Safety and efficacy of first-line smoking cessation pharmacotherapies in bipolar disorders: Subgroup analysis of a randomized clinical trial

Prescribed psychostimulants and other pro-cognitive medications in bipolar disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of recurrence of manic symptoms

OBJECTIVES

Clinicians are often hesitant to prescribe psychostimulants in bipolar disorder (BD) due to concerns of inducing (hypo)mania, despite limited published evidence on associations between prescribed psychostimulant use and recurrence of mood episodes in BD. The current systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the emergence of (hypo)manic symptoms in patients with BD receiving prescribed psychostimulants or other pro-cognitive medications in euthymic or depressive states.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed of MEDLINE, Embase, and PsychINFO from inception to April 5, 2023 and search of Clinicaltrials.gov and Clinicaltrialsregister.eu for unpublished data. References of included studies were hand-searched. Randomized trials and prospective longitudinal studies that evaluated psychostimulants and non-stimulant medications recommended for the treatment of ADHD by the Canadian ADHD practice guidelines were included. The review was reported in line with PRISMA guidelines and was preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42022358588).

RESULTS

After screening 414 unique records, we included 27 studies, of which five reported data that was quantitatively synthesized (n = 1653). The use of psychostimulants in BD was not associated with increased scores on the Young Mania Rating Scale in patients who were in a euthymic or depressed state (SMD IV -0.17; 95% CI, -0.40 to 0.06) compared to placebo. There was a high degree of study-level heterogeneity (I2 = 80%). A qualitative synthesis of studies revealed a limited risk of medication-induced manic symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review provides preliminary evidence to suggest psychostimulants and non-stimulant ADHD medications have a limited risk of precipitating (hypo)mania symptoms. More extensive studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of these medications are warranted.

Combining varenicline preloading with Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) in persons with serious mental illness who smoke: The randomized ACTSLow pilot feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

People with serious mental illness (SMI; bipolar [BD] or schizophrenia spectrum disorders [SSD]) who smoke have 30-60% lower odds of quitting and are more prone to experience neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs) when quitting than smokers without SMI. We pilot-tested the feasibility of combining two different dosing strategies of varenicline preloading with Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) in persons with SMI in an attempt to bolster quit rates without increasing NPSAEs.

METHODS

Twelve-week, single center, randomized, double-blind, pilot feasibility trial of low (0.5mg twice daily, slower titration) versus standard dose (1.0mg twice daily, standard titration) varenicline in persons with BD or SSD with a 12-week follow-up. All participants received up to 10 sessions of ACT for smoking cessation. Participants were asked to preload with varenicline while still smoking and set a flexible target quit day (TQD) by day 35.

RESULTS

Recruitment was hampered by shutdowns related to COVID-19 and the worldwide varenicline recall, respectively. Retention goals were met. Treatment satisfaction was high across both dosing and diagnostic groups. Most participants (92.9%) adhered to preloading instructions and the flexible TQD. Seven-day point prevalence abstinence at week 12 was highest in BD participants (37.5%) but lowest in SSD participants (16.7%) who received the standard dose. Medication was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Although recruitment was hindered by unanticipated world events, feasibility was demonstrated. Participants adhered to and were highly satisfied with the combination of pre-cessation varenicline plus ACT. Findings support testing this combined treatment approach in a fully powered trial of persons with BD who smoke.

Effect of a Tobacco Cessation Intervention Incorporating Weight Management for Adults With Serious Mental Illness: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Tobacco smoking drives markedly elevated cardiovascular disease risk and preventable death in persons with serious mental illness, and these risks are compounded by the high prevalence of overweight/obesity that smoking cessation can exacerbate. Guideline-concordant combined pharmacotherapy and behavioral smoking cessation treatment improves abstinence but is not routinely offered in community settings, particularly to those not seeking to quit smoking immediately.

Objective

To determine the effectiveness of an 18-month pharmacotherapy and behavioral smoking cessation intervention incorporating weight management and support for physical activity in adults with serious mental illness interested in quitting smoking within 1 or 6 months.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a randomized clinical trial conducted from July 25, 2016, to March 20, 2020, at 4 community health programs. Adults with serious mental illness who smoked tobacco daily were included in the study. Participants were randomly assigned to intervention or control, stratified by willingness to try to quit immediately (within 1 month) or within 6 months. Assessors were masked to group assignment.

