Smoking abstinence 1 year after acute coronary syndrome: follow-up from a randomized controlled trial of varenicline in patients admitted to hospital

Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

In 2020, 32.6% of the world's population used tobacco. Smoking contributes to many illnesses that require hospitalisation. A hospital admission may prompt a quit attempt. Initiating smoking cessation treatment, such as pharmacotherapy and/or counselling, in hospitals may be an effective preventive health strategy. Pharmacotherapies work to reduce withdrawal/craving and counselling provides behavioural skills for quitting smoking. This review updates the evidence on interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients, to understand the most effective smoking cessation treatment methods for hospitalised smokers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of any type of smoking cessation programme for patients admitted to an acute care hospital.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 7 September 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised studies of behavioural, pharmacological or multicomponent interventions to help patients admitted to hospital quit. Interventions had to start in the hospital (including at discharge), and people had to have smoked within the last month. We excluded studies in psychiatric, substance and rehabilitation centres, as well as studies that did not measure abstinence at six months or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from smoking assessed at least six months after discharge or the start of the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically-validated rates where reported. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 82 studies (74 RCTs) that included 42,273 participants in the review (71 studies, 37,237 participants included in the meta-analyses); 36 studies are new to this update. We rated 10 studies as being at low risk of bias overall (low risk in all domains assessed), 48 at high risk of bias overall (high risk in at least one domain), and the remaining 24 at unclear risk. Cessation counselling versus no counselling, grouped by intensity of intervention Hospitalised patients who received smoking cessation counselling that began in the hospital and continued for more than a month after discharge had higher quit rates than patients who received no counselling in the hospital or following hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 1.49; 28 studies, 8234 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might account for an additional 76 quitters in every 1000 participants (95% CI 51 to 103). The evidence was uncertain (very low-certainty) about the effects of counselling interventions of less intensity or shorter duration (in-hospital only counselling ≤ 15 minutes: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1417 participants; and in-hospital contact plus follow-up counselling support for ≤ 1 month: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20; 7 studies, 4627 participants) versus no counselling. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that smoking cessation counselling for at least 15 minutes in the hospital without post-discharge support led to higher quit rates than no counselling in the hospital (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.58; 12 studies, 4432 participants). Pharmacotherapy versus placebo or no pharmacotherapy Nicotine replacement therapy helped more patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.67; 8 studies, 3838 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 62 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 9 to 126). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision (as CI encompassed the possibility of no difference), that varenicline helped more hospitalised patients to quit than placebo or no pharmacotherapy (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 4 studies, 829 participants). Evidence for bupropion was low-certainty; the point estimate indicated a modest benefit at best, but CIs were wide and incorporated clinically significant harm and clinically significant benefit (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43, 4 studies, 872 participants). Hospital-only intervention versus intervention that continues after hospital discharge Patients offered both smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge had higher quit rates than patients offered counselling in hospital but not offered post-discharge support (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.38; 7 studies, 5610 participants; high-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this might equate to an additional 34 quitters per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 to 55). Post-discharge interventions offering real-time counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.60, 8 studies, 2299 participants; low certainty-evidence) and those offering unscheduled counselling without pharmacotherapy (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 2 studies, 1598 participants; very low-certainty evidence) may have little to no effect on quit rates compared to control. Telephone quitlines versus control To provide post-discharge support, hospitals may refer patients to community-based telephone quitlines. Both comparisons relating to these interventions had wide CIs encompassing both possible harm and possible benefit, and were judged to be of very low certainty due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias (post-discharge telephone counselling versus quitline referral: RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.51; 3 studies, 3260 participants; quitline referral versus control: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.96; 2 studies, 1870 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Offering hospitalised patients smoking cessation counselling beginning in hospital and continuing for over one month after discharge increases quit rates, compared to no hospital intervention. Counselling provided only in hospital, without post-discharge support, may have a modest impact on quit rates, but evidence is less certain. When all patients receive counselling in the hospital, high-certainty evidence indicates that providing both counselling and pharmacotherapy after discharge increases quit rates compared to no post-discharge intervention. Starting nicotine replacement or varenicline in hospitalised patients helps more patients to quit smoking than a placebo or no medication, though evidence for varenicline is only moderate-certainty due to imprecision. There is less evidence of benefit for bupropion in this setting. Some of our evidence was limited by imprecision (bupropion versus placebo and varenicline versus placebo), risk of bias, and inconsistency related to heterogeneity. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies to implement, disseminate, and sustain interventions, and to ensure cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy initiated in the hospital is sustained after discharge.

