit experience a modest increase in the long term. These data contradict the assumption that smoking is a stress reliever, but suggest that failure of a quit attempt may generate anxiety.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in July 2012 for studies added since the last update in 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, a pooled effect was estimated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials using a variety of biomedical tests. Two pairs of trials had sufficiently similar recruitment, setting and interventions to calculate a pooled effect; there was no evidence that carbon monoxide (CO) measurement in primary care (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) or spirometry in primary care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81) increased cessation rates. We did not pool the other 11 trials due to the presence of substantial clinical heterogeneity. Of the remaining 11 trials, two trials detected statistically significant benefits: one trial in primary care detected a significant benefit of lung age feedback after spirometry (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62) and one trial that used ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries and photographs of plaques detected a benefit (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.04 to 7.41) but enrolled a population of light smokers and was judged to be at unclear risk of bias in two domains. Nine further trials did not detect significant effects. One of these tested CO feedback alone and CO combined with genetic susceptibility as two different interventions; none of the three possible comparisons detected significant effects. One trial used CO measurement, one used ultrasonography of carotid arteries and two tested for genetic markers. The four remaining trials used a combination of CO and spirometry feedback in different settings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment on smoking cessation. Of the fifteen included studies, only two detected a significant effect of the intervention. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial but the evidence is not optimal. A trial of carotid plaque screening using ultrasound also detected a significant effect, but a second larger study of a similar feedback mechanism did not detect evidence of an effect. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in terms of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analyses; neither of these found evidence of an effect. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.

Lack of association of OPRM1 genotype and smoking cessation

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies have reported an association between μ-opioid receptor (OPRM1) genotype and smoking cessation, with some evidence that the strength of this association depends on dose of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). We examined whether a single-nucleotide polymorphism in the OPRM1 gene is associated with cessation and whether this variant moderates the effects of higher doses of NRT on abstinence.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from the practices of primary care physicians in the United Kingdom. Patients smoking an average of at least 10 cigarettes a day, who wanted to quit and were 18 years or older were eligible for inclusion. A total of N = 633 participants were recruited into the original trial, of whom complete data for pharmacogenetic analyses were available on n = 598. Logistic regression was used to test for the effects of OPRM1 genotype and NRT dose, including the genotype × dose interaction term, on smoking status at 4-week, and 26-week follow-up. Analyses were adjusted for potential confounders.

RESULTS

There was no evidence of a genotype effect at either follow-up, and no evidence of a genotype × dose interaction effect.

CONCLUSIONS

OPRM1 genotype may not affect the likelihood of smoking cessation, and it may not influence response to high- versus low-dose NRT. OPRM1 may have at most only a modest role in explaining cigarette smoking and cessation.