Outcomes associated with transdermal nicotine replacement therapy in a neurosurgery intensive care unit

The Impact of Smoking Cessation Therapy on Lumbar Fusion Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

While there are several reports on the impact of smoking tobacco on spinal fusion outcomes, there is minimal literature on the influence of modern smoking cessation therapies on such outcomes. Our study explores the outcomes of single-level lumbar fusion surgery in active smokers and in smokers undergoing recent cessation therapy.

METHODS

MARINER30, an all-payer claims database, was utilized to identify patients undergoing single-level lumbar fusions between 2010 and 2019. The primary outcomes were the rates of any complication, symptomatic pseudarthrosis, need for revision surgery, and all-cause readmission within 30 and 90 days.

RESULTS

The exact matched population analyzed in this study contained 31,935 patients undergoing single-level lumbar fusion with 10,645 (33%) in each of the following groups: (1) active smokers; (2) patients on smoking cessation therapy; and (3) those without any smoking history. Patients undergoing smoking cessation therapy have reduced odds of developing any complication following surgery (odds ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.80-0.93) when compared with actively smoking patients. Nonsmokers and patients on cessation therapy had a significantly lower rate of any complication compared with the smoking group (9.5% vs. 17% vs. 19%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with active smoking, preoperative smoking cessation therapy within 90 days of surgery decreases the likelihood of all-cause postoperative complications. However, there were no between-group differences in the likelihood of pseudarthrosis, revision surgery, or readmission within 90 days.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes.

DESIGN

Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results.

SETTING

Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events.

DATA SOURCES

Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model.

RESULTS

Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard.

LIMITATIONS

Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK.

FUTURE WORK

Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

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

Background

Studies evaluating nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to prevent nicotine withdrawal symptoms in ICU patients have yielded conflicting results. We performed a randomised controlled double-blind pilot study to assess the safety and efficacy of NRT in critically ill patients. Mechanically ventilated patients admitted to two medical–surgical intensive care units and smoking more than 10 cigarettes per day before ICU admission were enrolled in this study. Participants were randomised to transdermal NRT (14 or 21 mg per day) or placebo until ICU discharge or day 30. Smoking status was confirmed by the biomarkers serum cotinine and urinary NNAL. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Among secondary endpoints and post hoc endpoints, 90-day mortality, safety, time spent without delirium, sedation and coma, and patient destination at day 30 were addressed.

Results

We enrolled 47 patients. No differences were found between NRT and control group patients concerning 30-day mortality (9.5 vs. 7.7%, p = 0.84) and 90-day mortality (14.3 vs. 19.2%, p = 0.67). The number of serious adverse events was comparable between groups (NRT: 4, control: 11, p = 0.13). At day 20, average time alive without delirium, sedation and coma was 16.6 days among NRT patients versus 12.6 days among control patients (p = 0.03). At day 30, more NRT group patients were discharged from the ICU or hospital compared with controls (p = 0.03).

Conclusions

NRT did not affect mortality or the number of (serious) adverse events compared with placebo. Time alive without delirium, sedation and coma at day 20 in NRT patients was longer than in control patients. An adequately powered randomised controlled trial to further study safety and efficacy of NRT in ICU patients seems feasible and is warranted.

Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01362959, registered 1 June 2011

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13613-018-0399-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effect of nicotine replacement therapy on mortality, delirium, and duration of therapy in critically ill smokers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Nicotine replacement therapy is widely used in critically ill smokers and its effect on delirium, mortality and duration of intensive care unit (ICU) admission is unknown. The aims of this review were to determine whether the management of nicotine withdrawal with nicotine replacement therapy reduces delirium, mortality or length of stay in critically ill smokers in ICU. The primary outcome was incidence of author-defined ICU delirium. Secondary outcomes were ICU or hospital mortality, ICU-free days at day 28, and ICU or hospital length of stay. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for randomised controlled trials and observational studies. Clinical trials, observational studies and systematic reviews comparing nicotine replacement therapy with placebo or no treatment were included. Case reports, case series, non-systematic reviews and studies that involved children were excluded. Eight studies were eligible (n=2,636) for inclusion in the data synthesis. In a meta-analysis of observational studies, nicotine replacement therapy was associated with increased delirium (three studies; n=908; I²=0%; finite element method: odds ratio 4.03 [95% confidence interval 2.64, 6.15]; P <0.001). There was no difference in ICU mortality (three studies; n=1,309; P=0.10, I²=44%; finite element method: odds ratio 0.58; 95% confidence intervals 0.31-1.10) and hospital mortality or 28-day ICU-free days. In the absence of high-quality data, nicotine replacement therapy cannot currently be recommended for routine use to prevent delirium or to reduce hospital or ICU mortality in critically ill smokers.

A systematic review of possible serious adverse health effects of nicotine replacement therapy

We conducted a systematic literature review to identify and critically evaluate studies of serious adverse health effects (SAHEs) in humans using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products. Serious adverse health effects refer to adverse events, leading to substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions. Strength of evidence evaluations and conclusions were also determined for the identified SAHEs. We evaluated 34 epidemiological studies and clinical trials, relating NRT use to cancer, reproduction/development, CVD, stroke and/or other SAHEs in patients, and four meta-analyses on effects in healthy populations. The overall evidence suffers from many limitations, the most significant being the short-term exposure (≤12 weeks) and follow-up to NRT product use in most of the studies, the common failure to account for changes in smoking behaviour following NRT use, and the sparse information on SAHEs by type of NRT product used. The only SAHE from NRT exposure we identified was an increase in respiratory congenital abnormalities reported in one study. Limited evidence indicated a lack of effect between NRT exposure and SAHEs for CVD and various reproduction/developmental endpoints. For cancer, stroke and other SAHEs, the evidence was inadequate to demonstrate any association with NRT use. Our conclusions agree with recent statements from authoritative bodies.

Nicotine replacement therapy in the intensive care unit: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to systematically review and evaluate available literature describing the effect of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) on mortality and other outcomes in nicotine-dependent critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of the following databases was performed: MEDLINE (1948-August 2011), EMBASE (1980-August 2011), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-August 2011), Google, and Google Scholar.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies that reported outcomes associated with any form of NRT in any intensive care setting were included. Studies were included regardless of design or number of participants reported. Studies published in languages other than English were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data from each study were extracted using a standardized data extraction tool. Information included the study design, number of patients, classification of ICU, baseline characteristics, outcomes assessed, and overall results.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Our search identified 8 studies, of which 7 met the inclusion criteria. These 7 studies were qualitatively reviewed and critically appraised for methodological quality, robustness of results, and internal and external validity. The results of similar studies and populations were compared in order to draw conclusions pertaining to specific intensive care settings.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that NRT should not be routinely prescribed to patients admitted to intensive care settings. With only equivocal evidence of efficacy and signals suggesting increased toxicity, we believe that its use should be limited to selected patients where the potential benefit clearly outweighs the risk. There is a need for adequately powered randomized controlled trials to confirm the benefits and risks of NRT in the ICU overall but also in its unique subpopulations.