The Effect of Varenicline on Smoking Cessation in Hospitalized Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Varenicline tartrate is a new and selective agonist of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine varenicline efficacy in smoking cessation among hospitalized patients.

Methods

We looked through worldwide databases such as Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus. Relevant pieces of research published on varenicline efficacy on smoking cessation among hospitalized patients were discovered using proper keywords. The data were analyzed using Stata software version 14 and a random-effects model meta-analysis.

Findings

Nine studies were eligible to be included in this study, with a total sample size of 2131. Generally, the point abstinence rate was significantly greater in the varenicline group than in the placebo group at weeks 12 (odds ratio [OR]=0.59; 95% CI: 053-0.65; P<0.001), 24 (OR=0.78; 95% CI: 0.72-0.84; P<0.001), and 52 (OR=0.86; 95% CI: 0.80-0.92; P<0.001). Furthermore, the continuous abstinence rate for weeks 4 (OR=0.70; 95% CI: 019-0.54; P=0.000), 12 (OR=0.26; 95% CI: 019-0.54; P<0.001), 24 (OR=0.32; 95% CI: 019-0.53; P<0.001), and 52 (OR=0.32; 95% CI: 019-0.54; P<0.001) was significantly greater in the varenicline group than in the placebo group.

Conclusion

According to the high efficacy of varenicline in both short- and long-term smoking settings and considering the importance of smoking cessation in high-risk hospitalized patients, varenicline consumption could be considered as a main smoking cessation strategy in these patients.

Effect of dulaglutide in promoting abstinence during smoking cessation: 12-month follow-up of a single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial

Background

Smoking cessation is challenging, despite making use of established smoking cessation therapies. Preclinical studies and one clinical pilot study suggest the antidiabetic drug glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue to modulate addictive behaviours and nicotine craving. Previously, we reported the short-term results of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Herein we report long-term abstinence rates and weight developments after 24 and 52 weeks.

Methods

This single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial was done at the University Hospital Basel in Switzerland. We randomly assigned (1:1) individuals with at least a moderate nicotine dependence willing to quit smoking to either a 12-week treatment with dulaglutide 1.5 mg or placebo subcutaneously once weekly in addition to standard of care smoking cessation therapy (varenicline 2 mg/day and behavioural counselling). After 12 weeks, dulaglutide or placebo injections were discontinued and the participants were followed up at week 24 and 52. The primary outcome of self-reported and biochemically confirmed point prevalence abstinence rate, and secondary outcome of secondary outcome of weight change were assessed at weeks 24 and 52. All participants who received one dose of the study drug were included in the intention to treat set and participants who received at least 10/12 doses of the study drug formed the per protocol set. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03204396.

Findings

Of the 255 participants who were randomly assigned between June 22, 2017 and December 3, 2020, 63% (80/127) (dulaglutide group) and 65% (83/128) (placebo group) were abstinent after 12 weeks. These abstinence rates declined to 43% (54/127) and 41% (52/128), respectively, after 24 weeks and to 32% (41/127) and 32% (41/128), respectively, after 52 weeks. Post-cessation weight gain was prevented in the dulaglutide group (-1.0 kg, standard deviation [SD] 2.7) as opposed to the placebo group (+1.9 kg, SD 2.4) after 12 weeks. However, at week 24, increases in weight from baseline were observed in both groups (median, interquartile range [IQR]: dulaglutide: +1.5 kg, [-0.4, 4.1], placebo: +3.0 kg, [0.6, 4.6], baseline-adjusted difference in weight change -1.0 kg (97.5% CI [-2.16, 0.16])), and at week 52 the groups showed similar weight gain (median, IQR: dulaglutide: +2.8 kg [-0.4, 4.7], placebo: +3.1 kg [-0.4, 6.0], baseline-adjusted difference in weight change: -0.35 kg (95% CI [-1.72, 1.01])). In the follow-up period (week 12 to week 52) 51 (51%) and 48 (48%) treatment-unrelated adverse events were recorded in the dulaglutide and the placebo group, respectively. No treatment-related serious adverse events or deaths occurred.