Interventions

Pharmacotherapy, primarily varenicline, dual-form nicotine replacement, or their combination; tailored individual and group counseling for motivational enhancement; smoking cessation and relapse prevention; weight management counseling; and support for physical activity. Controls received quitline referrals.

Main Outcome and Measures

The primary outcome was biochemically validated, 7-day point-prevalence tobacco abstinence at 18 months.

Results

Of the 298 individuals screened for study inclusion, 192 enrolled (mean [SD] age, 49.6 [11.7] years; 97 women [50.5%]) and were randomly assigned to intervention (97 [50.5%]) or control (95 [49.5%]) groups. Participants self-identified with the following race and ethnicity categories: 93 Black or African American (48.4%), 6 Hispanic or Latino (3.1%), 90 White (46.9%), and 9 other (4.7%). A total of 82 participants (42.7%) had a schizophrenia spectrum disorder, 62 (32.3%) had bipolar disorder, and 48 (25.0%) had major depressive disorder; 119 participants (62%) reported interest in quitting immediately (within 1 month). Primary outcome data were collected in 183 participants (95.3%). At 18 months, 26.4% of participants (observed count, 27 of 97 [27.8%]) in the intervention group and 5.7% of participants (observed count, 6 of 95 [6.3%]) in the control group achieved abstinence (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 5.9; 95% CI, 2.3-15.4; P < .001). Readiness to quit within 1 month did not statistically significantly modify the intervention's effect on abstinence. The intervention group did not have significantly greater weight gain than the control group (mean weight change difference, 1.6 kg; 95% CI, -1.5 to 4.7 kg).

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings of this randomized clinical trial showed that in persons with serious mental illness who are interested in quitting smoking within 6 months, an 18-month intervention with first-line pharmacotherapy and tailored behavioral support for smoking cessation and weight management increased tobacco abstinence without significant weight gain.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02424188.

Psychopharmacology of smoking cessation medications: focus on patients with mental health disorders

The adverse effects of smoking cessation in individuals with mental health disorders have been a point of concern, and progress in the development of treatment has been slow. The primary first-line treatments for smoking cessation are Nicotine Replacement Therapy, Bupropion, Varenicline, and behavioural support. Nortriptyline and Clonidine are second-line treatments used when the first-line treatments are not effective or are contraindicated. Smoking cessation medications have been shown to be effective in reducing nicotine cravings and withdrawal symptoms and promoting smoking cessation among patients living with mental disorders. However, these medications may have implications for patients' mental health and need to be monitored closely. The efficacy and side effects of these medications may vary depending on the patient's psychiatric condition, medication regimen, substance use, or medical comorbidities. The purpose of this review is to synthesise the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, therapeutic effects, adverse effects, and pharmacological interactions of first- and second-line smoking cessation drugs, with an emphasis on patients suffering from mental illnesses. Careful consideration of the risks and benefits of using smoking cessation medications is necessary, and treatment plans must be tailored to individual patients' needs. Monitoring symptoms and medication regimens is essential to ensure optimal treatment outcomes.

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.

Physical and mental health status of former smokers and non-smokers patients with bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVES

Up to 70% individuals with bipolar disorder (BD) are lifetime tobacco smokers, a major modifiable risk factor for morbidity. However, quitting smoking is rarely proposed to individuals with BD, mainly because of fear of unfavorable metabolic or psychiatric changes. Evaluating the physical and mental impact of tobacco cessation is primordial. The aim of this study was to characterize the psychiatric and nonpsychiatric correlates of tobacco smoking status (never- vs. current vs. former smokers) in individuals with BD.

METHODS

3860 individuals with ascertained BD recruited in the network of Fondamental expert centers for BD between 2009 and 2020 were categorized into current, former, and never tobacco smokers. We compared the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics assessed by standard instruments (e.g., BD type, current symptoms load, and non-psychiatric morbidity-including anthropometric and biological data) of the three groups using multinomial regression logistic models. Corrections for multiple testing were applied.

RESULTS

Current smokers had higher depression, anxiety, and impulsivity levels than former and never-smokers, and also higher risk of comorbid substance use disorders with a gradient from never to former to current smokers-suggesting shared liability. Current smokers were at higher risk to have a metabolic syndrome than never-smokers, although this was only evidenced in cases, who were not using antipsychotics.

