Efficacy of Varenicline Combined With Nicotine Replacement Therapy vs Varenicline Alone for Smoking Cessation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Evidence-Based Guideline for the Treatment of Smoking Cessation Provided by the National Health Insurance Service in Korea

Although major countries, such as South Korea, have developed and disseminated national smoking cessation guidelines, these efforts have been limited to developing individual societies or specialized institution-based recommendations. Therefore, evidence-based clinical guidelines are essential for developing smoking cessation interventions and promoting effective smoking cessation treatments. This guideline targets frontline clinical practitioners involved in a smoking cessation treatment support program implemented in 2015 with the support of the National Health Insurance Service. The Guideline Development Group of 10 multidisciplinary smoking cessation experts employed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT approach to review recent domestic and international research and guidelines and to determine evidence levels using the GRADE methodology. The guideline panel formulated six strong recommendations and one conditional recommendation regarding pharmacotherapy choices among general and special populations (mental disorders and chronic obstructive lung disease [COPD]). Strong recommendations favor varenicline rather than a nicotine patch or bupropion, using varenicline even if they are not ready to quit, using extended pharmacotherapy (>12 weeks) rather than standard treatment (8-12 weeks), or using pharmacotherapy for individuals with mental disorders or COPD. The conditional recommendation suggests combining varenicline with a nicotine patch instead of using varenicline alone. Aligned with the Korean Society of Medicine's clinical guideline development process, this is South Korea's first domestic smoking cessation treatment guideline that follows standardized guidelines. Primarily focusing on pharmacotherapy, it can serve as a foundation for comprehensive future smoking cessation clinical guidelines, encompassing broader treatment topics beyond medications.

Evaluation of Risks of Bias in Addiction Medicine Randomized Controlled Trials

AIMS

Perhaps the most important step when designing and conducting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in addiction is to put methodological safeguards in place to minimize the likelihood for bias to affect trial outcomes. In this study, we applied the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) to RCTs of drug, alcohol or tobacco interventions.

METHODS

We searched for trials published in 15 addiction medicine journals over a 7-year period. Our primary endpoint is the risk of bias of included studies. We conducted a sensitivity analysis of publicly funded trials.

RESULTS

Overall, included RCTs were most often at high risk of bias per our judgments (244/487, 50.1%). However, significant proportions of included RCTs were at low risk of bias (123/487, 25.3%) or some concerns for bias (120/497, 24.6%). RCTs with behavioral modification interventions (19/44, 43.2%) and alcohol interventions (80/150, 53.3%) had the highest proportion of high-risk judgments. In a sensitivity analysis of publicly funded RCTs), 195/386 (50.5%) were at high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately half of included drug, alcohol or tobacco RCTs in our sample were judged to be at high risk of bias with the most common reason being a lack of proper blinding or proper description of blinding. Key action items to reduce bias in future addiction RCTs include adequate randomization, blinding and inclusion of a trial registry number and protocol.

Tobacco cessation in low- to middle-income countries: A scoping review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The growing prevalence of tobacco use in low "to middle" income countries (LMICs) and the hurdles of conducting tobacco cessation in that context necessitates a focus on the scope of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in LMICs to guide tobacco cessation in this environment. We conducted a scoping review to identify LMIC tobacco cessation RCTs.

METHODS

Consistent with PRISMA-ScR guidelines and without language restrictions, we systematically searched peer-reviewed databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, articles published since inception, latest searches in March 2020) and gray literature (clinical trials registries, searches between September and December 2019). We searched for data on RCT type, outcome significance and intervention description. Inclusion: research conducted in LMICs; tobacco cessation; RCT. Exclusion: research conducted in high income countries; non-RCT; studies involving only those aged <18. Data was extracted from published reports. We generated narrative summaries of each LMIC's tobacco cessation RCT research environment.

RESULTS

Of 8404 articles screened, we identified 92 studies. Tobacco cessation RCTs were recorded in 16 of 138 countries/territories in LMICs. Evidence was weak in quality and severely limited. Most RCTs were psychosocial, with limited behavioral and pharmacological variants.

CONCLUSIONS

Tobacco control within LMICs is essential to reduce the tobacco mortality burden. Researchers should be cognizant that tobacco cessation in LMICs is still not an environment where best practice has been established. We suggest that developing solutions specific for LMICs is key to effective tobacco control in LMICs.