Interpretation

Dulaglutide does not improve long-term smoking abstinence, but has potential to counteract weight gain after quitting. However, 3 months of treatment did not have a sustained beneficial effect on weight at 1 year. As post-cessation weight gain is highest in the first year after quitting smoking, future studies should consider a longer treatment duration with a GLP-1 analogue in abstinent individuals.

Funding

Swiss National Science Foundation, the Gottfried and Julia Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation, the Goldschmidt-Jacobson Foundation, the Hemmi-Foundation, the University of Basel, the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences.

Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Smoking Increase the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapy

Tobacco smoking has been a recognized risk factor for cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Smoking is a chronic relapsing disease and pharmacotherapy is a main component of smoking cessation. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and smoking both increase the risk of CVD and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There are few existing data examining how pharmacological treatment, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, and varenicline, affect smokers suffering with OSA and especially their cardiovascular effects. The aim of this review was to evaluate the effects of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy on OSA with a special emphasis on the cardiovascular system. Results: Only small studies have assessed the effect of NRTs on OSA. Nicotine gum administration showed an improvement in respiratory events but with no permanent results. No specific studies were found on the effect of bupropion on OSA, and a limited number evaluated varenicline's effects on sleep and specifically OSA. Varenicline administration in smokers suffering from OSA reduced the obstructive respiratory events, especially during REM. Studies on second-line medication (nortriptyline, clonidine, cytisine) are even more limited. There are still no studies evaluating the cardiovascular effects of smoking cessation medications on OSA patients. Conclusions: Sleep disturbances are common withdrawal effects during smoking cessation but could be also attributed to pharmacotherapy. Smokers should receive personalized treatment during their quitting attempts according to their individual needs and problems, including OSA. Future studies are needed in order to evaluate the efficacy and safety of smoking cessation medications in OSA patients.

Development of a nomogram based on pericoronary adipose tissue histogram parameters to differentially diagnose acute coronary syndrome

PURPOSE

To develop a nomogram based on pericoronary adipose tissue (PCAT) histogram parameters to identify patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study retrospectively enrolled 114 and 383 eligible patients with ACS and stable coronary artery disease (CAD), respectively, and divided them into training and testing cohorts in a 7:3 ratio. A blinded radiologist obtained PCAT histogram parameters from the right coronary artery's proximal segment using fully automated software and compared clinical characteristics and PCAT histogram parameters between the two patient groups. The binary logistic regression included significant parameters (P < 0.05), and a nomogram was constructed.

RESULTS

In both the training and testing cohorts, the mean, 10th percentile, 90th percentile, median, and minimum values of PCAT were higher, and the interquartile range, skewness, and variance values of PCAT were lower in patients with ACS than in those with stable CAD (P ≤ 0.001). The mean (OR = 4.007), median (OR = 0.576), minimum (OR = 0.893), skewness (OR = 85,158.806) and variance (OR = 1.013) values of PCAT were independent risk factors for ACS and stable CAD in the training cohort. The nomogram was constructed using the five variables mentioned above with area under the curve values of 0.903 and 0.897, respectively, while the calibration and decision curves showed the nomogram's good clinical efficacy for the training and testing cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

The constructed nomogram had good discrimination and accuracy and can be a noninvasive tool to intuitively and individually distinguish between ACS and stable CAD.

Safety and efficacy of early varenicline prescription in hospitalized patients with acute myocardial infarction: East Asian population

BACKGROUND

Smoking is a strong risk factor for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Varenicline is commonly used as a smoking cessation medication, but little is known about its usage in patients with AMI, particularly in hospitalized patients.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational, single-center study collected from May 2018 to July 2021. Study patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for AMI. The primary end point was set as safety of varenicline, focusing on any serious adverse cardiac events within 24 weeks after treatment. Efficacy of smoking abstinence was also assessed through self-reports of complete abstinence over a week before the 24- week clinic visit.