CONCLUSIONS

Tobacco smoking was associated with high morbidity level. Strikingly, as in the general population, quitting smoking seemed associated with their return to the never-smokers' levels. Our findings strongly highlight the need to spread strategies to treat tobacco addiction in the BD population.

Meta-analysis of the effects of adjuvant drugs in co-occurring bipolar and substance use disorder

BACKGROUND

Individuals with bipolar disorder (BD) often have co-occurring substance use disorders (SUDs), which substantially impoverish the course of illness. Despite the importance of this dual diagnosis, the evidence of the efficacy and safety of adjuvant treatments is mostly unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjuvant drugs in patients with co-occurring BD and SUD.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge until 30th April 2022 for randomized clinical trials (RCT) evaluating the efficacy and safety of adjuvant drugs compared to placebo in patients with a dual diagnosis of BD and SUD. We meta-analyzed the effect of adjuvant drugs on general outcomes (illness severity, mania, depression, anxiety, abstinence, substance craving, substance use, gamma-GT, adherence, and adverse events) and used the results to objectively assess the quality of the evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. For completeness, we also report the specific effects of specific adjuvant drugs in patients with specific substance disorders.

RESULTS

We included 15 RCT studies (9 alcohol, 3 cocaine, 2 nicotine, and 1 cannabis) comprising 628 patients allocated to treatment and 622 to placebo. There was low-quality evidence that adjuvant drugs may reduce illness severity (g=-0.25, 95% CI: -0.44, -0.06), and very-low quality evidence that they may decrease substance use (g=-0.23, 95% CI: -0.44, -0.02) and increase substance abstinence (g=0.21, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.38).

DISCUSSION

There is low-quality evidence that adjuvant drugs may help reduce illness severity, probably via facilitating abstinence and lower substance use. However, the evidence is weak; thus, these results should be considered cautiously until better evidence exists.

TOBACCO USE DISORDER AND DUAL DISORDERS Joint statement by the Spanish Psychiatry Society and the Spanish Dual Disorders Society

Tobacco Use Disorder (TUD) is a health problem of the first order in the world population, affecting a vulnerable population, such as people with other mental disorders, whose morbidity and mortality are increased as a result.

The detrimental effects of smoking on the course and outcome in adults with bipolar disorder-A narrative review

BACKGROUND

Smoking is a substantial and avoidable risk for physical disability and premature death. Despite a declining tobacco use in the community of developed countries, smoking remains abundant in people with mental disorders. This narrative review highlights the epidemiology, consequences and treatment options of tobacco use disorder (TUD) and nicotine dependence (ND) in people with bipolar disorder (BD).

METHODS

The authors conducted a Medline literature search from 1970 to November 2022 using MeSH terms "bipolar disorder" x "smoking" or "nicotine" or "tobacco" that retrieved 770 results. Search results were complemented by additional literature retrieved from examining cross references and by hand search in text books. Finally, 92 references were considered as essential and selected for the educational purpose of this review.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Lifetime and point prevalence of smoking in people with BD is in the range of 45-70% and thus about 2-3 times more frequent in BD than in community samples. Smoking, TUD and ND have a detrimental impact both on mental and physical health as well as mortality in people with BD. In the absence of large controlled studies in comorbid BD and TUD or ND, pharmacological treatment follows the individual guidance for each disorder. Community-based psychosocial interventions for TUD and ND appear to be suitable in people with BD, too, as well as Cognitive Behavioral (CBT) or Acceptance and Commitment (ACT) based psychotherapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking is a modifiable risk factor causing increased risks both for mental and physical health in BD, and deserves more attention in treatment. More treatment research into pharmacological and psychosocial interventions in comorbid BD and TUD or ND are still needed to deliver evidence-based recommendations to physicians.

Neuropsychiatric safety of varenicline in the general and COPD population with and without psychiatric disorders: a retrospective cohort study in a real-world setting

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the real-world association between varenicline and neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPAEs) in general and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) population with and without psychiatric disorders compared with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to strengthen the knowledge of varenicline safety.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Prescription database IADB.nl, the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

New users of varenicline or NRT among general (≥18 years) and COPD (≥40 years) population. Psychiatric subcohort was defined as people prescribed psychotropic medications (≥2) within 6 months before the index date.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The incidence of NPAEs including depression, anxiety and insomnia, defined by new or naive prescriptions of related medications in IADB.nl within 24 weeks after the first treatment initiation of varenicline or NRT.

