Varenicline and Bupropion for Long-Term Smoking Cessation (the MATCH Study): Protocol for a Real-World, Pragmatic, Randomized Controlled Trial

Direct-to-participant investigational medicinal product supply in clinical trials in Europe: Exploring the experiences of sponsors, site staff and couriers

AIMS

Insights into the current practice of direct-to-participant (DtP) supply of investigational medicinal product (IMP) in the context of clinical trials conducted in Europe are needed, as regulations are unharmonized. This study is set out to explore how DtP IMP supply has been employed in Europe and what the advantages and disadvantages and barriers and facilitators of its implementation are.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with representatives from sponsor companies, courier services and site study staff involved in the IMP dispensing and delivery process in Europe. Interviews were conducted between May and November 2021, and data were analysed following thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Sixteen respondents participated in one of the 12 interviews. Respondents had experience with different models of DtP IMP supply including shipment from the investigative site, a central pharmacy (a depot under the control of a pharmacist) and a local pharmacy-aiming to reduce trial participation burden. The respondents indicated that investigative site-to-participant shipment is not affected by regulatory barriers, but could burden site staff. Shipment from central locations was considered most efficient, but possible regulatory barriers related to maintaining participants' privacy and investigator oversight were identified. The respondents indicated that the involvement of local pharmacies to dispense IMP can be considered when the IMP is authorized.

CONCLUSIONS

Several DtP IMP supply models are implemented in clinical trials conducted in Europe. In this study, three main DtP IMP models were identified, which can be referenced when describing these approaches for regulatory approval.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

Background

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

Objectives

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

Search methods

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

Selection criteria

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

Data collection and analysis

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

Main results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authors' conclusions

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

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

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

Key messages

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

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

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

What are 'nicotine receptor partial agonists'?

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

What did we want to find out?

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

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

· how many people had unwanted effects.

What did we do?

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

What did we find?

We found 75 studies that compared NRPAs with:

· placebo or no medicine;

· nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches or gum;

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

· another NRPA;

· e‐cigarettes.

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

Main results

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

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

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

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

What are the limitations of the evidence?

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

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

How up to date is the evidence?

The evidence is up to date to 29 April 2022.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Examining the role of mitochondrial genetic variation in nicotine dependence

Nicotine dependence (ND) has a heritability rate of ∼50%, suggesting genetic factors contribute to underlying mechanisms. Here, we aimed to examine variants within both mtDNA and the nuclear genome to determine if mitochondrial genes are associated with ND. A total of 129 mtDNA SNPs and 1136 nuclear-encoded mitochondrial genes in a sample of N = 374 Caucasians were selected for analysis. Age of onset of first, occasional, and daily smoking and Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence were used as outcomes for the analysis. Linear regression was used to test common variants. Gene analyses were performed using MAGMA. One nuclear mitochondrial SNP, rs78417112 found in the HSD17B4 gene, was significantly associated with the age of onset of occasional smoking. Additionally, one nuclear mitochondrial gene, PRKACA, was significantly associated with age of onset of both first and occasional smoking. Replication testing of the mtDNA m.1700T>C SNP, nominally associated with age of onset of daily smoking, was available in the PNAT2 clinical trial (N = 930 Caucasians). A meta-analysis showed this SNP was associated with age of onset of daily smoking (p-value = 0.004). Overall, the findings suggest mitochondrial genetic variation may contribute to variability in smoking phenotypes, although replication in larger samples is required.

Evaluating the effectiveness of bupropion and varenicline for smoking cessation using an internet-based delivery system: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial (MATCH study)

BACKGROUND

Traditional randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. However, accessibility to treatments remains a barrier, necessitating the remote delivery of evidence-based cessation interventions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an online treatment that included first-line prescription medications using a pragmatic randomized controlled trial design.

METHODS

This study was a two-group, parallel block randomized, open label, controlled trial, and conducted exclusively online. Participants were randomised (1:1) to either bupropion (150 mg) or varenicline (1 mg) for twelve weeks. Medication was couriered to participants. The primary outcome was 7-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA; defined as 0 cigarette puffs in the last 7 days) at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were 7-day PPA at 4-, 8-, 26-, and 52-weeks follow-up. Adverse events were evaluated at each follow-up session during treatment.

RESULTS

The varenicline group (n = 499) had significantly higher 7-day PPA (30.3%) compared to the bupropion group (n = 465; 19.6%) at end of treatment (OR=2.08, 95% CI: 1.49-2.90, p < 0.001). Seven-day PPA was also higher for the varenicline group at 4-weeks (OR=1.71, 95% CI: 1.23-2.40 p = 0.0001), and 8-weeks follow-up (OR=1.95, 95% CI: 1.43-2.67 p < 0.0001), but not at post-treatment follow-up. More adverse events were reported in the varenicline group, compared to bupropion.

CONCLUSIONS

This internet-based pharmacotherapy intervention was a feasible and effective method of treatment delivery for smoking cessation. This method can be used to increase the accessibility and availability of cessation interventions, decreasing the burden of smoking-related diseases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered with clinical trials.gov under NCT02146911. Registered 26 May 2014, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02146911.