RESULTS

A total of 162 patients hospitalized with AMI were enrolled in our study. Mean age was 56.7 ± 9.95 years and 97% of the patients were male. Most patients (93.2%) received their first dose of varenicline during hospitalization. Time from admission to first dose of study medication was 2.31 ± 2.73 days and duration of drug intake was 7.41 ± 5.18 weeks. At week 24, only one patient had recurrent myocardial infarction, five patients had undergone revascularization for target lesion failure, and no additional patients developed stroke or died. In terms of efficacy, the rate of smoking abstinence was 79%. Light smokers found it easier to quit smoking than heavy smokers.

CONCLUSION

This study may represent the first report on the safety and efficacy of early initiation of varenicline treatment in East Asian population hospitalized due to AMI who recently underwent percutaneous coronary intervention.

Clinical challenges facing patient participation in cardiac rehabilitation: cigarette smoking

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is highly effective at reducing morbidity and mortality. However, CR is underutilized, and adherence remains challenging. In no group is CR attendance more challenging than among patients who smoke. Despite being more likely to be referred to CR, they are less likely to enroll, and much more likely to drop out. CR programs generally do not optimally engage and treat those who smoke, but this population is critical to engage given the high-risk nature of continued smoking in those with cardiovascular disease.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers four areas relating to CR in those who smoke. First, we review the evidence of the association between smoking and lack of participation in CR. Second, we examine how smoking has historically been identified in this population and propose objective screening measures for all patients. Third, we discuss the optimal treatment of smoking within CR. Fourth, we review select populations within those who smoke (those with lower-socioeconomic status, females) that require additional research and attention.

EXPERT OPINION

Smoking poses a challenge on multiple fronts, being a significant predictor of future morbidity and mortality, as well as being strongly associated with not completing the secondary prevention program (CR) that could benefit those who smoke the most.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

Background

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

Objectives

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

Search methods

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

Selection criteria

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

Data collection and analysis

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

Main results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authors' conclusions

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

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

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

Key messages

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

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

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

What are 'nicotine receptor partial agonists'?

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

What did we want to find out?

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

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

· how many people had unwanted effects.

What did we do?

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

What did we find?

We found 75 studies that compared NRPAs with:

· placebo or no medicine;

· nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches or gum;

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

· another NRPA;

· e‐cigarettes.

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

Main results

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

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

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

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

What are the limitations of the evidence?

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

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

How up to date is the evidence?

The evidence is up to date to 29 April 2022.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost-Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Interventions in Patients With Ischemic Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation rates after stroke and transient ischemic attack are suboptimal, and smoking cessation interventions are underutilized. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of smoking cessation interventions in this population.

METHODS

We constructed a decision tree and used Markov models that aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of varenicline, any pharmacotherapy with intensive counseling, and monetary incentives, compared with brief counseling alone in the secondary stroke prevention setting. Payer and societal costs of interventions and outcomes were modeled. The outcomes were recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction, and death using a lifetime horizon. Estimates and variance for the base case (35% cessation), costs and effectiveness of interventions, and outcome rates were imputed from the stroke literature. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and incremental net monetary benefits. An intervention was considered cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) or when the incremental net monetary benefit was positive. Probabilistic Monte Carlo simulations modeled the impact of parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

From the payer perspective, varenicline and pharmacotherapy with intensive counseling were associated with more QALYs (0.67 and 1.00, respectively) at less total lifetime costs compared with brief counseling alone. Monetary incentives were associated with 0.71 more QALYs at an additional cost of $120 compared with brief counseling alone, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $168/QALY. From the societal perspective, all 3 interventions provided more QALYs at less total costs compared with brief counseling alone. In 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations, all 3 smoking cessation interventions were cost-effective in >89% of runs.