RESULTS

For the general population in non-psychiatric cohort, the incidence of total NPAEs in varenicline (4480) and NRT (1970) groups was 10.5% and 12.6%, respectively (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.00). For the general population in psychiatric cohort, the incidence of total NPAEs was much higher, 75.3% and 78.5% for varenicline (1427) and NRT (1200) groups, respectively (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.99). For the COPD population (1598), there were no differences in the incidence of NPAEs between comparison groups in both the psychiatric cohort (aOR 0.97, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.44) and non-psychiatric cohort (aOR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.20). Results from subgroup or sensitivity analyses also did not reveal increased risks of NPAEs but showed decreased risk of some subgroup NPAEs associated with varenicline.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to the concerns of a possible increased risk of NPAEs among varenicline users, we found a relative decreased risk of total NPAEs in varenicline users of the general population in psychiatric or non-psychiatric cohorts compared with NRT and no difference for NPAEs between varenicline and NRT users in smaller population with COPD.

Psychiatric Comorbidity and Multimorbidity in the EAGLES Trial: Descriptive Correlates and Associations With Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events, Treatment Adherence, and Smoking Cessation

INTRODUCTION

Psychiatric and substance use disorders represent barriers to smoking cessation. We sought to identify correlates of psychiatric comorbidity (CM; 2 diagnoses) and multimorbidity (MM; 3+ diagnoses) among smokers attempting to quit and to evaluate whether these conditions predicted neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs), treatment adherence, or cessation efficacy (CE).

AIMS AND METHODS

Data were collected from November 2011 to January 2015 across sixteen countries and reflect the psychiatric cohort of the EAGLES trial. Participants were randomly assigned to receive varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy, or placebo for 12 weeks and were followed for an additional 12 weeks posttreatment. NPSAE outcomes reflected 16 moderate-to-severe neuropsychiatric symptom categories, and CE outcomes included continuous abstinence at weeks 9-12 and 9-24.

RESULTS

Of the 4103 participants included, 36.2% were diagnosed with multiple psychiatric conditions (20.9% CM, 15.3% MM). Psychiatric CM and MM were associated with several baseline factors, including male gender, nonwhite race or ethnicity, more previous quit attempts, and more severe mental health symptoms. The incidence of moderate-to-severe NPSAEs was significantly higher (p < .01) in participants with MM (11.9%) than those with CM (5.1%) or primary diagnosis only (4.6%). There were no significant (ps > .05) main effects or interactions with treatment condition for diagnostic grouping on treatment adherence or CE outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

While having multiple psychiatric diagnoses increased risk of developing moderate-to-severe NPSAEs during a quit attempt, neither CM nor MM were associated with treatment adherence or odds of quitting. These findings reassure providers to advise smokers with multiple stable psychiatric conditions to consider using Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medications when trying to quit.

IMPLICATIONS

Psychiatric MM may be associated with development of NPSAEs when smokers make a medication-assisted quit attempt, but it does not appear to be differentially associated with medication compliance or efficacy. Prescribing healthcare professionals are encouraged to not only promote use of FDA-approved pharmacotherapies by smokers with complex psychiatric presentations, but also to closely monitor such smokers for neuropsychiatric side effects that may be related to their mental health conditions.

NCT #

NCT01456936.