Stability of Varenicline Concentration in Saliva Over 21 Days at Three Storage Temperatures

INTRODUCTION

Varenicline is the most efficacious drug for smoking cessation; saliva varenicline concentrations can be useful for the evaluation of adherence in smoking cessation trials. Saliva is a useful noninvasive matrix for mail-in specimen collection, if stable. We investigated the stability of varenicline in saliva at different storage temperatures simulating the time it takes to mail in a sample.

METHODS

We evaluated the concentrations of varenicline, nicotine, cotinine, 3'-hydroxycotinine, and 3'-hydroxycotinine/cotinine (3HC/COT) ratio in quality control saliva samples (and after repeated freezing and thawing), and in smokers' saliva samples, stored for up to 21 days at room temperature (~25°C), 4°C, and -80°C.

RESULTS

In saliva quality control samples, concentrations of varenicline, nicotine, cotinine, 3'-hydroxycotinine, and 3HC/COT remained unchanged and showed little within-sample variation (CV ≤ 5.5%) for up to 21 days at the three storage temperatures; they were also not altered after three thaw-freeze cycles. In smokers' saliva, a significant main effect of storage duration, but not temperature, was observed for varenicline, cotinine, and 3'-hydroxycotinine, but not for nicotine or the 3HC/COT ratio. However, these changes were within analytical (i.e., equipment) variation resulting in little within-sample variation (CV ≤ 5.8%) for all analytes in smokers' saliva.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline, the other analytes, and the 3HC/COT ratio remained stable in saliva during storage for 21 days at all temperatures tested and after repeated freezing and thawing with only minor changes in concentration over time. These findings support the potential use of mail-in approach for saliva samples in varenicline smoking cessation clinical trials.

IMPLICATIONS

Assessing saliva varenicline concentrations can be useful for the evaluation of adherence in smoking cessation trials. Saliva is a noninvasive matrix suitable for mail-in specimen collection. This is the first investigation of stability of varenicline in saliva. Varenicline, nicotine, cotinine, 3'-hydroxycotinine, and 3HC/COT were stable in saliva for up to 21 days at room temperature (~25°C), 4°C, and -80°C, supporting the use of a mail-in approach for saliva specimen in smoking cessation trials.

Mobile phone-based messaging for tobacco cessation in low and middle-income countries: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Mobile phone-based tobacco cessation (mCessation) interventions are effective in high-income countries but their effectiveness in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) is unclear. We aimed to assess the evidence-base for mCessation interventions in LMICs by synthesizing study characteristics and to describe intervention characteristics and content.

METHODS

Studies were included in this review if they evaluated an intervention that targeted tobacco users, were conducted in an LMIC, measured tobacco cessation as a primary or secondary outcome, and were primarily delivered using mobile phone (text or app-based) messaging. Data were extracted on fields pertaining to study and intervention characteristics and study quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. Screening, extraction and quality assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Of 606 unique records, 12 articles were included. The majority of studies were methodologically weak. Methodological limitations included small sample sizes, short follow-up durations and use of self-reported outcomes. Most evaluations were conducted in upper middle-income countries with urban, adult smokers intending to quit smoking. Approximately half the interventions were bidirectional (enabled two-way messaging) and fully automated. Almost all interventions were delivered via SMS. Treatment offerings of the intervention and control groups varied widely.

CONCLUSIONS

More rigorous large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to conclusively establish the efficacy of mCessation interventions in LMICs. Interventions also need to be tested across more diverse populations and settings. Future studies should test the relative effectiveness of different intervention characteristics.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Topiramate for smoking cessation: Systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Topiramate is an antiepileptic drug that has been used for many labeled and off-labeled indications. It may be useful in reducing withdrawal symptoms of various addictive agents such as alcohol, cocaine, cannabis and smoking. To date, some studies have examined the effectiveness of topiramate for smoking cessation. The present review aims to synthesize the results from those studies and determine topiramate effectiveness in smoking cessation.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in the databases: PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, Egyptian Knowledge Bank, and Google Scholar. All clinical trials that examined the effect of topiramate, compared with the placebo, on smoking cessation rate were included. Statistical analysis using fixed effect models, heterogeneity and sensitivity analysis were conducted using RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

Five trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Topiramate non-significantly increased prolonged smoking abstinence rate (OR=1.19, 95% CI: 0.57–2.5) compared with the placebo. On the other hand, topiramate significantly increased the abstinence rate at weeks 4, 6, 8 and 12 (OR=3.07, 95% CI: 1.19–7.93; OR=4.03, 95% CI: 1.98–8.2; OR=2.29, 95% CI: 1.23–4.28; and OR=2.45, 95% CI: 1.37–4.39; respectively) compared with the placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the five trials, where publication bias cannot be excluded, the current evidence is not sufficient to show a significant difference to favor topiramate in prolonged smoking cessation over the placebo, although the 12th week point prevalence favored topiramate.