CONCLUSIONS

For secondary stroke prevention, it is cost-effective and potentially cost-saving to deliver smoking cessation therapy beyond brief counseling alone.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

Improving smoking cessation after myocardial infarction by systematically implementing evidence-based treatment methods

We compared the odds of smoking cessation at 2-months post-myocardial infarction (MI), before and after implementing routines optimizing use of evidence-based smoking cessation methods, with start during admission. The following routines were implemented at six Swedish hospitals: cardiac rehabilitation nurses offering smokers consultation during admission, optimizing nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline prescription, and contacting patients by telephone during the 1st week post-discharge. Using logistic regression, odds for smoking cessation at 2-months before (n smokers/n admitted = 188/601) and after (n = 195/632) routine implementation were compared. Secondary outcomes included adherence to implemented routines and assessing the prognostic value of each routine on smoking cessation. After implementation, a larger proportion of smokers (65% vs. 54%) were abstinent at 2-months (OR 1.60 [1.04-2.48]). Including only those counselled during admission (n = 98), 74% were abstinent (2.50 [1.42-4.41]). After implementation, patients were more often counselled during admission (50% vs. 6%, p < 0.001), prescribed varenicline (23% vs. 7%, p < 0.001), and contacted by telephone post-discharge (18% vs. 2%, p < 0.001). Being contacted by telephone post-discharge (adjusted OR 2.74 [1.02-7.35]) and prescribed varenicline (adjusted OR 0.39 [0.19-0.83]) predicted smoking cessation at 2-months. In conclusion, readily available methods for aiding smoking cessation can be implemented effectively in routine practice, with beneficial effects for post-MI patients.

Primary and Secondary Prevention of CAD: A Review

Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of death in both men and women, yet adequate control of risk factors can largely reduce the incidence and recurrence of cardiac events. In this review, we discuss various life style and pharmacological measures for both the primary and secondary prevention of coronary artery disease. With a clear understanding of management options, health care providers have an excellent opportunity to educate patients and ameliorate a significant burden of morbidity and mortality.

Adverse childhood experiences and adult diet quality

Childhood trauma is strongly associated with poor health outcomes. Although many studies have found associations between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), a well-established indicator of childhood trauma and diet-related health outcomes, few have explored the relationship between ACEs and diet quality, despite growing literature in epidemiology and neurobiology suggesting that childhood trauma has an important but poorly understood relationship with diet. Thus, we performed a cross-sectional study of the association of ACEs and adult diet quality in the Southern Community Cohort Study, a largely low-income and racially diverse population in the southeastern United States. We used ordinal logistic regression to estimate the association of ACEs with the Healthy Eating Index-2010 (HEI-10) score among 30 854 adults aged 40-79 enrolled from 2002 to 2009. Having experienced any ACE was associated with higher odds of worse HEI-10 among all (odds ratio (OR) 1⋅22; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1⋅17, 1⋅27), and for all race-sex groups, and remained significant after adjustment for adult income. The increasing number of ACEs was also associated with increasing odds of a worse HEI-10 (OR for 4+ ACEs: 1⋅34; 95 % CI 1⋅27, 1⋅42). The association with worse HEI-10 score was especially strong for ACEs in the household dysfunction category, including having a family member in prison (OR 1⋅34; 95 % CI 1⋅25, 1⋅42) and parents divorced (OR 1⋅25; 95 % CI 1⋅20, 1⋅31). In summary, ACEs are associated with poor adult diet quality, independent of race, sex and adult income. Research is needed to explore whether trauma intervention strategies can impact adult diet quality.

Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Most people who stop smoking gain weight. This can discourage some people from making a quit attempt and risks offsetting some, but not all, of the health advantages of quitting. Interventions to prevent weight gain could improve health outcomes, but there is a concern that they may undermine quitting.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effects of: (1) interventions targeting post-cessation weight gain on weight change and smoking cessation (referred to as 'Part 1') and (2) interventions designed to aid smoking cessation that plausibly affect post-cessation weight gain (referred to as 'Part 2').