Smoking cessation for improving mental health

BACKGROUND

There is a common perception that smoking generally helps people to manage stress, and may be a form of 'self-medication' in people with mental health conditions. However, there are biologically plausible reasons why smoking may worsen mental health through neuroadaptations arising from chronic smoking, leading to frequent nicotine withdrawal symptoms (e.g. anxiety, depression, irritability), in which case smoking cessation may help to improve rather than worsen mental health.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the association between tobacco smoking cessation and change in mental health.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the trial registries clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, from 14 April 2012 to 07 January 2020. These were updated searches of a previously-conducted non-Cochrane review where searches were conducted from database inception to 13 April 2012.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included controlled before-after studies, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysed by smoking status at follow-up, and longitudinal cohort studies. In order to be eligible for inclusion studies had to recruit adults who smoked tobacco, and assess whether they quit or continued smoking during the study. They also had to measure a mental health outcome at baseline and at least six weeks later.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcomes were change in depression symptoms, anxiety symptoms or mixed anxiety and depression symptoms between baseline and follow-up. Secondary outcomes  included change in symptoms of stress, psychological quality of life, positive affect, and social impact or social quality of life, as well as new incidence of depression, anxiety, or mixed anxiety and depression disorders. We assessed the risk of bias for the primary outcomes using a modified ROBINS-I tool.  For change in mental health outcomes, we calculated the pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the difference in change in mental health from baseline to follow-up between those who had quit smoking and those who had continued to smoke. For the incidence of psychological disorders, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. For all meta-analyses we used a generic inverse variance random-effects model and quantified statistical heterogeneity using I2. We conducted subgroup analyses to investigate any differences in associations between sub-populations, i.e. unselected people with mental illness, people with physical chronic diseases. We assessed the certainty of evidence for our primary outcomes (depression, anxiety, and mixed depression and anxiety) and our secondary social impact outcome using the eight GRADE considerations relevant to non-randomised studies (risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, publication bias, magnitude of the effect, the influence of all plausible residual confounding, the presence of a dose-response gradient).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 102 studies representing over 169,500 participants. Sixty-two of these were identified in the updated search for this review and 40 were included in the original version of the review.  Sixty-three studies provided data on change in mental health, 10 were included in meta-analyses of incidence of mental health disorders, and 31 were synthesised narratively.  For all primary outcomes, smoking cessation was associated with an improvement in mental health symptoms compared with continuing to smoke: anxiety symptoms (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.13; 15 studies, 3141 participants; I2 = 69%; low-certainty evidence); depression symptoms: (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.21; 34 studies, 7156 participants; I2 = 69%' very low-certainty evidence);  mixed anxiety and depression symptoms (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.22; 8 studies, 2829 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence).  These findings were robust to preplanned sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analysis generally did not produce evidence of differences in the effect size among subpopulations or based on methodological characteristics. All studies were deemed to be at serious risk of bias due to possible time-varying confounding, and three studies measuring depression symptoms were judged to be at critical risk of bias overall. There was also some evidence of funnel plot asymmetry. For these reasons, we rated our certainty in the estimates for anxiety as low, for depression as very low, and for mixed anxiety and depression as moderate. For the secondary outcomes, smoking cessation was associated with an improvement in symptoms of stress (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.04; 4 studies, 1792 participants; I2 = 50%), positive affect (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.33; 13 studies, 4880 participants; I2 = 75%), and psychological quality of life (SMD 0.11, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16; 19 studies, 18,034 participants; I2 = 42%). There was also evidence that smoking cessation was not associated with a reduction in social quality of life, with the confidence interval incorporating the possibility of a small improvement (SMD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; 9 studies, 14,673 participants; I2 = 0%). The incidence of new mixed anxiety and depression was lower in people who stopped smoking compared with those who continued (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86; 3 studies, 8685 participants; I2 = 57%), as was the incidence of anxiety disorder (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.12; 2 studies, 2293 participants; I2 = 46%). We deemed it inappropriate to present a pooled estimate for the incidence of new cases of clinical depression, as there was high statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 87%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, these data provide evidence that mental health does not worsen as a result of quitting smoking, and very low- to moderate-certainty evidence that smoking cessation is associated with small to moderate improvements in mental health.  These improvements are seen in both unselected samples and in subpopulations, including people diagnosed with mental health conditions. Additional studies that use more advanced methods to overcome time-varying confounding would strengthen the evidence in this area.

Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of Web-Delivered Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Versus Smokefree.gov for Smokers With Bipolar Disorder

INTRODUCTION

Smokers with bipolar disorder (BD) are less successful at quitting than the general population. In this study, we evaluated in a pilot randomized controlled trial a novel, targeted, web-based intervention for smokers with BD based on acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) and designed for reach and disseminability.

AIMS AND METHODS

Daily smokers (n = 51) with bipolar I or II disorder were recruited from four US sites and randomly assigned to one of two web-based smoking cessation interventions-ACT-based WebQuit Plus (n = 25) or Smokefree.gov (n = 26) over a 10-week treatment period. All participants received nicotine patch for 8 weeks. Key outcomes were trial design feasibility, intervention acceptability, and cessation at end of treatment and 1-month follow-up.