SEARCH METHODS

Part 1 - We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; latest search 16 October 2020. Part 2 - We searched included studies in the following 'parent' Cochrane reviews: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), antidepressants, nicotine receptor partial agonists, e-cigarettes, and exercise interventions for smoking cessation published in Issue 10, 2020 of the Cochrane Library. We updated register searches for the review of nicotine receptor partial agonists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Part 1 - trials of interventions that targeted post-cessation weight gain and had measured weight at any follow-up point or smoking cessation, or both, six or more months after quit day. Part 2 - trials included in the selected parent Cochrane reviews reporting weight change at any time point.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. Change in weight was expressed as difference in weight change from baseline to follow-up between trial arms and was reported only in people abstinent from smoking. Abstinence from smoking was expressed as a risk ratio (RR). Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using the inverse variance method for weight, and Mantel-Haenszel method for smoking.

MAIN RESULTS

Part 1: We include 37 completed studies; 21 are new to this update. We judged five studies to be at low risk of bias, 17 to be at unclear risk and the remainder at high risk.  An intermittent very low calorie diet (VLCD) comprising full meal replacement provided free of charge and accompanied by intensive dietitian support significantly reduced weight gain at end of treatment compared with education on how to avoid weight gain (mean difference (MD) -3.70 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.82 to -2.58; 1 study, 121 participants), but there was no evidence of benefit at 12 months (MD -1.30 kg, 95% CI -3.49 to 0.89; 1 study, 62 participants). The VLCD increased the chances of abstinence at 12 months (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73; 1 study, 287 participants). However, a second study  found that no-one completed the VLCD intervention or achieved abstinence. Interventions aimed at increasing acceptance of weight gain reported mixed effects at end of treatment, 6 months and 12 months with confidence intervals including both increases and decreases in weight gain compared with no advice or health education. Due to high heterogeneity, we did not combine the data. These interventions increased quit rates at 6 months (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.96; 4 studies, 619 participants; I² = 21%), but there was no evidence at 12 months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.06; 2 studies, 496 participants; I² = 26%). Some pharmacological interventions tested for limiting post-cessation weight gain (PCWG) reduced weight gain at the end of treatment (dexfenfluramine, phenylpropanolamine, naltrexone). The effects of ephedrine and caffeine combined, lorcaserin, and chromium were too imprecise to give useful estimates of treatment effects. There was very low-certainty evidence that personalized weight management support reduced weight gain at end of treatment (MD -1.11 kg, 95% CI -1.93 to -0.29; 3 studies, 121 participants; I² = 0%), but no evidence in the longer-term 12 months (MD -0.44 kg, 95% CI -2.34 to 1.46; 4 studies, 530 participants; I² = 41%). There was low to very low-certainty evidence that detailed weight management education without personalized assessment, planning and feedback did not reduce weight gain and may have reduced smoking cessation rates (12 months: MD -0.21 kg, 95% CI -2.28 to 1.86; 2 studies, 61 participants; I² = 0%; RR for smoking cessation 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90; 2 studies, 522 participants; I² = 0%). Part 2: We include 83 completed studies, 27 of which are new to this update. There was low certainty that exercise interventions led to minimal or no weight reduction compared with standard care at end of treatment (MD -0.25 kg, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.29; 4 studies, 404 participants; I² = 0%). However, weight was reduced at 12 months (MD -2.07 kg, 95% CI -3.78 to -0.36; 3 studies, 182 participants; I² = 0%). Both bupropion and fluoxetine limited weight gain at end of treatment (bupropion MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.67; 10 studies, 1098 participants; I² = 3%); (fluoxetine MD -1.01 kg, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.53; 2 studies, 144 participants; I² = 38%; low- and very low-certainty evidence, respectively). There was no evidence of benefit at 12 months for bupropion, but estimates were imprecise (bupropion MD -0.26 kg, 95% CI -1.31 to 0.78; 7 studies, 471 participants; I² = 0%). No studies of fluoxetine provided data at 12 months. There was moderate-certainty that NRT reduced weight at end of treatment (MD -0.52 kg, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.05; 21 studies, 2784 participants; I² = 81%) and moderate-certainty that the effect may be similar at 12 months (MD -0.37 kg, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.11; 17 studies, 1463 participants; I² = 0%), although the estimates are too imprecise to assess long-term benefit. There was mixed evidence of the effect of varenicline on weight, with high-certainty evidence that weight change was very modestly lower at the end of treatment (MD -0.23 kg, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.06; 14 studies, 2566 participants; I² = 32%); a low-certainty estimate gave an imprecise estimate of higher weight at 12 months (MD 1.05 kg, 95% CI -0.58 to 2.69; 3 studies, 237 participants; I² = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is no intervention for which there is moderate certainty of a clinically useful effect on long-term weight gain. There is also no moderate- or high-certainty evidence that interventions designed to limit weight gain reduce the chances of people achieving abstinence from smoking.

Looking Back and Going Forward: Roles of Varenicline and Electronic Cigarettes in Smoking Cessation

Tobacco use is the single largest preventable cause of death in the United States (US). The national goal of reducing the prevalence of adult cigarette smoking to 12% was retained for 20 years due to non-attainment. Meanwhile, varenicline and electronic cigarettes (ECs) became available in the US in 2006 and 2007, respectively, and have been used by many smokers wanting to quit. The purpose of this review is to compare varenicline and ECs in terms of efficacy for smoking cessation after over a decade of widespread use in the US. Data collection for systematic review and qualitative synthesis by a PubMed search using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelinesand the Oxford Quality Scale, respectively, was performed in June 2018 and updated in June 2020. Articles were eligible if published in English as original research in the form of a randomized clinical trial (RCT), a systematic review and meta-analysis, a systematic review, or a cross-sectional study. Eighteen studies were included: nine RCTs, four cross-sectional studies, two meta-analyses, one systematic review, one systematic review and meta-analysis, and one cohort study. No head-to-head RCT compared varenicline to ECs. In four RCTs, varenicline was more effective than placebo for smoking cessation. In two RCTs, ECs were more effective than placebo but a meta-analysis of 20 studies reported a statistically significant decrease in the odds of quitting smoking using ECs as compared to placebo. To conclude, varenicline and ECs have data suggesting efficacy for smoking cessation; however, unlike varenicline, ECs were not effective in all studies.

Varenicline: mode of action, efficacy, safety and accumulated experience salient for clinical populations

Objective: Varenicline, a selective partial agonist of the α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, is a smoking cessation pharmacotherapy that more than doubles the chance of quitting smoking at 6 months compared with placebo. This article reviews salient knowledge of the discovery, pharmacological characteristics, and the efficacy and safety of varenicline in general and in specific populations of smokers and provides recommendations to support use in clinical practice.Methods: Literature searches for varenicline were conducted using PubMed, with date limitations of 2000-2018 inclusive, using search terms covering the discovery, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety in different populations of smokers, alternative quit approaches and combination therapy. Selection of safety and efficacy data was limited to clinical trials, meta-analyses and observational studies.Results: Standard administration of varenicline is efficacious in helping smokers to quit, including smokers with cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Furthermore, varenicline efficacy may be improved with pre-loading, a gradual quitting approach for smokers unwilling or unable to quit abruptly, and extended treatment in smokers who have recently quit to help maintain abstinence. Initial concerns regarding the association of varenicline with increased risk of neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular adverse events have been disproven after extensive clinical evaluations, and the benefit-risk profile of varenicline is considered favorable.Conclusions: Varenicline is efficacious and safe for all adult smokers with a range of clinical characteristics. Evidence suggests that approaches offering greater flexibility in timing and duration of treatment may further extend treatment efficacy and clinical reach.

Smoking-cessation pharmacotherapy for patients with stroke and TIA: Systematic review

Data regarding the efficacy and safety of smoking-cessation pharmacotherapy after stroke are lacking. We systematically reviewed data on this topic by searching Medline, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov to identify randomized clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies that assessed the efficacy and safety of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline, and bupropion in patients with stroke and TIA. We included studies that reported rates of smoking cessation, worsening or recurrent cerebrovascular disease, seizures, or neuropsychiatric events. We identified 2 RCTs and 6 observational studies; 3 included ischemic stroke and TIA, 2 subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), and 3 did not specify. Four studies assessed efficacy; cessation rates ranged from 33% to 66% with pharmacological therapy combined with behavioral interventions versus 15% to 46% without, but no individual study demonstrated a statistically significant benefit. Safety data for varenicline and buopropion in ischemic stroke were scarce. Patients with SAH who received NRT had more seizures (9% vs 2%; P = 0.024) and delirium (19% vs 7%; P = 0.006) in one study, but less frequent vasospasm in 3 studies. In conclusion, combined with behavioral interventions, smoking-cessation therapies resulted in numerically higher cessation rates. Limited safety data may prompt caution regarding seizures and delirium in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage.