RESULTS

We screened 119 to enroll 51 participants (target sample size = 60) over 24 months. The most common reason for ineligibility was the inability to attend study appointments. Retention was 73% at end of treatment and 80% at follow-up, with no differences by arm. The mean number of logins was twice as high for WebQuit Plus (10.3 vs. 5.3). The usefulness of program skills was rated higher for WebQuit Plus (75% vs. 29%). Biochemically confirmed, 7-day abstinence at end of treatment was 12% in WebQuit Plus versus 8% in Smokefree.gov (odds ratio = 1.46, 95% confidence interval = 0.21 to 9.97). At follow-up, abstinence rates were 8% in both arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Trial design produced favorable retention rates, although alternative recruitment methods will be needed for a larger trial. At end of treatment, acceptability and estimated effect size of WebQuit Plus relative to Smokefree.gov were promising and support continued program refinement and evaluation.

IMPLICATIONS

In this first randomized controlled trial of a targeted intervention for smokers with BD, we found that the ACT-based WebQuit Plus intervention, delivered in combination with the nicotine patch, had promising acceptability and cessation outcomes relative to Smokefree.gov. The observed signals for acceptability and cessation suggest that the WebQuit Plus program should be refined based on participant feedback and evaluated in a larger trial. Feasibility findings from this study also provide direction for refining trial procedures to enhance the recruitment of smokers with BD.

The Impact of Smoking Cessation on Hospitalization and Psychiatric Medication Utilization among People with Serious Mental Illness

Background: Despite the high prevalence of smoking amongst people with serious mental illness (SMI), referral rates to smoking cessation programs (SCPs) are low. Mental health workers reticence to refer to SCPs has been attributed, in part, to their belief that quitting will have a deleterious effect on their patients' mental health status. Objectives: This study's objective was to determine if participating in a smoking cessation program had an adverse effect on mental health status among people with SMI, measured here by a change in hospitalization occurrence or psychiatric medication utilization. People with SMI who had participated in at least one SCP session in a large health maintenance organization (n = 403) were compared to an age-gender-diagnosis matched sample of SMI smokers (1,209) who had never participated. Results: No change in psychiatric hospitalization occurrence pre- versus post-SCP participation was found among participants (Pre:7.2% vs. Post:5.2, p = 0.2) or nonparticipants (Pre:7.0% vs. Post:6.0%, p = 0.2). Mean defined daily dose (DDD) for anti-psychotic, mood stabilizer, anti-depressant and anxiolytic medications also did not change over time for participants and nonparticipants. However, participants who did not complete the SCP and didn't quit had a 0.35 higher mean DDD for anti-psychotic medications compared with participants who had completed the SCP or quit, and with nonparticipants (p = 0.006), and were the only group to exhibit an increase in mean antipsychotic DDD over time (Pre:1.42, Post:1.63). SCP participation was not associated with hospitalization occurrence or psychiatric medication utilization. Conclusions/Importance: Smoking cessation should be encouraged, with close monitoring during the quit process.

Abstinence and retention outcomes in a smoking cessation program among individuals with co-morbid substance use and mental disorders

Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the world. Although cigarette smoking prevalence has decreased, there are still disparities in morbidity and mortality experienced by individuals with substance use and/or mental disorders when compared to general population. The aim of this study was to compare treatment outcomes between three subgroups of smokers: individuals with substance use disorder (SUD-only), individuals with mental disorder without substance use disorders (MD-only), and individuals with co-morbid substance use and mental disorder (SUD + MD). Data of 498 smokers enrolled in a 6-week smoking cessation program in Brazil were analyzed. Sociodemographic, medical and tobacco use information were collected at baseline. Treatment included group cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and pharmacotherapy. The primary outcome was defined as "self-report 4-week quitter" (SR4WQ), a standardized measure to assess treatment success. Retention to treatment was also investigated. Associations between groups were analyzed using unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models. The results showed that SUD + MD had worse outcomes when compared to the other two groups. After adjusting for level of smoking dependence and the use of medication, abstinence and retention to treatment of SUD-only became equivalent to SUD + MD. Because tobacco and other substance addictions share similar mechanisms, having history of SUD might impair successful results of conventional smoking programs. There is a need to further investigate specific variables associated with treatment success for a more resistant subgroup of individuals in mental health and perhaps to invest in more intensive actions, such as the use of combined pharmacotherapy and adapted CBT approaches.