Three-year outcomes related to coronary stenting; a registry-based real-life population study

Objectives. Developments in medication and coronary interventions have improved coronary artery disease (CAD) treatment. We studied long-term outcomes in an observational, real-life population of CAD patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) depending on the presentation and the stent type used. Design and results. Register included 789 consecutive patients undergoing PCI. Follow up period was three years with primary composite outcome (MACE) of all cause -mortality, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization. Mean age was 65 ± 11 and 69% were male. New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES-2) were associated with lower adjusted rates of MACE (HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.29-0.77) but not mortality (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.22-1.14) in comparison to bare-metal stents. Patients with STEMI (14.4%) or NSTEMI (13.7%) had higher crude mortality rates than those with unstable (4.5%) or stable CAD (3.1%; p < .001). The association diminished after adjustments in NSTEMI (HR 2.01; 95% CI 0.88-4.58). Among smokers 45% quitted and 36% achieved recommended cholesterol levels. Conclusions. The overall prognosis was good. Irrespective of comorbidities, NSTEMI was not associated with worse outcome than stable CAD. DES-2 was associated with lower rates of MACE than BMS without affecting mortality rate. Patients succeeded better in smoking cessation than reaching recommended cholesterol levels.

Smoking cessation after hospitalization for myocardial infarction or cardiac surgery: Assessing patient interest, confidence, and physician prescribing practices

Background

Prioritizing and managing multiple behavior changes following a cardiac hospitalization can be difficult, particularly among smokers who must also overcome a serious addiction.

Hypothesis

Hospitalized smokers will report a strong interest in smoking cessation (SC) but will receive little assistance from their physicians.

Methods

We asked current smokers hospitalized for an acute cardiac event to prioritize their health behavior priorities, and inquired about their attitude toward SC therapies. We also assessed SC cessation prescriptions provided by their physicians.

Results

Of the 105 patients approached, 81 (77%) completed the survey. Of these, 72.5% ranked SC as their greatest health change priority, surpassing all other behavior changes, including: taking medications, attending cardiac rehabilitation (CR), dieting, losing weight, and attending doctor appointments. Patients felt that SCM (44%), CR (41%), and starting exercise (35%) would increase their likelihood for SC. While most patients agreed that smoking was harmful, 16% strongly disagreed that smoking was related to their hospitalization. At discharge, medication was prescribed to ~32% of patients, with equal frequency among patients who reported interest and those who reported no interest in using medications.

Conclusion

The majority of hospitalized smokers with cardiac disease want to quit smoking, desire help in doing so, and overwhelmingly rate cessation as their highest health behavior priority, although some believe smoking is unrelated to their disease. The period following an acute cardiac event appears to be a time of great receptivity to SC interventions; however, rates of providing tailored, evidence‐based interventions are disappointingly low.

Prevention and Treatment of Tobacco Use: JACC Health Promotion Series

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death worldwide and is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Both prevention of smoking initiation among youth and smoking cessation among established smokers are key for reducing smoking prevalence and the associated negative health consequences. Proven tobacco cessation treatment includes pharmacotherapy and behavioral support, which are most effective when provided together. First-line medications (varenicline, bupropion, and nicotine replacement) are effective and safe for patients with CVD. Clinicians who care for patients with CVD should give as high a priority to treating tobacco use as to managing other CVD risk factors. Broader tobacco control efforts to raise tobacco taxes, adopt smoke-free laws, conduct mass media campaigns, and restrict tobacco marketing enhance clinicians' actions working with individual smokers.